Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Between Imagined Communities of Practice

 | 
Nicolas Adell
, 
Regina F. Bendix
, 
Chiara Bortolotto
, 
et al.

Community and Territory from Legal Perspectives

The Territorial Condition for the Inscription of Elements on the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Benedetta Ubertazzi

Texte intégral

1 Abstract

1A territorial condition for the inscription on the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage was posed by two Decisions adopted by the Committee in Bali. It was thereby established that in future, the Committee will not inscribe on the Lists elements that focus on practices within the territories of States different than the ones nominating the elements. On the one hand, this condition for inscription promotes cooperation amongst State Parties in the field of Intangible Cultural Heritage, since the inscription of an element with practices performed in territories of several States can only be achieved for all the practices at stake through multinational nominations. On the other hand, the condition of territoriality may hinder inscription on the Lists and the corresponding safeguarding of elements, since it is complex to propose multinational nominations. Moreover, this condition reserves the inscription and therefore the safeguarding of one element to only its territorial State, therefore problems may arise if this State has not ratified the Convention of 2003 and so may not be able to nominate the element at stake, or if it does not have sufficient resources to do so, or otherwise does not want to nominate the element in question. Furthermore, the new condition of territoriality prevents a State Party from nominating an element that is located wholly or partly in the territory of a different State, paradoxically even if the latter consents. The condition of territoriality was then applied during the Committee’s eighth session in 2013, in relation to an element nominated by Azerbaijan for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List. Yet, the issue arises in regards to the legality of the Decisions of the Committee posing the territorial condition examined here.

2 The Territorial Condition Established by the Bali Committee of 2011

  • 1 The UNESCO General Conference adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultur (...)
  • 2 On NGOs and the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention see Torggler, Sediakina-Rivière, an (...)
  • 3 Evaluation of nominations for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of U (...)

2In its sixth session in Bali (22-29 November 2011) the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereafter: the Committee) inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (hereafter: List of Urgent Safeguarding), established by the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereafter: the 2003 Convention),1 11 new elementsfrom 23 nominations submitted to the Committee and examined by the Consultative Body, consisting of six representatives of non-governmental organizations (hereafter: NGOs)2 accredited under the UNESCO 2003 Convention and six individual experts. Some State Parties had voluntarily withdrawn seven nominations that the Consultative Body3 examined and considered did not conform to the inscription criteria. Five other nominations which the Consultative Body considered incomplete were returned to the respective State Parties to allow resubmission of revised nominations for the next cycle of nominations, after the responses to the issues raised by certain State Parties of the Committee given by the nominating States were considered insufficient by the same Committee to grant their inscription.

  • 4 Evaluation of nominations for inscription on the Representative List is accomplished by a Subsidia (...)

3On the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (hereafter: the Representative List) 19 elements were inscribed, of which just one was a multinational element as will be explained hereafter. The 54 nominations presented were reduced to 49, as a number were withdrawn by State Parties before their evaluation by the Subsidiary Body of the Committee,4 because the nominating State Parties had not completed their respective nomination files in time. The 49 nominations presented were then further reduced to 38 because 11 were withdrawn by the interested State Parties after the Subsidiary Body examined them negatively.

  • 5 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)
  • 6 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)

4Among the elements proposed for inscription on the List of Urgent Safeguarding that were referred to the submitting State Parties was “Ashoogh love romance: performance, music and text of the Armenian bard tradition.” This element was maintained by Armenia even though it had been evaluated negatively by the Consultative Body and had been criticised by Azerbaijan since it related to certain practices within its territory. Following the debate on the Armenian element in the Decision denying its inscription on the List of Urgent Safeguarding, the Committee invited Armenia to submit a revised nomination that better adheres to the criteria for evaluation by the Committee in a subsequent cycle, focusing on the meaning of this practice within its territory, while recognising its continuity with other related singing traditions, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims of its uniqueness, particularly those ascribing such uniqueness to religious factors.5 Furthermore, in the Decisions about the inscription on the Representative List and the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Committee underlined that nominations to these Lists should concentrate on the situation of the element within the territory(ies) of the submitting State(s) while at the same time acknowledging the existence of same or similar elements outside its territory (ies), and further outlined that submitting States should not refer to the viability of such Intangible Cultural Heritage outside their own territories, or attempt to characterise the safeguarding efforts of other States.6

  • 7 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)
  • 8 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 201, Deci (...)

5Extraterritorial practices were (for example) referred to by the nomination file of the French element “Equitationin the French tradition,” which was inscribed on the Representative List in Bali (“although practised throughout France and elsewhere, the most widely known community is the Cadre Noir of Saumur, based at the National School of equitation”);7 and by the nomination file for the element “Chinese Zhusuan, knowledge and practices of arithmetic calculation through the abacus,” which in Bali was referred for a subsequent cycle of inscriptions because it did not fully adhere to the criterion related to inventory, to which we will refer hereafter (“China and many other countries have Zhusuan clubs and associations that are responsible for teaching, research and organizing competitions”).8

  • 9 On the other conditions for inscription see Bortolotto 2008; Scovazzi 2011; Ubertazzi 2011.
  • 10 See Decision 6.COM 13. See Puglisi 2012.
  • 11 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 201, Deci (...)

