Cultural diversity as a concept of global law: Origins, evolution and prospects

Diversity

Volumn 2, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1059-1084

  Burri, Mira ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cultural diversity; Intellectual property protection; International economic law; Media; Scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO); Trade and culture; United nations educational; World trade organization (WTO)

Indexed keywords

CULTURAL ECONOMY; CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY; CULTURAL LANDSCAPE; GLOBALIZATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; THEORETICAL STUDY; UNESCO; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

EID: 84859966495     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14242818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/d2081059     Document Type: Article

References (132)

1. Article 1 of the UNESCO Declaration of Cultural Diversity (2001) states that, "...[a]s a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature".
2. Jackson, J.H. The World Trading System: Law and Policy of the International Economic Relations, 2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.
3. Cottier, T.; Oesch, M. International Trade Regulation; Cameron May: London, UK, 2005.
4. Matsushita, M.; Schoenbaum, T.J.; Mavroidis, P.C. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
5. In spite of its scant institutional framework, the GATT was very successful in reducing tariffs on trade in goods, in particular, in industrial goods from developed countries. In eight negotiation rounds between 1947 and 1994, the average level of tariffs was brought down from over 40% to less than 4%. The first five negotiation rounds: Geneva (1947); Annecy (1949); Torquay (1951); Geneva (1956); Dillon (1960-61), focused on the reduction of tariffs. As from the Kennedy Round (1964-67) onwards, however, the negotiations increasingly focused on non-tariff barriers, which were rapidly becoming a more serious barrier to trade than tariffs. With respect to the reduction of non-tariff barriers, the GATT was notably less successful. Negotiations on the reduction of nontariff barriers were extremely complex and required a more sophisticated institutional framework that could not be provided by the GATT. The Uruguay Round was meant to remedy this.
6. Petito, D.S. Sovereignty and Globalization: Fallacies, Truth, and Perception. NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts 2001, 17, 1139-1172.
7. Bruner, C.M. Culture, Sovereignty, and Hollywood: UNESCO and the Future of Trade in Cultural Products. NYU J. Int. L. & Pol. 2008, 40, 351-436.
8. Trumpbour, J. Selling Hollywood to the World: US and European Struggles for Mastery of the Global Film Industry, 1920-1950; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
9. Article XI GATT, 1867 UNTS 187; 33 ILM 1153, 1994.
10. Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, 27 ILM 281, 1988.
11. North American Free Trade Agreement, 32 ILM 289, 1993. The cultural exception exists only between Canada and both the US and Mexico, but not between the US and Mexico.
12. Article 2005 Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, 27 ILM 281, 1988.
13. The law of the WTO is contained in several agreements, attached as annexes to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO. The GATT, GATS and TRIPs are contained in Annex 1 of the WTO Agreement [1867 UNTS 154; 33 ILM 1144 (1994)]. Other Annexes organise additional aspects of liberalisation such as the dispute settlement procedure (Annex 2), trade policy review mechanism (Annex 3) and certain plurilateral agreements (Annex 4).
14. Pursuant to the WTO Services Sectoral Classification List, Doc. MTN.GNS/W/120, 10 July 1991. Audiovisual services encompass: motion picture and video tape production and distribution services; motion picture projection services; radio and television services; radio and television transmission services; sound recording and others.
15. Galt, F.S. The Life, Death, and Rebirth of the "Cultural Exception" in the Multilateral Trading System: An Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Protection and Intervention in the Face of American Pop Culture's Hegemony. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 2004, 3, 909-935.
16. Articles XVI and XVII GATS, 1869 UNTS 183; 33 I.L.M. 1167, 1994, respectively.
17. Article II: 2 GATS and Annex on Article II Exemptions, 1869 UNTS 183; 33 I.L.M. 1167, 1994.
18. Roy, M. Audiovisual Services in the Doha Round: Dialogue de Sourds, The Sequel? J. World Inv. & Trade 2005, 6, 923-952.
19. The rest of the 18 Members that undertook commitments are mostly developing countries and include the Central African Republic, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gambia, Hong Kong China, India, Israel, South Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Singapore and Thailand. As the result of the accessions in the years after GATS' establishment, there are more and deeper commitments. Countries in the process of European integration or in geographic proximity to the EU undertook much less commitments.
20. Part IV GATS. Article XIX therein states: "In pursuance of the objectives of this Agreement, Members shall enter into successive rounds of negotiations, beginning not later than five years from the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement and periodically thereafter, with a view to achieving a progressively higher level of liberalization".
