The 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Armed Conflict: An integrated reading of obligations towards culture in conflict

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Leiden Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-12-04 DOI:10.1017/s0922156523000572
Ashrutha Rai
{"title":"The 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Armed Conflict: An integrated reading of obligations towards culture in conflict","authors":"Ashrutha Rai","doi":"10.1017/s0922156523000572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International law today recognizes that cultural heritage includes not only tangible but also intangible cultural heritage, encompassing traditions, customs, practices, and beliefs. While protections for tangible cultural heritage have existed since at least the nineteenth century, only relatively recently has the law gone beyond piecemeal human rights protections and extended direct and specific treaty protections to intangible cultural heritage through the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The push for this Convention was linked with broader discontent within the Global south at the prioritization of Eurocentric ‘monumentalism’ in international cultural heritage law. Nevertheless, in situations of armed conflict, the emphasis reverts to protection of tangible cultural heritage as international humanitarian law does not go beyond general civilian protections to directly address the protection of intangible cultural heritage in conflict. While the 2003 Convention provides for emergency assistance, its broadly-worded terms do not indicate the shape its other obligations would take in armed conflict or the manner in which they would interact with rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This article examines, first, the degree and extent to which the 2003 Convention’s various obligations in relation to safeguarding intangible cultural heritage circumvent de-prioritization and continue to apply in conflict; and second, the manner in which they can be integrated with rules of international humanitarian law to better protect intangible cultural heritage during active hostilities.","PeriodicalId":46816,"journal":{"name":"Leiden Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leiden Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156523000572","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International law today recognizes that cultural heritage includes not only tangible but also intangible cultural heritage, encompassing traditions, customs, practices, and beliefs. While protections for tangible cultural heritage have existed since at least the nineteenth century, only relatively recently has the law gone beyond piecemeal human rights protections and extended direct and specific treaty protections to intangible cultural heritage through the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The push for this Convention was linked with broader discontent within the Global south at the prioritization of Eurocentric ‘monumentalism’ in international cultural heritage law. Nevertheless, in situations of armed conflict, the emphasis reverts to protection of tangible cultural heritage as international humanitarian law does not go beyond general civilian protections to directly address the protection of intangible cultural heritage in conflict. While the 2003 Convention provides for emergency assistance, its broadly-worded terms do not indicate the shape its other obligations would take in armed conflict or the manner in which they would interact with rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This article examines, first, the degree and extent to which the 2003 Convention’s various obligations in relation to safeguarding intangible cultural heritage circumvent de-prioritization and continue to apply in conflict; and second, the manner in which they can be integrated with rules of international humanitarian law to better protect intangible cultural heritage during active hostilities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2003年武装冲突中的非物质文化遗产公约:对冲突中文化义务的综合解读
今天的国际法承认,文化遗产不仅包括物质文化遗产,也包括非物质文化遗产,包括传统、习俗、习俗和信仰。尽管对物质文化遗产的保护至少从19世纪开始就存在,但直到最近,法律才超越了零碎的人权保护,并通过2003年联合国教科文组织《保护非物质文化遗产公约》将直接和具体的条约保护扩展到非物质文化遗产。推动该公约与全球南方对国际文化遗产法中以欧洲为中心的“纪念碑主义”的优先考虑的广泛不满有关。然而,在武装冲突的情况下,重点又回到了保护物质文化遗产,因为国际人道主义法并没有超越一般的平民保护,直接处理冲突中保护非物质文化遗产的问题。虽然《2003年公约》规定了紧急援助,但其措辞笼统的条款并没有表明其其他义务在武装冲突中将采取何种形式,也没有表明这些义务将如何与规制敌对行为的规则相互作用。本文首先考察了《2003年公约》在保护非物质文化遗产方面的各种义务在多大程度上规避了非物质文化遗产优先级的取消,并继续适用于冲突;第二,如何将它们与国际人道主义法规则相结合,以便在敌对行动期间更好地保护非物质文化遗产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
International law in the minds: On the ideational basis of the making, the changing, and the unmaking of international law BinaryTech in motion: The sexgender in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence Rewriting the law of international organizations: Whither the Asia Pacific? Beyond the machinery metaphors: Towards a theory of international organizations as machines The Committee on the Rights of the Child and Article 12: Applying the Lundy model to treaty body recommendations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1