Cultural Heritage Rights

1. Human rights and World Heritage: preserving our common dignity through rights-based approaches to site management Part I: Theoretical and Practical Considerations 2. Human rights and cultural heritage. Observations on the recognition of human rights in the international doctrine 3. Cultural diversity, cultural heritage and human rights: towards heritage management as human rights-based cultural practice 4. Heritage interpretation and human rights: documenting diversity, expressing identity, or establishing universal principles? 5. World Heritage and Indigenous rights: Norwegian examples 6. Human rights and cultural property protection in times of conflict 7. World Heritage and rights-based approaches to nature conservation Part II: Case Studies 8. Lhasa community, world heritage and human rights 9. Kalwaria Zebrzydowska cultural landscape 10. World heritage sites, human rights and cultural heritage in Palestine 11. Maintaining Timbuktu's unique tangible and intangible heritage 12. East Africa World Heritage Network and stakeholder priorities 13. Embedding shared heritage: the cultural heritage rights of London's African and Asian diaspora communities

Previous decades have witnessed the widespread use of human rights discourses in explaining cultural heritage issues. The content of the cultural heritage right (a term used interchangeably with “right to cultural heritage” in this text), and the relationship between cultural heritage and human rights are diversely demonstrated in international cultural heritage instruments and previous studies. Some of them may overlap or even contradict each other, causing confusion about the relevant concepts. This article aims to answer the twin question: What is the relationship between the “right to cultural heritage” and “rights related to cultural heritage”, which together comprise the cultural heritage rights system? The main feature of cultural heritage is its spiritual significance, which constitutes the basis of the human right to cultural heritage. The core content of the right to cultural heritage is the right to enjoy the intangible value of; meaning of; and interests inherent in cultural heritage. The holder of the right to cultural heritage is “everyone” – a concept so vague that it results in the intractable tension between the right and the rights of states, communities, individuals, Indigenous peoples, humanity as a whole, and so on. “Rights related to cultural heritage”, which are not cultural heritage rights per se, include public participation rights, the right to education, ownership rights, the rights to a livelihood, development, human dignity, equality, and other basic human rights. Some of them may promote the right to cultural heritage, while some may conflict with or limit the same right.

Sports intangible cultural heritage is not only the foundation of modern national sports culture, but also to enrich and contribute every nation to the world culture.Accelerating the protection of intangible culture helps to enrich sports intangible cultural heritage further.School physical education into intangible cultural heritage of sports is beneficial to inherit and protect.New standard implementation of physical education has been provided great space and feasible way for intangible cultural heritage of sports.

Indigenous peoples have always strived for recognition of the right to their ancestral lands, resources, protection of their language, customs and traditions, all of which in combination constitute their (cultural) identity. This strife for recognition of their cultural rights, even if misinterpreted by some, is justifiable given that indigenous peoples’ very survival depend on their cultural ties to lands, customs, traditions etc., passed down from generation to generation. Departing from initial attempts at integrating indigenous peoples into the rest of the society, the current legal regime recognizes distinct cultural rights of indigenous peoples. However, the absence of explicit references to indigenous peoples’ right to their own cultural heritage in the relevant human rights instruments casts an uncertainty over the possibility that the cultural rights of indigenous peoples include a right to their cultural heritage over which they will exercise control. This article studies the current situation regarding indigenous cultural heritage right claims and elaborates on the various hurdles preventing the realization of this right. Addressing the uncertainties surrounding the existence of indigenous peoples’ right to their own cultural heritage, international treaty law, customary international law and case law are analyzed to make a proposition that there is, indeed, evidence of such a right under international law. Conceding the lack of clarity on this issue, recommendations towards a more effective regime on the protection of cultural heritage rights of indigenous peoples are suggested.