21. The GATS Annex on Article II Exemptions states that, "[i]n principle, such [MFN] exemptions should not exceed a period of 10 years. In any event, they shall be subject to negotiation in subsequent trade liberalizing rounds". The exemptions should have thus expired in 2005.
22. Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals (Canada-Periodicals); WTO Panel Report, WT/DS31/R. WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, adopted 14 March 1997.
23. Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals (Canada-Periodicals); WTO Appellate Body Report, WT/DS31/AB/R. WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, adopted 30 June 1997.
24. Canadian Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT), New Strategies for Culture and Trade: Canadian Culture in a Global World, 1999, at Executive Summary, paras 1 and 2.
25. European Commission, The EU Approach to the WTO Millennium Round, COM(1999) 331 final, 8 July 1999.
26. Graber, C.B. The New UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity: A Counterbalance to the WTO. J. Int. Econ. L. 2006, 9, 553-574.
27. Katzenstein, P.J., Keohane, R.O., Eds.; Anti-Americanisms in World Politics; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2007.
28. UNESCO. UNESCO and the Issue of Cultural Diversity: Review and Strategy, 1946-2004; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2004; p. 16.
29. Donders, Y. The History of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. In Protection of Cultural Diversity from an International and European Perspective; Schneider, H.; Van den Bossche, P., Eds.; Intersentia: Antwerpen, Belgium, 2008; pp. 1-30.
30. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, World Commission on Culture and Development, A/Res./46/158, 19 December 1991. In Our Creative Diversity, 2nd ed.; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1996.
31. World Culture Report 1998: Culture, Creativity and Markets; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1998.
32. World Culture Report 2000: Cultural Diversity, Conflict and Pluralism; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2000.
33. Information about the membership and activities of the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP). Available online: http://incp-ripc.org/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
34. Acheson, K.; Maule, C. Convention on Cultural Diversity. J. Cult. Econ. 2004, 28, 243-256.
35. Grant, P.S.; Woods, C. Blockbusters and Trade Wars: Popular Culture in a Globalized World; Douglas and McIntyre: Vancouver, Canada, 2004; pp. 380-390.
36. UNESCO 32 C/Resolution 34, Desirability of Drawing up an International Standard-Setting Instrument on Cultural Diversity, 17 October 2003.
37. While the US had been one of the parties involved in UNESCO's founding in 1945, in 1984 it left the organisation due to the starkly diverging views of the US and of developing countries on the propriety of free-market dominance of the world communications order and was a reaction to the 1980 MacBride report, which was viewed by the US as an assault on principles of free speech.
38. US Department of State. About US and UNESCO. Available online: http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/usunesco/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
39. Four countries (Australia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Liberia) abstained.
40. As of 16 March 2010, 109 countries have ratified the Convention. Available online: http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=31038&language=E/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
41. UNESCO, Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, done at Florence, 17 June 1950; updated with the Nairobi Protocol of 26 November 1976. More recent acts are the Council of Europe Declaration on Cultural Diversity, done at Strasbourg, 7 December 2000 and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, done at Paris, 2 November 2001.
42. UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, done at Paris, 16 November 1972.
43. UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, done at Paris, 17 October 2003.
44. Articles 7-11 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
45. Articles 12-19 UNESCO Convention, excluding Article 16, which is of binding nature. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
46. Article 16 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France. 15 October-3 November 2001.
47. Nurse notes in this regard that "the potential scope and impact of preferential treatment under the UNESCO Article 16 is quite narrow. Indeed, it can be argued that the main benefits are defined in terms of cultural cooperation and not in commercial terms. What Article 16 can facilitate are cultural exchanges, training, technical assistance and collaborations. The prospects for advancing the aims of expanding cultural industries and generating cultural exports are limited in scope and consequently it is difficult to see how Article 16 of the Convention, on its own, can adequately contribute to the protection and promotion of diversity of cultural expressions in a rapidly commercializing global cultural economy".
48. Nurse, K. Expert Report on Preferential Treatment (Article 16) in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; UNESCO: Paris, France, 10 October 2008; p. 24.
49. Article 9(a) UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
50. See Article 6(2)(a)-(h) UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France. 15 October-3 November 2001.
51. Article 6(2)(a) UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
52. Article 6(2)(h) UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
53. Footer, M.; Graber, C.B. Trade Liberalisation and Cultural Policy. J. Int. Econ. L. 2000, 3, 115-144.
54. Craufurd Smith, R. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions: Building a New World Information and Communication Order? Int. J. Comm. 2007, 1, 24-55.
