Cultural Heritage in International Law: (Still) Looking for a Definition? The Taxonomy of Cultural Heritage Across the Spectrum of UNESCO Conventions and Beyond

2021 ◽  
pp. 191-208
Author(s):  
Alessandra Lanciotti
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law

Maritime Claims and Underwater Archaeology: When History Meets Politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-131
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Underwater Archaeology ◽  
Underwater Cultural Heritage ◽  
Archaeological Heritage ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Legal And Ethical Issues

Abstract Among other circumstances relevant to maritime delimitations, some States have recently used the protection of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) as grounds for advancing jurisdictional or sovereignty claims over different maritime areas. After identifying the contours of current international law governing that heritage, this book critically addresses: first, the generally limited use of archaeological heritage in territorial claims; second, the broad acceptance by States of ‘archaeological maritime zones’ that overlap with declared contiguous zones; and, third, the (mis)use of UCH and underwater archaeology in three still disputed maritime claims, namely, Canada’s claim in Arctic waters, China’s in the South China Sea, and Russia’s in Crimea and its surrounding waters. Legal and ethical issues related to underwater archaeology are also discussed.

scholarly journals Nomen Est Omen: Heritage – Baština or Nasleđe – A (Not Merely) Terminological Dilemma

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Gavrilović
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Past

This paper looks at the use of the Serbian terms "kulturna baština" and "kulturno nasleđe" (both of which are translated as "cultural heritage") to refer to elements of culture preserved from the past and considered valuable enough to be preserved as part of the musealization of reality in its various forms. It offers an analysis of how, through the (re)introduction of the old/new term baština, patriarchy and essentialism – two elements of non-material cultural heritage that are ostensibly undesirable and not to be retained since they are contrary to international law – are being reinstated in the sphere of culture by bureaucratic means.

scholarly journals The protection of cultural heritage: common heritage of humankind, national cultural ‘patrimony’ or private property?

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-364
Author(s):  
Fiona Macmillan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Community Identity ◽  
Cultural Patrimony ◽  
Postcolonial Discourse ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
Protection Of Cultural Heritage

Starting from an argument about the relationship between cultural heritage and national and/or community identity, this article considers the different ways in which both the international law regime for the protection of cultural heritage and the international intellectual property regime tend to appropriate cultural heritage. The article argues that, in the postcolonial context, both these forms of appropriation continue to interfere with the demands for justice and for the recognition of historical wrongs made both by indigenous peoples and by many developing countries. At the same time, the article suggests that these claims are undermined by the misappropriation of the postcolonial discourse with respect to restitution of cultural heritage, particularly in the intra-European context. The article advocates the need for a regime for the protection of cultural heritage that is strong enough to resist its private appropriation through the use of intellectual property rights and nuanced enough to recognise significant differences in the political context of local and national claims to cultural heritage.

International Cultural Heritage Regimes, International Law, and the Politics of Expertise

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Lixinski
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Heritage Management ◽  
Cultural Heritage Management ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Heritage Discourse ◽  
International Conventions

Abstract:The article examines the problematic politics of expertise in the formation of international legal rules in the field of heritage, looking specifically at international conventions made under the auspices of UNESCO. The article shows that, even within this seemingly small and cohesive universe, there is a lot of room for disagreement, and much of it can be traced back to what Laurajane Smith has called “the Authorized Heritage Discourse” (AHD). The AHD is responsible for the dichotomization of heritage between intangible and tangible, as heritage professionals strive to hold on to and expand their self-created professional legitimacy and importance. Heritage professionals, in striving to maintain their relevance, tend to create self-referential regimes that exclude heritage holders and communities. I argue that lawyers, because of their own professional tendencies, might be in a position to offer a counterpoint to rule by experts in international cultural heritage management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document