Abstract:In 2003, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO ICH Convention) formalized provision for forms of heritage not solely rooted in the material world. This expanded the scope and accessibility of cultural heritage rights for communities and groups. To much commentary and critique, the United Kingdom (UK) infamously decided not to ratify the UNESCO ICH Convention. This article examines the implications of the UK’s decision not to ratify the Convention for the cultural heritage and human rights of an asylum-seeking group in Glasgow, Scotland, namely, the Glasgow Bajuni campaigners, members of a minority Somali clan. Based on participatory ethnographic fieldwork with the group and analysis of their asylum cases, this article makes two observations: first, that the UK’s absence from the Convention establishes a precedent in which other state actors (that is, immigration authorities) are emboldened to advance skepticism over matters involving intangible cultural heritage and, second, that despite this, limitations in current provisions in the UNESCO ICH Convention would provide the group with little additional protection than they currently have. Developing these observations, we critique current UK approaches to intangible cultural heritage as complicit in the maintenance of hierarchies and the border. Finally, we consider the extent to which the current provisions of the UNESCO ICH Convention might be improved to include migrant and asylum-seeking groups.

The protection of intangible cultural heritage has gradually attracted people's attention. In today's digital information age, the use of digital technology in the protection of intangible cultural heritage has become the focus of research in the field of intangible cultural heritage protection. For the protection of intangible cultural heritage to become the key goal of the continuous inheritance of China's traditional culture, this paper fully analyzes the problems existing in the inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage, and applies the high-performance computing method to the digital protection and development of intangible cultural heritage, which provides a strong basis for the protection of intangible cultural heritage. The accurate identification and protection of intangible cultural heritage can be achieved by using high-performance computing methods. In addition, the digital protection and development system of intangible cultural heritage is also designed. Finally, the example results show that the digital protection and development system of intangible cultural heritage proposed in this paper can effectively protect intangible cultural heritage and promote the continuous development of domestic local economy. At the same time, it can also strengthen the public awareness of the protection of intangible cultural heritage and effectively promote the inheritance and development of the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

In this thesis a platform of knowledge is provided for the development of enhanced Indigenous cultural heritage legislation by examining the specific nature of the cultural heritage of a Queensland Aboriginal group, the Dajarra Aboriginal community of Northwest Queensland for whom the Georgina River is a heartland in their cultural geography. The thesis was conducted during a period when the Queensland Government began to recognize demands for more effective Indigenous cultural heritage legislation. Queensland's latest Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation, introduced in 2004, emerged from a history of legislation dominated by an archaeological model of cultural heritage. However, despite some improvements this new legislation has maintained a physically orientated model of cultural heritage. Therefore Queensland's Indigenous societies, their places, place knowledge and certain types of place-specific behaviours continue to be exposed to imposed change. The thesis examines the 'lifeworld', the 'everyday' experiences of place of the Dajarra community. A broad definition of culture and an interactive model of place, coupled with a phenomenological approach provide a theoretical framework to engage with and describe cultural heritage as Dajarra people themselves experience it. The cultural heritage of Dajarra people involves interactions with a diversity of places and various combinations of behavioural, knowledge and physical properties. All of the places examined were interrelated with other places to form both small and large-scale place complexes. This dissertation reveals that the cultural heritage of an Aboriginal community lies not just in the physical environment but also in the diverse everyday people-environment interactions of that community. Effective cultural heritage legislation must be capable of encompassing this diversity. Cultural heritage is essentially dynamic, it is found in processes of change, it is found in ongoing people-environment interactions as well as those of the past. It is argued that Aboriginal people hold 'active cultural heritage rights'; these are rights to interact with places and rights to control action in places. Ideal cultural heritage legislation would recognize these active rights and provide for Aboriginal control of them, that is, Aboriginal defined and controlled change. This study reveals that it is difficult to separate places in time and space from other places with which they are co-dependent or inextricably intertwined. Studies of Aboriginal people-environment interactions and legislative measures must respond to the broader place complexes within which individual places are embedded and within which the everyday experiences of place are had. It is shown that there is a range of ways that an Aboriginal cultural heritage community can be defined and a range of Aboriginal people that might have interests in the cultural heritage of an area. Lastly, the thesis calls for the adoption of an interactive model of place as a foundation to cultural heritage studies and legislation in order to respond to the cultural heritage of Aboriginal people as they themselves experience it and wish to experience it.