55. Article 4(1) defines "cultural diversity" as referring "to the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies find expression. These expressions are passed on within and among groups and societies".
56. The US noted in this regard: "This instrument remains too flawed, too open to misinterpretation, and too prone to abuse for us to support". See Explanation of Vote of the United States on the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, Statement by Louise V. Oliver, US Ambassador to UNESCO, Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, US Department of State. Available online: http://usinfo.state.gov/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
57. Hahn, M. A Clash of Cultures? The UNESCO Diversity Convention and International Trade Law. J. Int. Econ. L. 2006, 9, 515-552.
58. Burri-Nenova, M. Trade versus Culture in the Digital Environment: An Old Conflict in Need of a New Definition. J. Int. Econ. L. 2009, 12, 17-62.
59. Schneider, H., Van den Bossche, P., Eds. Protection of Cultural Diversity from an International and European Perspective; Intersentia: Antwerpen, Belgium, 2008.
60. The UNESCO Convention stresses (in Articles 1(g) and 4(4)) that cultural goods and services have a distinctive nature as "vehicles of identity, values and meaning" and that they intrinsically "embody or convey cultural expressions, irrespective of the commercial value they may have".
61. The Convention's exponents still hope that the Intergovernmental Committee and the Convention's own dispute resolution mechanisms will fill in some gaps, since both allow evolutionary advances, depending on the willingness of the Parties. It should be noted however that the dispute settlement is ultimately not compulsory and the tasks of the Intergovernmental Committee defined in Article 23(6) may not provide a solid legal basis for it to engage in interpretation of the Convention beyond commenting on the state reports.
62. In the narrow sense we mean here, above all, Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and Article 15(1)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).
63. Eide, A. Cultural Rights as Individual Human Rights. In Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2nd ed.; Eide, A., Krause, C., Rosas, A., Eds.; Kluwer Law International: The Hague, Netherlands, 2001; pp. 289-301.
64. Conversi, D. Cultural Homogenization, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide. In International Studies Encyclopaedia Online; Denemark, R.A., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2010.
65. Articles 2(1), 2(3) and 7 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
66. Article 5 UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) states in the relevant part that, "[a]ll persons have therefore the right to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons are entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity; and all persons have the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
67. Recitals 8, 13 and 15 of the preamble; Articles 2(3) and 7(1)(a) UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
68. Recital 17 of the UNESCO Convention's preamble. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
69. Under IPR as a general category, one understands the rights granted to creators and inventors to control the use made of their productions. They are traditionally divided into two main branches: (i) copyright and related (or neighbouring) rights for literary and artistic works and (ii) industrial property, which encompasses trademarks, patents, industrial designs, geographical indications and the layout designs of integrated circuits. In the following, we deal primarily with copyright.
70. Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment; Graber, C.B.; Burri-Nenova, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2008.
71. Benkler, Y. Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information. Duke L. Rev. 2003, 52, 1245-1276.
72. Burri-Nenova, M. User Created Content in Virtual Worlds and Cultural Diversity. In Governance of Digital Game Environments and Cultural Diversity; Graber, C.B.; Burri-Nenova, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; pp. 74-112.
73. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 17: The Right of Everyone to Benefit from the Protection of the Moral and Material Interests Resulting from Any Scientific, Literary or Artistic Production of Which He Is the Author (Article 15(1)(c)), UN Doc. E/C.12/2005, 21 November 2005, para 35.
74. Landes, W.M.; Posner, R.A. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law; Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 11-123.
75. Cohen, J.E. Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory. UC Davis L. Rev. 2007, 40, 1151-1205.
76. Ku, R.S.R. Promoting Diverse Cultural Expression: Lessons from the US Copyright Wars. AJWH 2007, 2, 369-398.
77. Lucchi, N. Countering the Unfair Play of DRM Technologies. Tex. Int. Prop. L. J. 2007, 16, 91-123.
78. Netanel, N.W. Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique. In New Directions in Copyright Law: Volume 6; Macmillan, F., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; pp. 3-34.
79. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, para 8.
80. Lessig, L. Free Culture; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
81. WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3, 2 May 2003, Annex, para 8.
82. WIPO, Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO, Forty-Third Series of Meetings Geneva, September 24 to October 3, 2007, WIPO Doc. A/43/16, 12 November 2007, Annex A.
