This chapter explores cultural heritage as a key component of cultural identity, encompassing tangible, intangible, and natural heritage, and examines how it is protected within the European human rights framework. While international law increasingly adopts a human-rights-based approach to heritage, the European Convention on Human Rights does not recognize a standalone right to cultural heritage. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights protects heritage interests indirectly, through existing rights such as private and family life (Article 8), freedom of religion (Article 9), expression and association (Articles 10–11), non-discrimination (Article 14) and property rights (Protocol No. 1). The chapter highlights the Court’s growing sensitivity to the collective dimension of cultural heritage, particularly where religious sites, historical property, or cultural goods are central to community identity, while also noting persistent limits linked to victim status, state discretion, and balancing with public interests. It concludes that cultural heritage under the Convention functions as a derivative and relational interest, lacking autonomous status, yet increasingly visible as a protected element of democratic pluralism and social continuity.

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

Right to Cultural Heritage

  • Nikolaos Gaitenidis

摘要

This chapter explores cultural heritage as a key component of cultural identity, encompassing tangible, intangible, and natural heritage, and examines how it is protected within the European human rights framework. While international law increasingly adopts a human-rights-based approach to heritage, the European Convention on Human Rights does not recognize a standalone right to cultural heritage. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights protects heritage interests indirectly, through existing rights such as private and family life (Article 8), freedom of religion (Article 9), expression and association (Articles 10–11), non-discrimination (Article 14) and property rights (Protocol No. 1). The chapter highlights the Court’s growing sensitivity to the collective dimension of cultural heritage, particularly where religious sites, historical property, or cultural goods are central to community identity, while also noting persistent limits linked to victim status, state discretion, and balancing with public interests. It concludes that cultural heritage under the Convention functions as a derivative and relational interest, lacking autonomous status, yet increasingly visible as a protected element of democratic pluralism and social continuity.