Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.029.18649
Gábor János Dudás, András György Kovács, Márton Schultz
This article argues that personal data may have a commercial value in the European legal systems, and as such it can function as a consideration and has a quid pro quo character. It claims that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) should not exclude that data concerning the data subject can be used as contractual consideration, especially in the world of the Internet. In particular, it cannot be excluded solely on the basis that the right to privacy is not transferable, a position taken thus far in the EDPB’s practice. This proposed new approach is supported by the fact that in some EU Member States the property aspects of the general right of personality have been recognized, a stance which may also apply to personal data, without the need to recognize a kind of data ownership or sui generis intellectual property right in the data. Thus, the theory of commercial aspects of personality rights can be linked to the commercial value of personal data. The quid pro quo function of personal data may also be recognized in line with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In fact, maintaining the interpretation of the EDPB – which denies the quid pro quo character of personal data from a fundamental rights perspective – means that the dangers of such data processing cannot be assessed. This affects cultural heritage in many aspects – from the sending of newsletters to selling merchandise products in museums. The EDPB’s guidelines, as soft law, have no direct impact on the case-law of the national courts, thus this also significantly increases the risk of a collision between the simultaneously available remedy regimes established by the GDPR.
{"title":"Personal Data as Consideration","authors":"Gábor János Dudás, András György Kovács, Márton Schultz","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.029.18649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.029.18649","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that personal data may have a commercial value in the European legal systems, and as such it can function as a consideration and has a quid pro quo character. It claims that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) should not exclude that data concerning the data subject can be used as contractual consideration, especially in the world of the Internet. In particular, it cannot be excluded solely on the basis that the right to privacy is not transferable, a position taken thus far in the EDPB’s practice. This proposed new approach is supported by the fact that in some EU Member States the property aspects of the general right of personality have been recognized, a stance which may also apply to personal data, without the need to recognize a kind of data ownership or sui generis intellectual property right in the data. Thus, the theory of commercial aspects of personality rights can be linked to the commercial value of personal data. The quid pro quo function of personal data may also be recognized in line with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In fact, maintaining the interpretation of the EDPB – which denies the quid pro quo character of personal data from a fundamental rights perspective – means that the dangers of such data processing cannot be assessed. This affects cultural heritage in many aspects – from the sending of newsletters to selling merchandise products in museums. The EDPB’s guidelines, as soft law, have no direct impact on the case-law of the national courts, thus this also significantly increases the risk of a collision between the simultaneously available remedy regimes established by the GDPR.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139004923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.026.18646
A. Adewumi, Victor O. Adenekan
Over the years, our perspective on cultural heritage has undergone changes. The field has become more diverse, requiring solution-focused approaches to address the underlying problems associated with cultural heritage. One significant challenge is the issue of restitution, which is considered a major failure of international cultural heritage law. How can international cultural heritage law completely heal historical wounds instead of merely offering empty hopes to those who have suffered? Simply acknowledging past wrongs by offending states is insufficient, and it does not align with the fundamental legal principle that where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). Despite the considerable growth in the jurisprudence of international cultural heritage law, there remains a pressing need to consolidate the legal framework to facilitate the restitution of stolen or looted cultural objects. This article argues that the prohibition of plunder and pillage of cultural property constitutes a jus cogens rule of international law. Its violation therefore gives rise to an unconditional obligation to restitute such property.
