Selecting heritage: The interplay of art, politics and identity

European Journal of International Law

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 81-100

  Lixinski, Lucas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954504918     PISSN: 09385428     EISSN: 14643596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chr001     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. 'Status of ratifications to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage' (2003), available at: http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=17116&language=E (last accessed 18 July 2010).
2. In the 19th century Norway, then under Swedish rule, ventured into creating the concept of 'True Norwegianness', built precisely round the celebration of folk culture, including costumes and festivals. Folk culture was then re-introduced in smaller villages, an improved version of a cultural distinctiveness then disappearing or vanished. The use of costumes and dialects generated a sense of pride and spurred the quest for authentic Norwegian identity, which ultimately fuelled the political independence movements in the country.
3. See Oxaal, 'Bunaden: stagnasjon eller nyskapning', in Øystein Sørensen (ed.), Jakten på det norske. Perspektiver på utviklingen av en nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet (1998), at 141.
4. And Seip, 'Det norske "vi":kulturnasjonalisme i Norge', in Øystein Sørensen (ed.), Jakten på det norske. Perspektiver på utviklingen av en nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet (1998), at 95. Interestingly enough, Sweden also engaged in this process of identity-building through folk culture during the same period.
5. See B. Ehn, J. Frykman and O. Löfgren, Försvenskningen av Sverige; Det nationallas förvandlingar, Natur och Kultur (1993), at 140. Many thanks go to Mats Ingulstad for his assistance with the Norwegian and Swedish sources.
6. See Lixinski, 'The Future of the EU Cultural Policy in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage', 1 Prague Yrbk Comparative L (2009) 119.
7. See Blake, 'UNESCO's 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The implications of community involvement in "safeguarding"', in L. Smith and N, Akagawa (eds), Intangible Heritage (2009), at 45, 45.
8. See Bouchenaki, 'A Major Advance towards a Holistic Approach to Heritage Conservation: the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention', 2 Int'l J Intangible Heritage (2007) 106.
9. See J. Blake, Commentary on the UNESCO 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2006), at 15.
10. On the connection between intangible heritage and sustainable development see Kono, 'UNESCO and Intangible Cultural Heritage from the Viewpoint of Sustainable Development', in A.A. Yusuf (ed.), Standard-Setting in UNESCO Volume 1: Normative Action in Education, Science and Culture (2007), at 237.
11. See G.J. Ashworth, B. Graham, and J.E. Tunbridge, Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies (2007), at 3.
12. On how indigenous culture has been translated as heritage and what this means in terms of the weakening of their political claims see K. Engle, The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strategy (2010), at 141-161.
13. See Form ICH-02 (2009) - Representative List, Explanatory Note, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
14. General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (June 2008), available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich (last accessed 9 Apr. 2009). Rule 77.
15. See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 'Report of the Rapporteur of the subsidiary body on the modalities for the participation of communities or their representatives, practitioners, experts, centers of expertise and research institutes in the implementation of the Convention', presented at the Second Extraordinary Session (Sofia, Bulgaria, 18-22 Feb. 2008), Doc. ITH/08/2.EXT.COM/CONF.201/INF.4, of 12 Feb. 2008, at para. 12.
16. See Form ICH-09 (2009) - Request from an NGO for Accreditation, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
17. See Form ICH-01 (2009) - Urgent Safeguarding List and Form ICH-01 (2010) - Urgent Safeguarding List, both available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184. The two forms are virtually identical, except for the timeframe they propose, as the first form refers to the first round of inscriptions in the urgent safeguarding list, while the other form refers to the second round.
18. See Form ICH-01 (2009) - Urgent Safeguarding List and Form ICH-01 (2010) - Urgent Safeguarding List, Explanatory Note, at para. 4(b). Both forms are available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
19. See Form ICH-01 (2009) - Urgent Safeguarding List and Form ICH-01 (2010) - Urgent Safeguarding List, Explanatory Note, at para. 4(c). Both forms are available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
20. See Form ICH-01 (2009) - Urgent Safeguarding List and Form ICH-01 (2010) - Urgent Safeguarding List, Explanatory Note, at para. 5(b). Both forms are available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
21. See Simon, 'Global Steps to Local Empowerment in the Next Millenium: An Assessment of UNESCO's 1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore', in P. Seitel (ed.), Safeguarding Traditional Culture: A Global Assessment (2001), at 111, 113.
22. See UNESCO, The Intangible Heritage Lists, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00011&;inscription=00003&type=00003 (last accessed 28 Dec. 2009).
23. See Intangible Heritage Convention, Nomination Form for Inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List - Suiti Cultural Space, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?USL=00314 (last accessed 27 Dec. 2009).
24. See Suiti Cultural Space, Documentation on Consent of Communities, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00314-Community%20consent-EN.pdf (last accessed 27 Dec. 2009).
25. For a comparison see Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Second Extraordinary Session (Sofia, Bulgaria, 18-22 Feb. 2008), Decision 2.EXT.COM 17 (Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on its activities between the first and second sessions of the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention, at paras 11-19).
26. See UNESCO, Report on the Expert Meeting on Criteria for Inscription on the Lists Established by the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Paris, 5-6 Dec. 2005).
27. See Form ICH-02 (2009) - Representative List, Explanatory Note, at para. 2.
