Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T04:01:01.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asian Borderlands and the Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

CHRISTOPH ANTONS
CHRISTOPH ANTONS*
Affiliation:
School of Law, Deakin University, Australia Email: christoph.antons@deakin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional knowledge related to biodiversity, agriculture, medicine and artistic expressions has recently attracted much interest amongst policy makers, legal academics and social scientists. Several United Nations organizations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), have been working on international models for the protection of such knowledge held by local and indigenous communities. Relevant national, regional or provincial level legislation comes in the form of intellectual property laws and laws related to health, heritage or environmental protection. In practice, however, it has proven difficult to agree on definitions of the subject matter, to delineate local communities and territories holding the knowledge, and to clearly identify the subjects and beneficiaries of the protection. In fact, claims to ‘cultural property’ and heritage have led to conflicts and tensions between communities, regions and nations. This paper will use Southeast Asian examples and case studies to show the importance of concepts such as Zomia, ‘regions of refuge’ and mandala as well as ‘borderlands’ studies to avoid essentialized notions of communities and cultures in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the difficulties for national and international lawmaking in this field. It will also develop a few suggestions on how conflicts and tensions could be avoided or ameliorated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 1403 - 1433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper is based on a presentation given at the 2nd International Conference of the Asian Borderlands Research Network in Chiang Mai, Thailand, on 6 November 2010. The final revised version was submitted on 5 June 2012. Changes in the laws are taken into account until the submission date. The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. The research for this paper was conducted in the context of the ‘IP in Asia’ project of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), although the views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council or of the CCI.

References

1 On the various international organizations involved in the negotiations, see, for example, Antons, C. (2009). ‘The International Debate about Traditional Knowledge and Approaches in the Asia-Pacific Region’ in Antons, C. ed. Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 39–65Google Scholar; Arup, C. (2009). ‘How are the Different Views of Traditional Knowledge Linked by International Law and Global Governance?’ in Antons, C. ed. Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 67–83Google Scholar; Dutfield, G. and Suthersanen, U. (2008). Global Intellectual Property Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton Massachusetts, pp. 338–345.Google Scholar

2 Cowan, J. K., Dembour, M.-B. & Wilson, R. A. (2001). ‘Introduction’ in Cowan, J. K., Dembour, M.-B. and Wilson, R. A. eds. Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–11, 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engle Merry, S. (2001). ‘Changing Rights, Changing Culture’ in Cowan, J. K., Dembour, M.-B. and Wilson, R. A. eds. Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 32Google Scholar; Antons, C. (2005). ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights in Australia and Southeast Asia’ in Heath, C. and Kamperman Sanders, A. eds. New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

3 van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: Jumping scale in Southeast Asia, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20: 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Scott, J. C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. ix–xi.Google ScholarPubMed

5 Benjamin, G. (2002). ‘On Being Tribal in the Malay World’ in Benjamin, G. and Chou, C. eds. Tribal Communities in the Malay World: Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies/International Institute of Asian Studies, Singapore and Leiden, pp. 9, 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Both O. W. Wolters and J. C. Scott refer to the limits of power of the mandalas when they reached the uplands of Southeast Asia by quoting Paul Wheatley—‘the Sanskrit tongue was chilled to silence at 500 metres’: Wheatley, P. (1975). ‘Satyānṛta in Suvarṇadvipa: From Reciprocity to Redistribution in Ancient Southeast Asia’ in Sabloff, J. A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., eds, Ancient Civilization and Trade. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, p. 251Google Scholar, quoted in Wolters, O. W. (1999). History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives, Revised edition, Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications/Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Ithaca New York and Singapore, p. 39Google Scholar, and in Scott, p. 21.

7 Wolters, Chapter 2, pp. 27–40; Munoz, P. M. (2006). Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula, Editions Didier Millet, Singapore, pp. 73–76Google Scholar, 107–110.

8 Scott, p. 28.

9 Evans, G. (2002). A Short History of Laos: The Land in Between, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

10 Evans, p. 26.

11 Wolters, pp. 27–28.

12 Scott, p. xiv.

13 WIPO (2001). Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders—WIPO Report on Fact-finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge 1998–1999, WIPO, GenevaGoogle Scholar.