多年来，我们对文化遗产的看法发生了变化。该领域已变得更加多样化，需要以解决方案为重点的方法来解决与文化遗产相关的根本问题。其中一个重大挑战是归还问题，这被认为是国际文化遗产法的一大败笔。国际文化遗产法如何才能彻底治愈历史创伤，而不仅仅是给那些受难者带来空洞的希望？仅仅承认违法国家过去的错误是不够的，也不符合 "有错必纠"（ubi jus ibi remedium）这一基本法律原则。尽管国际文化遗产法的判例有了长足的发展，但仍迫切需要巩固法律框架，以促进被盗或被掠夺文物的归还。本文认为，禁止掠夺和抢劫文化财产是国际法的强制法规则。因此，违反这一规则就产生了归还此类财产的无条件义务。
{"title":"Making the Case for the Restitution of Illicitly Acquired Cultural Objects under the Rules of Jus Cogens","authors":"A. Adewumi, Victor O. Adenekan","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.026.18646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.026.18646","url":null,"abstract":"Over the years, our perspective on cultural heritage has undergone changes. The field has become more diverse, requiring solution-focused approaches to address the underlying problems associated with cultural heritage. One significant challenge is the issue of restitution, which is considered a major failure of international cultural heritage law. How can international cultural heritage law completely heal historical wounds instead of merely offering empty hopes to those who have suffered? Simply acknowledging past wrongs by offending states is insufficient, and it does not align with the fundamental legal principle that where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). Despite the considerable growth in the jurisprudence of international cultural heritage law, there remains a pressing need to consolidate the legal framework to facilitate the restitution of stolen or looted cultural objects. This article argues that the prohibition of plunder and pillage of cultural property constitutes a jus cogens rule of international law. Its violation therefore gives rise to an unconditional obligation to restitute such property.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139004929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643
Petra Winter, Florentine Dietrich
In March 2018 the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz (State Museums in Berlin) received a significant bequest from the estate of art historian Barbara Göpel (1922-2017), consisting of two paintings, 46 drawings, and 52 prints by Max Beckmann (1884-1950) and one painting by Hans Purrmann (1880-1966). This bequest represents an important addition to the collection of classical modernist works in the Nationalgalerie (National Gallery) and the Kupferstichkabinett (Museum of Prints and Drawings). In 1937 – during the time of National Socialism – the Nationalgalerie lost 505 artefacts as a result of the confiscation of “degenerate art”, among them eight works of Beckmann, who was in those times classified as a “degenerate artist”. But from whom did the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin receive this bequest? And is it generally important to ask from whom a museum receives an artefact? Where did the artworks come from? Is their provenance “clean” in the sense of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art? Is it legitimate to make a distinction between the person of the collector/estate and the works of art? These are some of the – legal but also moral – questions a museum must address before accepting any cultural object that belonged to a collector who was actively working for a gigantic project like the “Führermuseum Linz”. Or should rejection of the bequest be considered?
{"title":"Combating Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (State Museums in Berlin): Policies in Acquisitions and Loans and Research of Provenance","authors":"Petra Winter, Florentine Dietrich","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2018 the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz (State Museums in Berlin) received a significant bequest from the estate of art historian Barbara Göpel (1922-2017), consisting of two paintings, 46 drawings, and 52 prints by Max Beckmann (1884-1950) and one painting by Hans Purrmann (1880-1966). This bequest represents an important addition to the collection of classical modernist works in the Nationalgalerie (National Gallery) and the Kupferstichkabinett (Museum of Prints and Drawings). In 1937 – during the time of National Socialism – the Nationalgalerie lost 505 artefacts as a result of the confiscation of “degenerate art”, among them eight works of Beckmann, who was in those times classified as a “degenerate artist”. But from whom did the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin receive this bequest? And is it generally important to ask from whom a museum receives an artefact? Where did the artworks come from? Is their provenance “clean” in the sense of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art? Is it legitimate to make a distinction between the person of the collector/estate and the works of art? These are some of the – legal but also moral – questions a museum must address before accepting any cultural object that belonged to a collector who was actively working for a gigantic project like the “Führermuseum Linz”. Or should rejection of the bequest be considered?","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138976438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.032.18652
T. S. Nomishan, Abubakar Sule Sani
This article focuses on the legal and technical challenges of protecting intangible cultural heritage in Nigeria. Over time, Nigeria and its population have focused heavily on the petroleum industry as the primary source of the country’s economic sustainability, ignoring other viable economic sectors such as heritage preservation, protection, and management for sustainable tourism. This is because the country’s heritage legislation has been severely eroded and rendered ineffectual in protecting Nigeria’s heritage resources, in particular its intangible cultural heritage. Various stakeholders have expressed concern about the need to maintain and protect cultural assets all around the world. This has thus led to the promulgation of laws governing their protection. These regulations, however, did not begin in Nigeria until the colonial period, when the necessity to acquire and conserve heritage objects became recognized. Therefore, this article uses an exploratory research design with key informant interview methodologies as a data-gathering instrument. As a result, it demonstrates that numerous intangible cultural heritage resources in Nigeria are negatively impacted by political and societal instability, the increasing demand for antiquities and artworks, and socioeconomic challenges, amongst other human-induced factors. The existing heritage law in Nigeria, Decree No. 77 of 1979, is insufficient in terms of currency, enforcement, and efficiency, rendering its provisions ineffective.