83. Netanel, N.W. The WIPO Development Agenda and its Development Policy Context. In The Development Agenda: Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries; Netanel, N.W., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1-32.
84. Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. Access to Knowledge under the International Copyright Regime, the WIPO Development Agenda and the European Communities' New External Trade and IP Policy. In Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright; Derclaye, E., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2009; pp. 574-612.
85. Sell, S.K. Cat and Mouse: Forum-Shifting in the Battle over Intellectual Property Enforcement. Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association Meeting, 3-6 September 2009, Toronto. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1466156/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
86. Intellectual Property Watch, Leaked ACTA Text Shows Possible Contradictions with National Laws; Intellectual Property Watch: Geneva, Switzerland, 29 March 2010.
87. Neil, G. How Effectively Does the Convention Respond to the Cultural Challenges of Economic Globalization? 6 March 2006. Available online: http://www.suisseculture.ch/doss/ridc/x-ridc.php/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
88. WTO Appellate Body Report. EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones); WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, para 177.
89. Article 3(2) DSU reads: "The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The Members recognize that it serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law. Recommendations and rulings of the DSB [Dispute Settlement Body] cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements".
90. WTO Panel Report, China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (China-Publications and Audiovisual Products); WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, WT/DS363/R, adopted 12 August 2009.
91. WTO Appellate Body Report, China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (China-Publications and Audiovisual Products); WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 21 December 2009.
92. Pauwels, C.; Loisen, J.; Donders, K. Culture Incorporated; or Trade Revisited? How the Position of Different Countries Affects the Outcome of the Debate on Cultural Trade and Diversity. In UNESCO's Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: Making It Work; Obuljen, N.; Smiers, J., Eds.; Institute for International Relations: Zagreb, Croatia, 2006; pp. 125-158.
93. For instance, Brazil, Japan and India have all ratified the Convention but remain equally willing to engage in further liberalisation of the audiovisual sector.
94. Supported by Germany, Greece, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco and Senegal, and a number of Francophone UNESCO member states.
95. A term used by Dupont, C.; Elsig, M. Trade-And? The World Trade Organization's Fuzzy Borders: A Framework Paper. Paper presented at the Conference "Trade-And? The World Trade Organization's Fuzzy Borders", Geneva, Switzerland, 5-6 February 2009 (draft of January 2009; on file with the author).
96. Burri-Nenova, M. The Law of the World Trade Organization and the Communications Law of the European Community: On a Path of Harmony or Discord? J. World Trade 2007, 41, 833-878.
97. The ongoing round of negotiations, the so-called Doha Development Agenda, started in 2001 with the Doha Declaration. While it was supposed to be completed by 2005, it has stalled, mostly because of the lack of agreement between developing and industrialized countries in the field of agriculture, and its ending is thus still open. For further details and latest information, see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm (Accessed 30 March 2010).
98. WTO. Communication from the European Communities and their Member States: Electronic Commerce Work Programme, S/C/W/183, 30 November 2000, para 6(a).
99. WTO. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce: Submission by the United States, WT/COMTD/17; WT/GC/16; G/C/2; S/C/7; IP/C/16, 12 February 1999.
100. Wunsch-Vincent, S. The Digital Trade Agenda of the US: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multilateral Liberalization. Aussenwirtschaft 2003, 1, 7-46.
101. Wunsch-Vincent, S. Trade Rules for the Digital Age. In GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services; Panizzon, M.; Pohl, N.; Sauvé, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 497-529.
102. Voon, T. A New Approach to Audiovisual Products in the WTO: Rebalancing GATT and GATS. UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 2007, 14, 1-32.
103. Bernier, I. The Recent Free Trade Agreements of the United States as Illustration of Their New Strategy Regarding the Audiovisual Sector, April 2004. Available online: http://www.suisseculture.ch/doss/ridc/x-ridc.php (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
104. Australia, as the most affluent of these states, managed to preserve existing quotas for commercial television and commercial radio. Singapore and Chile were also able to include relatively significant reservations, as did Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Morocco. On the other hand, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua left their audiovisual sectors in practice open to imports.
105. Article 3(i)(1) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Provision of Audiovisual Media Services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (codified version), OJ L 95/1, 15 April 2010 (emphasis added).