14 WIPO. Glossary of Key Terms Related to Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/19/INF/7, 17 May 2011, pp. 26–27.

15 WIPO, Glossary of Key Terms, pp. 25–26.

16 Ibid., pp. 13, 26.

17 See UN Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Report of the seminar on the draft principles and guidelines for the protection of the heritage of indigenous people, Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/26, 19 June 2000, paras. 12, 13.

18 WIPO, IGC. ‘Final Report on National Experiences with the Legal Protection of Expressions of Folklore’, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, 25 March 2002, p. 9.

19 International Bureau of WIPO (1998). The Protection of Expressions of Folklore: The Attempts at International Level, Intellectual Property in Asia and the Pacific, 56/57, available http://itt.nissat.tripod.com/itt9903/folklore.htm [accessed 20 December 2012]; Weiner, J. (1987). Protection of Folklore: A Political and Legal Challenge, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 18:1, 56–92Google Scholar.

20 Antons, C. (in press). ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Basic Concepts and Continuing Controversies’ in Graber, C. B., Kuprecht, K. and Lai, J. C. eds. International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

21 UNESCO/WIPO (1985), Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions, UNESCO/WIPO, Paris and Geneva, para. 49.

22 Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, Chapters 1 and 2; Robinson, D. (2010). Confronting Biopiracy: Challenges, Cases and International Debates, Earthscan, London and Washington, p. 7Google Scholar.

23 See, for example, Shiva, V. (2007). ‘Biodiversity, Intellectual Property Rights, and Globalization’ in de Sousa Santos, B. ed. Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, Verso, London and New York, pp. 272–287Google Scholar; Posey, D. A. and Dutfield, G. (1996). Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, International Development Research Centre, OttawaGoogle Scholar; Robinson, D. On the difficulties in defining ‘biopiracy’ and the nuances in this debate, see Dutfield and Suthersanen, pp. 332–335, 337.

24 Halewood, M. (1999). Indigenous and Local Knowledge in International Law: A Preface to Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection, McGill Law Journal, 44, 970.Google Scholar

25 Antons, ‘The International Debate about Traditional Knowledge’, pp. 43–44; Dutfield and Suthersanen, pp. 338–342.

26 Antons, ‘The International Debate about Traditional Knowledge’, pp. 44–46.

27 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Report of the seminar on the draft principles and guidelines for the protection of the heritage of indigenous people, Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/26, 19 June 2000.

28 United Nations, Sixty-First General Assembly of the United Nations, General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples: ‘Major Step Forward’ Towards Human Rights for All, says President, 107th and 108th Meetings, UN Doc. GA/10612, 13 September 2007.

29 For example, Janke, T. (1998). Our Culture: Our Future—Report on Australian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights, Report prepared for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Studies and the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission, Michael Frankel & Co., Sydney.Google Scholar

30 On the economic potential of traditional knowledge protection, see Dutfield and Suthersanen, pp. 329–332.

31 This movement is sometimes referred to in the literature as ‘indigenism’. See, for example, Niezen, R. (2003). The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. (2009). ‘Adat/Indigenous: Indigeneity in Motion’ in Gluck, C. and Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. eds. Words in Motion: Toward a Global Lexicon, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, pp. 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Antons, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights in Australia and Southeast Asia’, p. 38.

33 WIPO, IGC, Second Draft Report, Eighth Session, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/15 Prov. 2, Geneva: WIPO, 2005, pp. 26–27.

34 Antons, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights in Australia and Southeast Asia’, pp. 39–40.

35 WIPO, IGC, Second Draft Report, pp. 30, 40, 48.

36 WIPO, IGC, Secretariat, The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore: Revised Objectives and Principles, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/4, 2010, annex, at pp. 20, 22; WIPO, IGC, Draft Report, Seventeenth Session, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/12 Prov. 2, 2011, pp. 19–23. See also the summary in Antons, (in press), ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Indigenous Cultural Heritage’.

37 WIPO, IGC. Draft Report, Nineteenth Session, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/19/12 Prov. 2, paras. 88, 114.

