Scholarlink

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) was adopted in 1948, 76 years ago. It has clear antecedents. Its descendants are not as rich, and the post-World War II world order has been crumbling for decades. However, the growing awareness of situations where fundamental rights are being violated is not necessarily due to increased violations or even new forms, but rather to heightened awareness and an expansion of their scope. Establishing a new form of organisation and functioning for the (new?) international institutions will require a profound revision of the concept of human rights. They will likely have to transition from being universally recognised to being regarded and desired as universal. While the form and scope of what is enshrined therein remain an essential pillar of international law, it is also evident that its focus and scope are inadequate. Accompanying the growing role it plays in day-to-day life, the right to culture and the operative tool of this, cultural heritage, should be fully recognised. In this chapter, I discuss the journey undertaken and the significance of incorporating cultural heritage as a fundamental right for individuals and the communities it encompasses in this desired revision, or replacement, of the 1948 declaration or/in a new document that fully replaces it. The ongoing discrete discussion regarding the complete integration of culture as a fundamental asset for sustainable development in the post-2030 agenda is one manifestation of establishing the context for this advance. However, it is not the only one. Criticism of the World Heritage System and the rise of cultural heritage as a human rights issue have emerged. They are growing in the so-called Global South countries, where endogenous heritage assets coexist with those resulting from colonisation processes. Alongside the debate on restitution, the increasing urgency of recommendations and actions for involving communities in the decisions that most directly affect them will also inherently constitute the expression of a new right, which implicitly raises a crucial question regarding cultural heritage: who has the right to define it?

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Human Right to Cultural Heritage

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Walter Rossa

摘要

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) was adopted in 1948, 76 years ago. It has clear antecedents. Its descendants are not as rich, and the post-World War II world order has been crumbling for decades. However, the growing awareness of situations where fundamental rights are being violated is not necessarily due to increased violations or even new forms, but rather to heightened awareness and an expansion of their scope. Establishing a new form of organisation and functioning for the (new?) international institutions will require a profound revision of the concept of human rights. They will likely have to transition from being universally recognised to being regarded and desired as universal. While the form and scope of what is enshrined therein remain an essential pillar of international law, it is also evident that its focus and scope are inadequate. Accompanying the growing role it plays in day-to-day life, the right to culture and the operative tool of this, cultural heritage, should be fully recognised. In this chapter, I discuss the journey undertaken and the significance of incorporating cultural heritage as a fundamental right for individuals and the communities it encompasses in this desired revision, or replacement, of the 1948 declaration or/in a new document that fully replaces it. The ongoing discrete discussion regarding the complete integration of culture as a fundamental asset for sustainable development in the post-2030 agenda is one manifestation of establishing the context for this advance. However, it is not the only one. Criticism of the World Heritage System and the rise of cultural heritage as a human rights issue have emerged. They are growing in the so-called Global South countries, where endogenous heritage assets coexist with those resulting from colonisation processes. Alongside the debate on restitution, the increasing urgency of recommendations and actions for involving communities in the decisions that most directly affect them will also inherently constitute the expression of a new right, which implicitly raises a crucial question regarding cultural heritage: who has the right to define it?