106. See e.g., EC-Chile Association Agreement (2002), Part III, Title II "Culture, Education and Audio-visual" and Part IV "Trade and Trade-related Matters".
107. Baltà Portolés, J. The Implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in the EU's External Policies; A briefing note prepared for the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, May 2010.
108. Germann, A. Implementing the UNESCO Convention of 2005 in the European Union; Study prepared for the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, May 2010.
109. Burri, M. Implementing the UNESCO Convention in EU's Internal Policies; A Briefing Note prepared for the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, May 2010.
110. For the ongoing implementation initiatives at UNESCO. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/diversity/convention/ (Accessed 30 March 2010).
111. As Laurence Helfer had observed "complexity enables a strategy of 'regime shifting' whereby states and non-state actors relocate rulemaking processes to international venues whose mandates and priorities favor their concerns and interests". Regime shifting, Helfer argues, is also different from "forum shopping", which involves a change of venue to achieve a single favourable decision. Regime shifting is in contrast a longer-term, iterative strategy that "seeks to create outcomes that have feedback effects in other venues".
112. Helfer, L.R. Regime Shifting in the International Intellectual Property System. Persp. Polit. 2009, 7, 39-44.
113. Articles 14, 16 and 18 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October-3 November 2001.
114. The International Fund for Cultural Diversity is established under the Convention (Article 18). Use of the Fund's resources is decided by the Intergovernmental Committee in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Conference of Parties. The resources of the Fund consist, in particular, of voluntary contributions made by the Parties and gifts or bequests by other States, other regional or international organizations, public or private bodies and individuals. Until end of 2009, only slightly over 2 million USD were collected in the Fund Available online: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38235&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html/ (Accessed on 30 March 2010).
115. Singh, J.P. Culture or Commerce? A Comparative Assessment of International Interactions and Developing Countries at UNESCO, WTO, and Beyond. Int. Stud. Perspect. 2007, 8, 36-53.
116. Voon, T. UNESCO and the WTO: A Clash of Cultures? Int. & Comp. L. Q. 2006, 55, 635-652.
117. The Multilateral Trade Regime: Which Way Forward? The Report of the First Warwick Commission, University of Warwick: Coventry, UK, 2007; p. 26.
118. Krugman, P. Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession. Foreign Affairs 1994, 73, 28-44.
119. Graber, C.B. Handel und Kultur im Audiovisionsrecht der WTO; Staempfli Publishing: Bern, Switzerland, 2003.
120. Giddens, A. Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our Lives; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. With regard to culture, Giddens (p. xxiv) holds: "Western, and more specifically Ame rican, cultural influence is visible everywhere-in films, television, popular music and other areas. Cultural standardisation is an intrinsic part of this process. Yet all this is relatively superficial cultural veneer; a more profound effect of globalisation is to produce greater local cultural diversity, not homogeneity. The United States itself is the very opposite of a cultural monolith, comprising as it does a dazzling variety of different ethnic and cultural groups. Because of its 'push-down' effect [...] globalisation tends to promote a renewal of local cultural identities. Sometimes these reflect wider world patterns, but very often they self-consciously diverge from them".
121. Cowen, T. Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002.
122. O'Regan, T.; Goldsmith, B. Making Cultural Policy: Meeting Cultural Objectives in a Digital Environment. Tel. & New Media 2006, 7, 68-91.
123. Sunder, M. Cultural Dissent. Stan. L. Rev. 2006, 54, 495-567.
124. Raj Isar, Y. Cultural Diversity. Theory, Culture & Society 2006, 23, 371-375.
125. Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2006; p. 2.
126. Anderson, C. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More; Hyperion: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
127. The name "long tail" has to do with the image of a demand curve that gets longer and longer and covers more and more niche "non-hit" products.
128. For instance, by placing a single video on mobile and digital TV networks, on content platforms and social networking websites such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook.
129. Weinberger, D. Everything Is Miscellaneous; Henry Holt: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
130. Goodman, E.P. Media Policy Out of the Box: Content Abundance, Attention Scarcity, and the Failures of Digital Markets. Berkeley Tech. L. J. 2004, 19, 1389-1472.
131. Netherlands Council for Culture. From ICT to E-Culture: Advisory Report on the Digitalisation of Culture and the Implications for Cultural Policy; Netherlands Council for Culture: The Hague, the Netherlands, 2003; p. 8.
132. WTO. Communication from the United States: Audiovisual and Related Services, S/CSS/W/21, 18 December 2000.