Author:
Rompegading Melantik,Asmah
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the communal dimensions of geographical indication intellectual property rights with an integrative legal perspective. This research is a normative legal research. The results of the study confirm that the character of geographic indication rights which have a communal basis is actually relevant to the legal character of the Indonesian people who view intellectual property as joint property and can be used jointly. Therefore, the character of geographical indication rights that have a communal basis in the future can be regulated through legal instruments regarding Traditional Cultural Expressions which also contain provisions regarding geographic indication rights. This actually requires the role of the state as a trigger for the birth of a conducive economic climate by optimizing intellectual property in the form of geographical indications. Future arrangements for geographic indication rights in an integrative legal perspective can be carried out by optimizing the role of the government (bureaucracy) as a social changer. The role of the bureaucracy is based on laws and policies made by the central government and local governments. It is necessary to provide incentives for communities or legal entities that have an orientation to optimize geographic indications. The existence of incentives from the government should also be optimized in the realm of local government so that people are motivated to optimize geographical indications which can be used as a means to improve the economic level of the community.
Publisher
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo
Reference48 articles.
1. J. J. Biser, “Locke Versus Hobbes: Political Economy of Property Rights,” J. Econ. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2020.
2. D. Handoko, Hukum Positif Mengenai Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia Jilid II, 1st ed. Pekanbaru: HAWA dan AHWA, 2015.
3. D. Sulistianingsih and A. Khomsa Kinanti, “Hak Karya Cipta Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Dalam Sudut Pandang Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual,” KRTHA BHAYANGKARA, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 197–206, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.31599/krtha.v16i1.1077.
4. R. Spano, “The future of the European Court of human rights-subsidiarity, process-based review and the rule of law,” Hum. Rights Law Rev., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 473–494, 2018, doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngy015.
5. N. Katagiri, “Why international law and norms do little in preventing non-state cyber attacks,” J. Cybersecurity, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1093/cybsec/tyab009.