The right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage – Report 2011 (A/HRC/17/38)

2017 ◽  
pp. 59-78
Author(s):  
Lucky Belder
2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1210-1259
Author(s):  
Branko Rakić

In international human rights law established after World War Two, one of cultural rights that has been traditionally most neglected out of five categories of human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights), is the right to participation in cultural life, while its segment, by the nature of things, is also the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage. Although international human rights law thus establishes the basis for treating the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage as a human right, international acts dealing with the matters of cultural heritage protection have had a long-prevailing approach in which cultural goods were protected because of their inherent value. It was only recently, with the emerging needs and interests in respect of the safeguarding of cultural diversity and protection of intangible cultural heritage, that the emphasis began to be placed on the relationship, including the legal one, between cultural heritage and human communities, groups and individuals with a special subjective attitude towards it. That is how the human-rights based system of cultural heritage protection was gradually established and the segment of international law dealing with human rights was brought closer to the segment dealing with cultural heritage. In order to consider a right as a human right, apart from the will of law-makers to be like that, it also requires the existence of certain values which constitute the basis for it and which should be safeguarded through the protection of that human right. An understanding deriving from a series of international legal acts and being widespread in theory is that, when it comes to cultural rights, including the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage, such basis is constituted by identity, first of all cultural identity, and human dignity. Therefore, although the foundation is laid for the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage to be treated as a human right, it is necessary to clarify and elaborate, at the legal level, a number of questions which should ensure effective enjoyment of this right. The task is in the hands of states, either as participants in the adoption of international law acts or as national law-makers, so the question remains open as to the nature of their attitude to further development of the human-rights based system of cultural heritage protection.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-93
Author(s):  
Gustav Muller

In this article an attempt is made to put forward a convincing case for giving substantive content to the right of access to adequate housing and looks towards relevant international law elaborations on the meaning of this right as contained in the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It does so while being aware of the Constitutional Court’s prior rejection of an international law-based minimum core interpretation of the right and opting, instead, for the so-called model of reasonableness breview. Given that the court has so expressly taken and stuck to this stance, it is argued in the article that an international law-based substantive interpretation of the right is possible – given that South Africa has recently ratified the ICESCR – and that it is preferable given the shortfalls of the model of reasonableness review. The article further highlights what difference the preferred reading of section 26(1) would make as to how courts ‘interpret’ reasonableness, that is, how courts review compliance with section 26 at present if ‘adequate’ housing is understood as having security of tenure and access to basic municipal services; is affordable, habitable and accessible; is located in close proximity to social facilities; and is culturally adequate.


Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.


Author(s):  
Philippa Webb

The last 50 years have seen significant changes in the law of immunity. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has, over the past 15 years in particular, played an influential role in the law applicable to this ‘moving target’. This chapter examines three approaches of the ECtHR to the identification of general international law: (i) the ECtHR looking to the International Court of Justice; (ii) the ECtHR looking to national practice; and (iii) the ECtHR looking to the work of the International Law Commission and the provisional application of treaties. Although the ECtHR strives to locate itself within general international law, it necessarily approaches the immunities of States, officials, and international organizations through the lens of Article 6 ECHR and whether the immunity in question constitutes a legitimate and proportionate restriction on the right of access to court. This has, at times, taken the Court down a different path to other judicial bodies and we can identify the emergence of a ‘European approach’ to the role of immunity in employment disputes.


Author(s):  
Mario Casillo ◽  
Francesco Colace ◽  
Dajana Conte ◽  
Marco Lombardi ◽  
Domenico Santaniello ◽  
...  

AbstractIn the Big Data era, every sector has adapted to technological development to service the vast amount of information available. In this way, each field has benefited from technological improvements over the years. The cultural and artistic field was no exception, and several studies contributed to the aim of the interaction between human beings and artistic-cultural heritage. In this scenario, systems able to analyze the current situation and recommend the right services play a crucial role. In particular, in the Recommender Systems field, Context-Awareness helps to improve the recommendations provided. This article aims to present a general overview of the introduction of Context analysis techniques in Recommender Systems and discuss some challenging applications to the Cultural Heritage field.


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Fazlollah Foroughi ◽  
Zahra Dastan

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document