38 Kingsbury, B. (1998). Indigenous Peoples in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Controversy, American Journal of International Law, 92:3, pp. 414–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kingsbury, B. (1999). ‘The Applicability of the International Legal Concept of “Indigenous Peoples” in Asia’ in Bauer, J. R. and Bell, D. A. eds. The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 336–377.Google Scholar

39 UN, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) GA Res. 61/295, UN Doc. A/61/L.67 and Add.1 (adopted 13 September 2007).

40 Kingsbury, The Applicability of the International Legal Concept of ‘Indigenous Peoples’, p. 345; Stavenhagen, R. (1998).‘Cultural Rights: A Social Science Perspective’ in Nieć, H. ed. Cultural Rights and Wrongs, UNESCO/Institute of Art and Law, Paris and Leicester, p. 17.Google Scholar

41 UN, Sixty-first General Assembly of the United Nations, ‘General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples: “Major Step Forward” Towards Human Rights for All, Says President’, 107th and 108th Meetings, UN Doc. GA/10612, 2007, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm [Accessed 24 January 2013].

42 See the comments of the Rapporteur Justin Hughes in WIPO, IGC, ‘Draft Articles on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore, Prepared at IWG 1’, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/9, 2010, pp. 2–3.

43 For example, Berkes, Sacred Ecology; Posey, D. A. (2003). ‘Safeguarding Traditional Resource Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ in Nazarea, V. D. ed. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 224.Google Scholar

44 Posey, D. A. (1998). ‘Can Cultural Rights Protect Traditional Cultural Knowledge and Biodiversity?’ in Nieć, H. ed. Cultural Rights and Wrongs, UNESCO/Institute of Art and Law, Paris and Leicester, p. 43.Google Scholar

45 Curci, J. (2010). The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 94Google Scholar.

46 Ibid.

47 Ellen, R. and Harris, H. (2000). ‘Introduction’ in Ellen, R., Parkes, P. and Bicker, A. eds. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations, Routledge, London and New York, p. 2.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., pp. 4–5.

49 WIPO, IGC, Glossary of Key Terms, p. 27.

50 Ibid., pp. 25–26.

51 Bello, W., Docena, H., de Guzman, M. and Malig, M. eds. (2004). The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines, Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 218–220.Google Scholar

52 Persoon, G. A. (2009). ‘“Being Indigenous” in Indonesia and the Philippines’ in Antons, C. ed. Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 206–209Google Scholar; Eder, J. and McKenna, T. (2004). ‘Minorities in the Philippines: Ancestral Lands in Theory and Practice’ in Duncan, C. R. ed. Civilizing the Margins: Southeast Asian Government Policies for the Development of Minorities, Cornell University Press, Itaca and London, pp. 56–63Google Scholar; May, R. J. (1997). ‘Ethnicity and Public Policy in the Philippines’ in Brown, M. E. and Ganguly, Š. eds. Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, pp. 321–324Google Scholar, 330–340.

53 May, p. 337.

54 Section 34 IPRA, see Antons, C. (2010). Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 6, 113Google Scholar; Antons, C. (2007). Traditional Knowledge, Biological Resources and Intellectual Property Rights in Asia: The Example of the Philippines, Forum of International Development Studies, 34:3, 10–11.Google Scholar

55 Reddy, P. (2011). ‘SpicyIP Open Government Project: Draft TK [traditional knowledge] Rules 2009’, SpicyIP India, 25 May 2011, http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/spicyip-open-government-project-draft.html. [Accessed 20 December 2012] provides a text of the draft rules.

56 WIPO, IGC, Glossary of Key Terms, p. 27.

57 Verma, S. K. (2009). ‘Protection of Traditional Knowledge in the SAARC Region and India's Efforts’ in Antons, C. ed. Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 336–338.Google Scholar

58 Ellen and Harris, p. 4.

59 Antons, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights’, p. 38.

60 On the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001 of India, see Verma, pp. 330–332; Antons, Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties, pp. 123–127. On the Indonesian Plant Variety Protection Act of 2000, see Antons, ‘The International Debate about Traditional Knowledge’, p. 58.