{"title":"Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection and Nigeria’s Heritage Legislation","authors":"T. S. Nomishan, Abubakar Sule Sani","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.032.18652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.032.18652","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the legal and technical challenges of protecting intangible cultural heritage in Nigeria. Over time, Nigeria and its population have focused heavily on the petroleum industry as the primary source of the country’s economic sustainability, ignoring other viable economic sectors such as heritage preservation, protection, and management for sustainable tourism. This is because the country’s heritage legislation has been severely eroded and rendered ineffectual in protecting Nigeria’s heritage resources, in particular its intangible cultural heritage. Various stakeholders have expressed concern about the need to maintain and protect cultural assets all around the world. This has thus led to the promulgation of laws governing their protection. These regulations, however, did not begin in Nigeria until the colonial period, when the necessity to acquire and conserve heritage objects became recognized. Therefore, this article uses an exploratory research design with key informant interview methodologies as a data-gathering instrument. As a result, it demonstrates that numerous intangible cultural heritage resources in Nigeria are negatively impacted by political and societal instability, the increasing demand for antiquities and artworks, and socioeconomic challenges, amongst other human-induced factors. The existing heritage law in Nigeria, Decree No. 77 of 1979, is insufficient in terms of currency, enforcement, and efficiency, rendering its provisions ineffective.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139006241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.033.18653
Luis Javier Capote Pérez
This article seeks to introduce a brief description of the rules of protection of cultural heritage goods in the Spanish Law, using the example of a mediatic case of illicit trade, where the regulations of civil law, criminal law, and administrative law were applied and where the freedoms inherent in the right of ownership collided with the rules on properties of cultural interest. First, it provides an overview of the Spanish cultural heritage law, beginning with the constitutional mandate of assuming and promoting the protection of Spanish cultural heritage, and thereafter focusing on the concept of private ownership and its limits, in accordance with the social function of all property rights under the 1978 Spanish Constitution. Second, it describes a well-known case of illicit trade, focused on a valuable painting by Pablo Picasso. The work Cabeza de mujer joven (Head of a young woman) belonged to a private owner who decided to sell it internationally, using the services of a well-known auction house. When the required permission for exportation was denied by the Spanish public administration, the owner commenced a court proceeding aimed at changing the decision, but also planned to send the painting abroad using a yacht on his property. Thirdly, the article’s conclusion reflects on the level of severity of the Spanish legislation as applied in the case, in the context of the balance between cultural heritage protection and the freedom of disposition inherent to the right of property ownership.
本文试图以一起非法交易的中间案件为例，简要介绍西班牙法律中的文化遗产保护规 则，在这起案件中，民法、刑法和行政法的规定都得到了适用，所有权所固有的自由与文化 利益财产的规则发生了冲突。首先，它概述了西班牙文化遗产法，从承担和促进保护西班牙文化遗产的宪法任务开始，然后根据 1978 年《西班牙宪法》规定的所有财产权的社会功能，重点介绍了私人所有权的概念及其限制。其次，它描述了一个著名的非法交易案例，重点是巴勃罗-毕加索（Pablo Picasso）的一幅珍贵画作。Cabeza de mujer joven》（《年轻女子的头》）属于一位私人所有者，他决定利用一家著名拍卖行的服务在国际上出售这幅作品。当西班牙公共行政部门拒绝给予出口许可时，画作所有者向法院提起诉讼，希望改变这一决定，但他也计划利用自己财产中的一艘游艇将画作运往国外。第三，文章的结论从文化遗产保护与财产所有权固有的处置自由之间的平衡角度，反 思了本案中适用的西班牙法律的严厉程度。
{"title":"Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects under the Spanish Law: The Cabeza de mujer joven Case","authors":"Luis Javier Capote Pérez","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.033.18653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.033.18653","url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to introduce a brief description of the rules of protection of cultural heritage goods in the Spanish Law, using the example of a mediatic case of illicit trade, where the regulations of civil law, criminal law, and administrative law were applied and where the freedoms inherent in the right of ownership collided with the rules on properties of cultural interest. First, it provides an overview of the Spanish cultural heritage law, beginning with the constitutional mandate of assuming and promoting the protection of Spanish cultural heritage, and thereafter focusing on the concept of private ownership and its limits, in accordance with the social function of all property rights under the 1978 Spanish Constitution. Second, it describes a well-known case of illicit trade, focused on a valuable painting by Pablo Picasso. The work Cabeza de mujer joven (Head of a young woman) belonged to a private owner who decided to sell it internationally, using the services of a well-known auction house. When the required permission for exportation was denied by the Spanish public administration, the owner commenced a court proceeding aimed at changing the decision, but also planned to send the painting abroad using a yacht on his property. Thirdly, the article’s conclusion reflects on the level of severity of the Spanish legislation as applied in the case, in the context of the balance between cultural heritage protection and the freedom of disposition inherent to the right of property ownership.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139006643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.028.18648
