<![CDATA[Introduction: The governance of traditional knowledge in traditional medicine raises a regulatory challenge: how can public health oversight be reconciled with the collective rights and customary practices of knowledge-holding communities? Indonesia and Malaysia provide a relevant comparative context because their regulatory frameworks differ in institutional organization and recognition of traditional medicine. Purposes of the Research: This study examines and compares the legal governance of traditional knowledge in traditional medicine management in Indonesia and Malaysia, focusing on legal recognition, regulatory protection, customary law, and benefit-sharing. Methods of the Research: The study employs normative legal research with a comparative and conceptual approach. It examines relevant legislation, regulatory instruments, legal doctrines, and scholarly literature to identify similarities, differences, and normative gaps in the two legal systems. Results of the Research: The analysis indicates that traditional medicine governance in both jurisdictions prioritizes regulatory supervision and public health objectives, while the recognition of traditional knowledge as a collective legal entitlement remains insufficiently developed. Indonesia presents a fragmented regulatory framework, whereas Malaysia demonstrates more centralized institutional regulation. The study proposes a normative framework for integrating legal pluralism, regulatory accountability, and community-oriented protection. Its contribution lies in connecting traditional knowledge governance with the legal design of collective rights and equitable benefit-sharing.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
