Territorial Sovereignty and Humankind's Common Heritage* Cécile Fabre (original) (raw)
Related papers
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019
The paper explores the relation between State sovereignty and the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereafter ICH) pointing out the tension between a Statecentered and a community-oriented approach within the existent protection mechanism. In the first part, the writer outlines the legal framework established by the 2003 UNESCO Convention, examining some of its "sovereignty guarantees". In the second part, she touches upon the particular issue of dealing with "shared ICH" within the UNESCO framework, examining possible responses to the apparent deficiencies towards its more effective safeguarding. Questioning whether ICH is an appropriate field for States to "reaffirm" their sovereignty or it intrinsically challenges the traditional concept of the sovereign State, she discusses the recognition of ICH's cross-border character and the common concern for its safeguarding, as well as the progressive establishment of a right to ICH and the demand for a more active role of its communities in the international safeguarding system, as crucial parameters. How could international law adapt to those challenges and with what cost for sovereignty? The paper was presented in the Agora "Culture As or Against Sovereignty" convened by the Interest Group on International Law of Culture as a contribution to the 2019 ESIL Conference.
Starting from an argument about the relationship between cultural heritage and national and/or community identity, this article considers the different ways in which both the international law regime for the protection of cultural heritage and the international intellectual property regime tend to appropriate cultural heritage. The article argues that, in the post-colonial context, both these forms of appropriation continue to interfere with the demands for justice and for the recognition of historical wrongs made both by Indigenous peoples and by many developing countries. At the same time, the article suggests that these claims are undermined by the misappropriation of the post-colonial discourse with respect to restitution of cultural heritage, particularly in the intra-European context. The article advocates the need for a regime for the protection of cultural heritage that is strong enough to resist its private appropriation through the use of intellectual property rights and nuanced enough to recognise significant differences in the political context of local and national claims to cultural heritage.
Kantian theories of territorial rights currently on offer are attractive for a number of reasons. One advantage over other types of theories is that rights to territory are based on rights relations between persons and not on some mysterious relationship to land as such. They also stress the political ties of peoples rather than appealing to problematic notions such as national identity. Kant's legal and political theory provides a fruitful theoretical framework which allows for many different nuances in accounting for territorial rights, as illustrated by Anna Stilz's functionalist theory and Lea Ypi's permissive theory. In this paper, I argue that although these theories address some plausible intuitions about when limitations on the territorial claims of states should obtain, more work needs to be done in order to provide a more systematic account of these limitations.
Jurisdictional Capacity and Landscape Heritage
2020
Amongst the citizens of the Mediterranean archipelagic state of Malta, the current broad understanding of landscape as heritage is that it is a key component of the tourism industry but somewhat dead and alien to daily modern life. In its material expression, heritage is tolerable and acceptable as long as it is functional; highly appreciated if appropriated as a private good; but insufferable if it clashes with private and individual interests, foremost amongst which is construction. Moreover, the relationship of the Maltese with the past is also disengaged, elusive and uncertain: they remain bereft of a unifying national consciousness that includes some general agreement about the salient features of their own history, thanks in part to a fierce, political factionalism. And yet, this paper argues that the Maltese may be energized to develop a better appreciation for their island and its past, if a stronger sense of national identity, and a 'progressive sense of place' are introduced. This would appear much more feasible on the smaller island of Gozo than on the main island of Malta. A virtuous cycle could develop between a stronger sense of pride in local landscape heritage as a working, living culture which in turn fosters sustainable development, both of these being driven by a securing and flexing of a stronger jurisdictional capacity.
Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization
In article, two cases relating to the restitution of archaeological heritage will be presented. Political, ideological and moral issues will be deliberated alongside the problem of human rights and the recommendations of the UNESCO Conventions (1970; 1972). The first is the well-known and still unresolved discussion between the Greek government and representatives of the British Museum over the return of the 'Elgin Marbles'. This debate, which has been ongoing for many years, has not yet to reach a satisfactory conclusion and the economic and political crisis that Greece has been experiencing over recent years has not aided the Greek case. The second is the probably lesser-known debate between the Peruvian government and representatives of Yale University in New Haven (USA) concerning the return of artifacts from the 'Machu Picchu collection', which were taken out of the Republic of Peru by the team of the American professor, Hiram Bingham, one hundred years ago. It is an unusual case, since the right to possession and access to national cultural heritage was eventually respected and the collection of exported artifacts returned.
The World Heritage Convention and the Law of State ResponsibilityPromises and Pitfalls
2020
Under many UNESCO instruments there is a disconnect between the language of the treaties and the mechanics of the positive law, on the one hand, and the actuality of international heritage management practice, on the other. Specifically, existing primary norms often do not set sufficiently clear legal obligations. This chapter explores this mismatch with a focus on (concurrent) State responsibility in the context of the World Heritage program. It focuses specifically on two different levels of State involvement in heritage protection: (1) multinational heritage nominations and (2) heritage that is listed by only one State, but that is also of interest to another State. The 1972 World Heritage Convention places heritage squarely within the territorial State’s sovereignty, even if it does recognize that States have a duty to cooperate in the protection of world heritage in other States as well. The duty of cooperation is seen as eroding State sovereignty, but critics also highlight th...
Territory, Resource Rights and Rivers: A Philosophical Case for Overlapping Jurisdiction
2015
Territory (terra-tory) is about politically controlling a region of earth. Sociologists and political geographers look at territory as a historical feature of ouar political landscape. They investigate how actual territories are formed, of what they consist, and how they are maintaineda. Philosophical inquiries have a different target. They question the normative features of territory, asking about the moral justification of territorial rights. Who has moral standing to hold a territorial right? What morally justifies political control over resources? If a group has a territorial right, over which exact objects is that right held? The latter question motivates this essay. One might wonder how high into the atmosphere a territorial right should extend, how deep underground, or how far out across the seas. One might also wonder whether territorial rights should include vast uninhabited areas, such as much of the Sahara Desert. A particularly tricky question probes the nature of territ...
Property, Territory and Sovereignty: Justifying Political Boundaries
in Ian Hunter et al (Eds) *Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty:Moral Right and State Authority in Early Modern Political Thought*, 2002
How can political boundaries be justified? My main aim in this chapter is to explore the territorial dimensions of early modern accounts of sover- eignty. In so doing, however, my approach is deliberately both historical and normative. Tracing the historical lineage of state territoriality helps shed light, I believe, on contemporary struggles over political boundaries. Why care about excavating a principle of territoriality in the first place? It has become almost a commonplace of contemporary political science and po- litical philosophy that we live in an increasingly de-territorialised world, given the intensification of the forces of globalisation. But political bound- aries remain and are fought over. If sovereignty is being increasingly dis- persed and as a result boundaries blurred, then we still need an account of the nature of these emergent boundaries, of the forms of re-territorialisation taking place. One step along that path is to understand the conceptual tools we have inherited and which continue to shape our thinking about the relation between sovereignty and territory.