Łukasz Stępkowski
This article addresses the issue of whether EU State aid granted for the purposes of promoting culture and heritage conservation is subject to the prohibition of Article 107(1) TFEU and its derogations. Specifically, the article outlines the problem of “economic activity”, and hence being an “undertaking” insofar as regards bodies operating in the field of culture and heritage conservation (e.g. museums). It covers the European Commission’s approach thereto, together with its decisions made in the field of State aid, as well as the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (particularly examining the impact of the MOTOE decision for the topic at issue). The article offers a critical assessment of the Commission’s approach, positing that it is not in line with Article 107(1) TFEU as it is currently interpreted by the Court, and is at odds with the Commission’s own 2016 Notice on the notion of State aid.
{"title":"State Aid to Promote Culture and Heritage Conservation: Museums and Other Cultural Institutions as Recipients of EU State Aid","authors":"Łukasz Stępkowski","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.028.18648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.028.18648","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of whether EU State aid granted for the purposes of promoting culture and heritage conservation is subject to the prohibition of Article 107(1) TFEU and its derogations. Specifically, the article outlines the problem of “economic activity”, and hence being an “undertaking” insofar as regards bodies operating in the field of culture and heritage conservation (e.g. museums). It covers the European Commission’s approach thereto, together with its decisions made in the field of State aid, as well as the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (particularly examining the impact of the MOTOE decision for the topic at issue). The article offers a critical assessment of the Commission’s approach, positing that it is not in line with Article 107(1) TFEU as it is currently interpreted by the Court, and is at odds with the Commission’s own 2016 Notice on the notion of State aid.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139003821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.007.18119
Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz
The constitutional review of the provisions of the Act on Protection of and Care of Historical Monuments has so far been initiated eleven times, with the use of various procedures and with different results, because so far only three matters have been substantially resolved. The subject of this study is an analysis of constitutional problems diagnosed in pleadings instituting proceedings before the constitutional court. The analysis of the research material leads to the conclusion that the repeated accusation of unconstitutionality is a disproportionate interference with property rights and reveals deficits in the procedural justice mechanism of property protection. As can be seen from the Tribunal’s statements, it does not give priority to any of the values involved in the actual conflict when considering requirements for the protection of national heritage contrasted with the expectations of effective protection of the right to property, but rather seeks a solution based on the principle of proportionality.
{"title":"Problemy konstytucyjne diagnozowane na kanwie ustawy o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami – uwagi w świetle spraw zawisłych przed Trybunałem Konstytucyjnym","authors":"Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.007.18119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.007.18119","url":null,"abstract":"The constitutional review of the provisions of the Act on Protection of and Care of Historical Monuments has so far been initiated eleven times, with the use of various procedures and with different results, because so far only three matters have been substantially resolved. The subject of this study is an analysis of constitutional problems diagnosed in pleadings instituting proceedings before the constitutional court. The analysis of the research material leads to the conclusion that the repeated accusation of unconstitutionality is a disproportionate interference with property rights and reveals deficits in the procedural justice mechanism of property protection. As can be seen from the Tribunal’s statements, it does not give priority to any of the values involved in the actual conflict when considering requirements for the protection of national heritage contrasted with the expectations of effective protection of the right to property, but rather seeks a solution based on the principle of proportionality.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135585841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.009.18121
Anastasiia Cherednychenko
Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk–Ukraine is now part of the 19th Red List and the 8th Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk. The Red List is one of the key tools for combating the illicit traffic of cultural heritage objects, which ICOM has been publishing since 2000. In the case of Ukraine, the creation of the Emergency Red List was a response to the high threat of illegal trafficking of cultural heritage posed by Russian military aggression, beginning in February 2022 and currently ongoing.