28. All the information regarding these nominations is available as downloadable files along with the description of each element inscribed in the listL see UNESCO Intangible Heritage, The Intangible Heritage Lists, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00011 (last accessed 14 Mar. 2010).
29. The College of Europe is an international institution (and thus not a Belgian Academic Institution), and in many ways a sister institution to the European University Institute, receiving students from numerous countries across Europe and the world. The letter of support of its President is noteworthy for indicating how the Holy Blood Procession is an important part of the College's efforts to integrate its international studentship into the Bruges local community.
30. One important factor to be taken into account regarding the existence of representative entities is the example of the PROMAYA incident. In this project, relating to the exploitation of Maya traditional culture by an outsider, an association was created by the developers of the research project themselves in order to represent the Mayan community and give free, prior, and informed consent. This entity failed genuinely to connect with the Mayan people, however, and was discredited, eventually harming the research project.
31. For a detailed account see Dalibard and Kono, 'Prior Informed Consent: Empowering the Bearers of Cultural Traditions', in T. Kono (ed.), Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property: Communities, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development (2009), at 247, 253-258.
32. See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, First Extraordinary Session (Chengdu, China, 23-27 May 2007), Discussion on the Implementation of Article 18 of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Doc. ITH/07/1.EXT.COM/CONF.207/11, of 20 Apr. 2007.
33. See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Second Session (Tokyo, Japan, 3-7 Sept. 2007), Preliminary draft directives for implementing Article 18 of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Doc. ITH/07/2.COM/CONF.208/12, of 30 July 2007.
34. See Form ICH-03 (2009) - Programmes, Projects and Activities, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184.
35. See Intangible Heritage Convention, Nomination Form for Best Practice - Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Aymara Communities in Bolivia, Chile and Peru, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?Art18=00299 (last accessed 27 Dec. 2009).
36. The Tango made it to the Representative List through the first round of inscriptions. For more information, including the nomination forms, see UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention, The Intangible Heritage Lists: The Tango, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?RL=00258 (last accessed 27 Dec. 2009).
37. For the account of how Tango was 're-appropriated' by Argentineans and became their national intangible heritage after being praised abroad see S. Scafidi, Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law (2005), at 28-31.
38. See UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention, The Intangible Heritage Lists: Tibetan Opera, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?RL=00208 (last accessed 27 Dec. 2009).
39. See in this regard Silverman and Ruggles, 'Cultural Heritage and Human Rights', in H. Silverman and D.F. Ruggles (eds), Cultural Heritage and Human Rights (2007), at 3, 11-12, using a different example of subordination of the Tibetan culture, involving a road construction project which created a cultural route. A similar situation happens in Burma, where identities and manifestations of intangible heritage which are ethnically Burman and Buddhist are given preferential treatment by the government, at the expense of minority groups.
40. On the Burma example see Philp, 'The Political Appropriation of Burma's Cultural Heritage and its Implications for Human Rights', in M. Langfield, W. Logan, and M. Nic Craith (eds), Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in Theory and Practice (2010), at 83.
41. Another example is the declaration of Macao religious figure carving as intangible heritage. This type of woodwork creates religious figures related to the Chinese ancestry, and a recent exhibition in the Macao Museum around these wooden figures can be considered as promoting a perennial intangible heritage which survived in Macao despite the Portuguese control of the peninsula. As Macao has been reincorporated into China, there is obviously an interest in promoting a surviving political national identity which can relate Macao to 'mainland China'.
42. See Trabalhos com Engenho: Escultura de Ídolos Sagrados de Macau (2008) (the book of the exhibition of the same title, which is proclaimed as national intangible heritage. The exhibition ran from Dec. 2008 to Apr. 2009).
43. See J. Blake, Developing a New Standard-Setting Instrument for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Elements for consideration (2001), at 70.
44. See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Report of the Rapporteur of the subsidiary body on the modalities for the participation of communities or their representatives, practitioners, experts, centers of expertise and research institutes in the implementation of the Convention, presented at the Second Extraordinary Session (Sofia, Bulgaria, 18-22 February 2008), Doc. ITH/08/2.EXT.COM/CONF.201/INF.4, of 12 Feb. 2008. Annex 1.
45. See L. Smith, The Uses of Heritage (2006), at 44.
46. UNESCO, Extracts of States Parties' comments on possible modalities for the participation of communities or their representatives, practitioners, experts, centers of expertise and research institutes in the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Working document prepared by the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Jan. 2008), at para. 62.
47. See General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Third Session (UNESCO Headquarters, 22-24 June 2010), Resolutions, Resolution 3.GA 5, Doc. ITH/10/3.GA/CONF.201/RESOLUTIONS, of 24 June 2010, at paras 100-102.
48. For a more positive outlook on the matter see Kurin, 'Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Key Factors in Implementing the 2003 Convention', 2 Int'l J Intangible Heritage (2007) 10, at 15.
49. Regina Austin, for instance, has argued that the commodification of black culture through the creation of the Kwanzaa holiday has led to the empowerment of black identity: see Austin, 'Kwanzaa and the Commodification of Black Culture', in M.M. Ertman and J.C. Williams (eds), Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture (2005), at 178.