61 Antons, C. (2010). The Role of Traditional Knowledge and Access to Genetic Resources in Biodiversity Conservation in Southeast Asia, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 1195–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the example of lowland farmers and tribal people in the uplands in Thailand, see Forsyth, T. and Walker, A. (2008). Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers: The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern Thailand, Silkworm, Chiang Mai, pp. 60–63, 222.Google Scholar

62 Reddy, P. (2010)‘The National Biodiversity Authority Invites Comments on Draft Amendments’, 2 February 1010. http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/02/national-biodiversity-authority-invites.html [Accessed 20 Deccember 2012].

63 For an analysis of the Indonesian copyright provisions from an anthropological perspective with examples from fieldwork, see Aragon, L. V. and Leach, J. (2008). Arts and Owners: Intellectual property law and the politics of scale in Indonesian arts, American Ethnologist, 35:4, pp. 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 ‘The state holds the copyright to folklore and products of popular culture which become common property such as stories, tales, fairy tales, legends, chronicles, songs, handicrafts, choreographies, dances, calligraphies and other works of art.’ (Translation by the author). For an Indonesian language version of the Copyright Act, see Tim Redaksi Tatanusa eds. (2005). 7 Undang-Undang: Rahasia Dagang, Desain Industri, Desain Tata letak Sirkuit Terpadu, Paten, Merek, Hak Cipta dan Perlindungan Varietas Tanaman, PT. Tatanusa, Jakarta, pp. 293–355. For an English language version, see Sati, Yasmon Rangkayo (2008). Indonesian Intellectual Property Directory, ShortCUT Gagas Imaji, Jakarta, pp. 27–64Google Scholar.

65 Law No. 6 of 1982 on Copyright. The current Copyright Act is Law No. 19 of 2002 on Copyright.

66 Antons, C. (2000). Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia, Kluwer Law International, London, p. 54Google Scholar

67 Rosidi, A. (1984). Undang-Undang Hak Cipta 1982: Pandangan Seorang Awam, Penerbit Djambatan, Jakarta, p. 80Google Scholar; Antons, C. (2009). What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”? International Definitions and Their Application in Developing Asia, WIPO Journal 1, 108–109Google Scholar; Weiner, pp. 86–87.

68 Antons, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Indigenous Cultural Heritage’, pp. 4–9.

69 WIPO, ‘Legislative Texts on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (Expressions of Folklore) (TCEs)’, available http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/laws/folklore.html [Accessed 20 December 2012].

70 McCarthy, J. F. (2004). Changing to Gray: Decentralization and the Emergence of Volatile Socio-Legal Configurations in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, World Development 32:7, pp. 1199–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Franz, and von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet (2007). ‘Between Global Forces and Local Politics: Decentralisation and Reorganisation of Village Government in Indonesia’ in Antons, C. and Gessner, V. eds. Globalisation and Resistance: Law Reform in Asia since the Crisis, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp. 211–252Google Scholar.

71 Rosidi, p. 82.

72 Antons, Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia, pp. 84–90; Antons, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights’, p. 49.

73 Rosidi, p. 80.

74 Ibid., pp. 78–83; Simorangkir, J. C. T. (1982). Undang-Undang Hak Cipta 1982 (UHC 1982), Penerbit Djambatan, Jakarta, p. 136.Google Scholar

75 Antons, Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia, pp. 84–85.

76 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, pp. 109–111.

77 Article 32(1) requires that ‘the state shall advance the national culture of Indonesia among the civilisations of the world by assuring the freedom of society to preserve and develop cultural values.’

78 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, pp. 111–112.

79 Logan, W., Langfield, M. and Nic Craith, M. (2010). ‘Intersecting concepts and practices’ in Langfield, M., Logan, W. and Nic Craith, M. eds. Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in theory and practice, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

80 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, p. 112.

81 Ibid., p. 108.

82 Hoffman, B. T. (2006). ‘Exploring and Establishing Links for a Balanced Art and Cultural Heritage Policy’ in Hoffman, B. T. ed. Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 11.Google Scholar

83 Article 1 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

84 Vrdoljak, A. F. (2008). International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural Objects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 206–211.Google Scholar

85 Prott, L. V. and O'Keefe, P. J. (1992). ‘Cultural Heritage’ or ‘Cultural Property’?’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 1, pp. 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Vrdoljak, p. 300.

