Engaging “Communities, Groups and Individuals” in the International Mechanisms of the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention

Abstract

Abstract:The aim of this article is to examine how the requirement in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC) to ensure the effective involvement of local communities, groups, and individuals (as well as experts, centers of expertise, and research institutions) in the implementation of the Convention can be put into better effect in its international operation. Although examples exist of international treaties that involve non-governmental and other civil society bodies in their implementation at the international level, mostly with regard to Indigenous peoples, the mechanisms for such involvement are still underdeveloped and not wholly satisfactory. Since it has proved difficult to put community participation at the intergovernmental level into practice within the framework of the ICHC, the author seeks to identify approaches that can be usefully employed in the treaty—in particular, by considering participatory models found in other international treaty frameworks in the heritage and environmental protection law fields.

Edu-Communication from Museums to Formal Education: Cases around Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Co-Creative Paradigm

“…Likewise, heritage edu-communication affords the opportunity for ICH to be reactivated, updated and even transformed into new modes of cultural expression by refreshing bonds that provide a creative impulse for contemporary forms of symbolic communication [31]. However, it is worth asking ourselves whether the bonds that these expanded communities forge with such an updated heritage will really manage to endure over time in a sustainable manner [62,80]. As happens with the material manifestations of heritage, the conservation of ICH needs to be educationally addressed in great depth at all levels of the heritagization sequence [30,32].…”

“…The recognition of ICH has been a fundamental driver of change in the nature of the museum institution in the 21st century [19,56,57] by promoting the inclusion of community action and participation in accordance with the paradigms of the new museology [58][59][60][61]. Indeed, one of the main challenges for museums in safeguarding ICH is to achieve the effective participation of the community [62,63]. This point is critical if we are to take into account the identity-based and self-recognized sense of ICH, which, in turn, demands the democratization of the expert-non-expert dynamics that have generally prevailed in expositive languages [64].…”

Preservation and Promotion of Intangible Cultural Heritage - A Participatory Design Approach

“…A major issue concerning the practice of safeguarding heritage is however that policymakers determine what is worth safeguarding and what can be neglected, or even looked upon as a threat to society. This is problematic in terms of decision-making and the UNESCO cultural heritage programme has been criticized for it by various authors, who argue that state institutions can exploit policies in their favour [3], [4], [5] using heritage interventions as political instruments. Though required to consult the heritage bearers, the lack of communication with the relevant groups often goes unnoticed.…”

Assessing the Legal Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Saudi Arabia: A Critical Analysis in the Context of the 2003 UNESCO Convention

“…Facilitating effective collaboration across diverse sectors is a fundamental element in addressing concerns related to intangible cultural heritage at all levels of government and within society (Blake 2019). This collaboration involves implementing legal and administrative measures to capture the diverse nature of ICH and underscore its significance in safeguarding (Blake 2019). The establishment of agreements to address ICH issues facilitates more efficient and coordinated efforts among all stakeholders.…”