Cultural heritage often plays many important roles for Indigenous peoples, reflecting holistic understandings that connect culture to identity, spirituality, ancestral lands, natural resources, self-determination, and survival. Despite this significance, international law has historically marginalized and often neglected the protection of Indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage rights, leading to a current inadequate or insufficient level of protection that often leaves threats to Indigenous heritage unaddressed and violations unpunished. This chapter examines three international regimes (international cultural heritage law, human rights law, and intellectual property law) offering some protection to Indigenous heritage, as well as ongoing international efforts to develop new instruments on the topic. These regimes and continuing debates are assessed against key themes of importance in Indigenous mobilization to identify how each regime responds to common claims and concerns advanced by Indigenous groups internationally. By identifying the regimes’ strengths and shortcomings in relation to those themes, this chapter considers avenues to make the international framework on Indigenous heritage safeguarding more culturally adequate and effective in responding to Indigenous peoples’ needs. In pursuing such goals, the usual state-centric and state sovereignty-based core of international law needs to be reappraised to make room for Indigenous voices and control to lead the way.

The protection of cultural heritage sites is normally evaluated in terms of universal and scholarly significance criteria, although increasingly the contributions of sites and monuments to the economic and social well-being of communities have been recognized. Human rights discourse, despite its many problems and limitations, offers a possible mechanism for evaluating heritage in terms of social justice and well-being. A cultural heritage right based on descent is particularly problematic and cannot be supported by archaeological, historical, and anthropological theories. A cultural heritage right based on whether people are in practice able to participate in sites and objects in such a way as to fulfill their capabilities is an alternative, as long as it also includes responsibilities to other communities with conflicting interests. However, few archaeologists and heritage managers have the training and expertise to work out short- and long-term economic and social benefits of artifacts, sites, and monuments, and they have limited experience in facilitating human capabilities through heritage beyond scholarship, aesthetics, and identity politics.

With the enactment of ʻthe Basic Law on National Heritageʼ in Korea, The ʻCultural Property Protection Actʼ will be renamed ʻthe Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Cultural Heritageʼ(acronym: the Cultural Heritage Act) from May 17, 2024. The Cultural Heritage Act shall serve as the basic law related to the cultural heritage legislation. The Cultural Heritage Act includes such as contents; the establishment and promotion of the protection of cultural heritage as defined in the Basic Law on National Heritage, the creation of a foundation for cultural heritage protection, and the nationally designated cultural heritage, general movable cultural heritage, and municipal-designated cultural heritage. In the Basic Law on National Heritage, cultural heritage refers only to tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage is separately classified as intangible cultural heritage. But both tangible and intangible cultural heritage should be considered as the subject of the cultural heritage legislation. Korea had a representative comprehensive cultural property protection legal system in the past, but government recently divided the Intangible Cultural Property Act, the Buried Cultural Property Act, and the Cultural Property Repair Act from the previous Cultural Property Protection Act. Furthermore, Matters related to the preservation and management of natural monuments and scenic spots will be stipulated in newly enacted the “Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Natural Heritage” (acronym: Natural Heritage Act). Although the laws was divided from previous Cultural Property Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Administration remains the same. In order for an effective cultural heritage policy to be activated under the changed legal environment, it is necessary to analyze and examine international agreements related to the globalization of cultural heritage and related legal systems of major countries. And these analysis and examination will be contributed to make legislative and policy improvements to the issues that have been problematic domestically. In this regard, this paper aims to draw implications by examining the German cultural heritage legal system which the federal and state cooperate while maintaining a dual system. In Germany, the protection and management of domestic cultural heritage is protected by the State(Land) in the form of monument protection laws, and the federal government operates the cultural property protection law, which aims to prevent cultural property from being lost by controlling the export, import, and distribution of cultural property. I think it will be a great reference for improving legislation for the globalization of cultural heritage in Korea. In particular, the regulations related to the return of cultural properties illegally leaked abroad and the international exchange of cultural properties are worth referring to. Germany's Cultural Property Protection Act as a federal law has detailed regulations that control the export, import, and distribution of cultural properties, so I think it will be a great reference for improving legislation to globalize Korea's cultural heritage. In particular, regulations related to the return of illegally leaked cultural properties overseas, the guarantee of return of international loans, and the international exchange of cultural properties are worth referencing in Korea's legislative improvement.