87 Logan, Langfield and Nic Craith, p. 6.

88 See the preamble to the Convention.

89 Article 2(2) of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

90 Article 10(4) Copyright Act.

91 Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Tentang Perlindungan dan Pemanfaatan Kekayaan Intelektual Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional.

92 Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia (2009). ‘Indonesia dan Upaya Perlindungan Sumber Daya Genetik, Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional’ 20 November 2009 http://www.deplu.go.id/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?IDP=783&1=id [Accessed 20 December 2012].

93 Fitzpatrick, S. (2009). ‘Malaysia “Steals” Bali Dance’ The Australian, 26 August 2009; ‘Malaysia Urges Indonesia to Drop Plans to Sue over Folk Song’ Jakarta Post, 8 October 2007; Antons,‘The International Debate’, p. 54; Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, pp. 113–114; Antons, C. (2009). ‘Traditional Knowledge in Asia: Global Agendas and Local Subjects’ in Gillespie, J. and Peerenboom, R. eds. Regulation in Asia: Pushing back on globalization, Routledge, Oxford and New York, p. 74Google Scholar. For other examples, see Aragon and Leach, ‘Arts and Owners’, p. 616.

94 GRAIN & Kalpavriksh (2002). ‘Traditional Knowledge of Biodiversity in Asia-Pacific: Problems of Piracy and Protection’ http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=97 [Accessed 20 December 2012]; BioTani Indonesia Foundation (2003). ‘Are ASEAN Governments Sponsoring Biopiracy?’ http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/environment-indonesia/message/954 [accessed 24 January 2013]; Antons, C. and Antons-Sutanto, R. (2009). ‘Traditional Medicine and Intellectual Property Rights: A Case Study of the Indonesian jamu Industry’ in Antons, C. ed. Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property Law in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 382–383Google Scholar.

95 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, p. 113.

96 Aragon and Leach, p. 623.

97 Ibid., pp. 622–623.

98 Winichakul, T. (1994). Siam Mapped—A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation, University of Hawai'i Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar; Evans; Ivarsson, S. (2008), Creating Laos: The Making of a Lao Space between Indochina and Siam, 1860–1945, NIAS Press, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar.

99 Bradley, D. (2003). ‘Language and Culture of Minority Groups’ in Goudineau, Y. ed. Laos and Ethnic Minority Cultures: Promoting Heritage, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

100 Sturgeon, J. C. (2005). Border Landscapes: The Politics of Akha Land Use in China and Thailand, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar

101 Bernstein, J. H. (1997). ‘The Deculturation of the Brunei Dusun’ in Winzeler, R. L. ed. Indigenous Peoples and the State: Politics, Land, and Ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo, Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar

102 Munoz, pp. 73–76, 107–110; Wolters, pp. 27–40.

103 Mydans, S. (2011). ‘Cambodia Asks UN to Act Amid Clashes with Thailand’, The New York Times, 6 February 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07thailand.html [Accessed 24 January 2013].

104 Murdoch, L. ‘Thais lay claim to lord of the dance gesture’, The Age, 15 August 2011.

105 Antons, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights in Australia and Southeast Asia’, pp. 38–44; Aragon and Leach, p. 608.

106 Erdelen, W. R., Adimihardja, K., Moesdarsono, H. and Sidik (1999), ‘Biodiversity, traditional medicine and the sustainable use of indigenous medicinal plants in Indonesia’, Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 7:3, p. 3Google Scholar; Beers, S.-J. (2001). Jamu—The Ancient Indonesian Art of Herbal Healing, Periplus Editions, Hong Kong, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar

107 Afdhal, A. F. and Welsch, R. L. (1988).‘The Rise of the Modern Jamu Industry in Indonesia: A Preliminary Overview’ in van der Geest, S. and Reynolds Whyte, S. eds. The Context of Medicines in Developing Countries, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 151.Google Scholar

108 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, p. 112.

109 Murray Li, T. (2000). ‘Articulating Indigenous Identity in Indonesia: Resource Politics and the Tribal Slot’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 42:1, 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110 Antons, What is “Traditional Cultural Expression”?, pp. 113–114.