Examples can be found from ancient times of concern for the protection of cultural artefacts and early legislation to protect monuments and works of art first appeared in Europe in the 15th century. Cultural heritage was first addressed in international law in 1907 and a body of international treaties and texts for its protection has been developed by UNESCO and other intergovernmental organisations since the 1950's. The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of UNESCO (henceforth the “Hague Convention”) is the earliest of these modern international texts and was developed in great part in response to the destruction and looting of monuments and works of art during the Second World War. It grew out of a feeling that action to prevent their deterioration or destruction was one responsibility of the emerging international world order and an element in reconciliation and the prevention of future conflicts. International law relating to the protection of cultural heritage thus began with comparatively narrow objectives, the protection of cultural property in time of war.
This article aims to examine how far our experience of implementing UNESCO's Intangible Heritage Convention, which was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in April 2006, over the last seven years has transformed our understanding of intangible cultural heritage and of its safeguarding. There have been, of course, both positive and negative impacts thus far as well as both unexpected and, thus far, unknown outcomes. The Convention broke new ground, introducing new terminology and new definitions of existing terms and requiring a reexamination of some approaches to international and national law making and policymaking. When considering the impact of the 2003 Convention internationally, we need to look, inter alia, at its impact on international policymaking (including cultural policy, the sustainable development agenda and indigenous rights), related developments in other areas of international law (including human rights and environmental law), and the way in which states treat shared heritage that crosses international frontiers. On the national level, we should consider how the Convention may have contributed to creating a new paradigm for identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH), shifting the focus of significance, redefining the role of non-state actors vis-à-vis state authorities in this process and, even, moving the idea of national heritage away from a purely state-driven concept.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : I would like to thank my fellow participants at the Symposium in Honor of John Henry Merryman (Stanford Law School, November 2013) for their pertinent comments to the version of this paper presented at that meeting and to the organizers of this meeting for providing this opportunity. I would also like to thank my anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments and criticisms that have made this a better paper. Lastly, I wish to acknowledge the enormous debt that all of us working in this field owe to Professor Merryman for his pioneering work.
292JANET BLAKE Important questions to consider include whether the Convention has resulted in the development of new national policy strategies for (a) promoting the function of ICH in society and (b) integrating ICH into planning and development programs and how effectively Parties have managed to engage communities, groups, and individuals in the aforementioned activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.