Due to the lack of interest on the part of the government, cultural specialists and society as a whole, the subject of cultural law has developed slowly. In terms of its achievements, these have largely been based on the study of human rights, which have served as a mechanism for approaching the issue and for grounding it in society. This chronicle explores cultural heritage rights as a primary component of human dignity –along with the right to live, housing and work – and examines the educational process linked to the categorization of cultural rights. It also studies the relationship of cultural heritage rights with Mexico's existing cultural heritage regulations, in particular, those under the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH, Mexico). This analysis is based on a structured theoretical framework derived from international relations that provides a further understanding of the interaction of different international human rights regimes within a comprehensive and interdisciplinary context.

With the globalization of global economy, the protection of intangible cultural heritage is facing a crisis of survival. Intangible cultural heritage is the crystallization of the wisdom of the working people of a country in past dynasties, with strong national characteristics. Applying digital technology to the protection of intangible cultural heritage can promote the inheritance, transformation and application of intangible cultural heritage. Since China put forward the information development strategy, it has become more practical to use digital technology to protect cultural heritage. Due to the imperfection of management mechanism and format specification, as well as the special nature of intangible cultural heritage, the development of digital means is still very difficult. In order to better protect the digital technology, this paper studies the important role of digital technology in the protection and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage, and further studies the deep development and application of digital technology in the protection and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage.

The conflicts that abound around the world between different groups struggling to control the definition, management, and use of heritage give rise to many issues that need to be foregrounded in scholarly and professional debates. Focusing on UNESCO's World Heritage system, this paper asks: Why and how do nation states avoid respecting heritage rights? What can be and is being done about it? How can we move toward a more rights-based approach to heritage management? The notion that people have rights to access and enjoy their cultural heritage has emerged within the domain of cultural rights, which, in turn, is a component of human rights. Prospects for achieving global recognition of cultural heritage rights have improved recently through interrelated activities being undertaken at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, in a Norwegian network of heritage, environmental and rights agencies, and at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. These advances relate mostly to Indigenous heritage, whereas the cultural heritage of other groups, such as women, children, and youth, or, in many parts of the world, ethnic and racial minorities that are not considered Indigenous peoples, lack comparable recognition and respect.

China has abundant intangible cultural heritage resources.However, economic development brings pressure to ecological environment, changes of which have direct influence on the protection of intangible cultural heritage.At current stage, due to lack of strong consciousness of intangible cultural heritage protection in many regions in China, a part of intangible cultural heritage is in imminent danger.Establishment of intangible cultural heritage brands means inheritance and development of intangible cultural heritage, and is also a way of intangible cultural heritage protection.This paper mainly studies on intangible cultural heritage brands from the perspective of ecological protection with an example of protection of intangible cultural heritage in Southeastern Hubei Province.As intangible cultural heritage has tourism value, various countries begin to attach importance to tourism development of intangible cultural heritage.However, unreasonable development is caused for many factors, which cannot inherit or develop intangible cultural heritage but lead to frequent problems in its protection.Establishment of intangible cultural heritage brands is an important way of intangible cultural development as well as inheriting and carrying forward Chinese culture, and formation of intangible cultural heritage brand advantages is the key of enhancing the competitiveness of Chinese cultural enterprises. I.

The protection of cultural heritage sites is normally evaluated in terms of universal and scholarly significance criteria, although increasingly the contributions of sites and monuments to the economic and social well-being of communities have been recognized. Human rights discourse, despite its many problems and limitations, offers a possible mechanism for evaluating heritage in terms of social justice and well-being. A cultural heritage right based on descent is particularly problematic and cannot be supported by archaeological, historical, and anthropological theories. A cultural heritage right based on whether people are in practice able to participate in sites and objects in such a way as to fulfill their capabilities is an alternative, as long as it also includes responsibilities to other communities with conflicting interests. However, few archaeologists and heritage managers have the training and expertise to work out short- and long-term economic and social benefits of artifacts, sites, and monuments, and they have limited experience in facilitating human capabilities 520through heritage beyond scholarship, aesthetics, and identity politics.