{"title":"Emergency Red List for Ukraine","authors":"Anastasiia Cherednychenko","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.009.18121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.009.18121","url":null,"abstract":"Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk–Ukraine is now part of the 19th Red List and the 8th Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk. The Red List is one of the key tools for combating the illicit traffic of cultural heritage objects, which ICOM has been publishing since 2000. In the case of Ukraine, the creation of the Emergency Red List was a response to the high threat of illegal trafficking of cultural heritage posed by Russian military aggression, beginning in February 2022 and currently ongoing.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135586006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.001.18113
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk
Santander Art and Culture Law Review » 2023 » 1/2023 (9) » Alicja Jagielska-Burduk talks with Patty Gerstenblith, professor of law at DePaul University and director of its Center for Art, Museum & Cultural Heritage Law A A A
{"title":"Alicja Jagielska-Burduk talks with Patty Gerstenblith, professor of law at DePaul University and director of its Center for Art, Museum & Cultural Heritage Law","authors":"Alicja Jagielska-Burduk","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.001.18113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.001.18113","url":null,"abstract":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review » 2023 » 1/2023 (9) » Alicja Jagielska-Burduk talks with Patty Gerstenblith, professor of law at DePaul University and director of its Center for Art, Museum & Cultural Heritage Law A A A","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135586008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.008.18120
Kamil Zeidler
2022 marked the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the 1972 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. On the occasion of this anniversary, the article uncharacteristically contains criticism of both UNESCO itself and doubts about the 1972 Convention. However, all these remarks flow from concern for the fate and future of this international organisation, whose activities and achievements in the protection of the world cultural heritage ultimately deserve recognition. The problems do not merely arise within UNESCO, but rather with other members of the international community, particularly some states and their actions toward the organisation. Problems also arise from the implementation of and compliance with international law. The allegations against UNESCO are organised and discussed here according to three criteria: formalism, time and costs. On the other hand, the 1972 UNESCO Convention itself is presented from two perspectives – first, in the normative layer as an international legal act, which serves as a sui generis constitution of the world’s protection of cultural and natural heritage; and second, in the empirical layer. In the latter context, attention was paid to the role of the UNESCO World Heritage List. Regardless of the criticisms, as well as the weaknesses and problems highlighted, it is clear from the article that it emphasises the value of both the 1972 UNESCO Convention, one of whose main advantages is that it has resisted the passage of time, and the great role of UNESCO itself, as an important international organisation with considerable achievements and merits.
{"title":"Kilka słów krytycznych przy okazji jubileuszu 50-lecia Konwencji UNESCO z 1972 roku","authors":"Kamil Zeidler","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.008.18120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.008.18120","url":null,"abstract":"2022 marked the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the 1972 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. On the occasion of this anniversary, the article uncharacteristically contains criticism of both UNESCO itself and doubts about the 1972 Convention. However, all these remarks flow from concern for the fate and future of this international organisation, whose activities and achievements in the protection of the world cultural heritage ultimately deserve recognition. The problems do not merely arise within UNESCO, but rather with other members of the international community, particularly some states and their actions toward the organisation. Problems also arise from the implementation of and compliance with international law. The allegations against UNESCO are organised and discussed here according to three criteria: formalism, time and costs. On the other hand, the 1972 UNESCO Convention itself is presented from two perspectives – first, in the normative layer as an international legal act, which serves as a sui generis constitution of the world’s protection of cultural and natural heritage; and second, in the empirical layer. In the latter context, attention was paid to the role of the UNESCO World Heritage List. Regardless of the criticisms, as well as the weaknesses and problems highlighted, it is clear from the article that it emphasises the value of both the 1972 UNESCO Convention, one of whose main advantages is that it has resisted the passage of time, and the great role of UNESCO itself, as an important international organisation with considerable achievements and merits.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135586022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：