6It is therefore apparent that a new condition for the inscription on the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage is posed by the Decisions adopted by the Committee in Bali. It was thereby established that in future, the Committee will not inscribe on the two Lists elements that focus on practices within the territories of States different than the ones nominating the elements at stake.9 On the one hand, this new condition for inscription promotes cooperation amongst State Parties in the field of Intangible Cultural Heritage; the inscription of an element with practices performed in territories of several States can only be achieved for all the practices at stake through multinational nominations, which encourages both the principle of peaceful coexistence among peoples, and the original objectives of UNESCO.10 On the other hand, the condition of territoriality may hinder inscription to the Lists and the corresponding safeguarding of elements. In general, it is problematic to propose multinational nominations, as recognised by the same Bali Decision under examination, which states that the Committee “encourages State Parties to submit multinational nominations while recognizing the complexity they present to the collaborating State Parties and communities”11; and as demonstrated by the Bali session in which only one multinational nomination was inscribed on the Representative List, namely “Cultural practices and expressions linked to the Balafon of the Senufo communities of Mali and Burkina Faso,” originally nominated by three State Parties - Mali, Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire - but only inscribed in favour of two of them - Mali and Burkina Faso - since Côte d’Ivoire had not completed its respective nomination file in time. In certain cases, the proposal of these multinational nominations proves impossible, for example, when the States concerned are at war with one other, or are experiencing bad relations for whatever reason. Moreover, the new condition for inscription reserves the inscription and therefore the safeguarding of one element to only its territorial State, therefore problems may arise if this State has not ratified the Convention of 2003 and so may not be able to nominate the element at stake, or if it does not have sufficient resources to do so, or otherwise does not want to nominate the element in question. Furthermore, the new condition of territoriality prevents a State Party from nominating an element that is located wholly or partly in the territory of a different State, paradoxically even if the latter consents.

3 The Territorial Condition Applied by the Baku Committee of 2013

  • 12 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth s (...)
  • 13 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth s (...)
  • 14 The letter was posted on the Convention website at www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=fr&pg=6 (...)
  • 15 Ibidem: 2.

7The territorial condition was then applied during the Committee’s eighth session in 2013,12 in relation to the element “Chovqan, a traditional Karabakh horse-riding game,” which was nominated by Azerbaijan for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List.13 In fact, on October the 28th 2013, the Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Chairman to the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organizations sent to the Secretariat a letter,14 which was based on a position of a number of NGOs15 and local communities, groups and individual practitioners. The letter emphasized that since traditional versions of the Karabakh horse-riding game are performed in Iran also, a multinational nomination had to be submitted, rather than a purely national one.

  • 16 Section I.5 of the Operational Directives on “Multi-national files” includes paragraphs 13 and 14. (...)
  • 17 See the letter that was sent to the Secretariat for the Committee on November 14, 2013 by the Mini (...)

8To concentrate on the situation of the element within its territory, Azerbaijan then renamed its element to “Chovqan, a traditional Karabakh horse-riding game in the Republic of Azerbaijan.” Also, Azerbaijan avoided any references to the viability of the element outside its own territory in the audio-visual material related to the element and submitted during the nomination process. In addition, Azerbaijan recalled paragraph 14 of the Operational Directives, according to which once inscribed an element might be extended to become a multinational nomination through cooperation with other interested countries.16 Azerbaijan, then, welcomed the opportunity to discuss such an extension with the Islamic Republic of Iran and other States in future cycles.17

  • 18 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth s (...)

9Thus, the Committee considered this in line with its Decisions adopted in Bali 6.COM 7 and 6.COM 13, and inscribed the element in question on the List of Urgent Safeguarding.18

4 Legality of the Territorial Condition

10The Committee may of course make Decisions: Rule no. 34, paragraph 1, of the “Rules of Procedure of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage” in fact states that the Committee shall adopt Decisions and recommendations as it deems appropriate. The adoption of Decisions also comes within the competence of the Committee implicitly under Article 7(a) of the 2003 Convention, according to which the Committee shall promote the objectives of the 2003 Convention and encourage and monitor the implementation thereof; and explicitly under Article 7(g) of the 2003 Convention, according to which the Committee shall examine nominations for inscription submitted by the State Parties and decide on them. However, it is clear that no Decision of the Committee may be contrary to the Convention of 2003, given that the Committee cannot amend the 2003 Convention, and since its Decisions are controlled by the General Assembly of State Parties (hereafter the General Assembly) pursuant to Article 8 of the 2003 Convention, according to which the Committee responds to the General Assembly and reports on all its activities and decisions. The General Assembly is the “sovereign body” of the 2003 Convention (Article 4 of the Convention) and ensures its implementation. Therefore, if the Committee were to make a Decision contrary to the 2003 Convention, the decision would be unlawful.

  • 19 See Bortolotto 2010; Kono and Wrbka 2010; Scovazzi 2009; Ubertazzi 2010, 2011.
  • 20 See Scovazzi 2012.

11The issue then arises in regard to the legality of the Decisions of the Committee relating to the territorial condition examined here. It should be noted that like many of the international instruments for the Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 is characterised by a tension between the territorial sovereignty of States and the universal interest of the international community.19 This tension naturally arises from the same character of culture, which is typically in itself of a universal interest, and manifests itself with particular intensity when it comes to Intangible Cultural Heritage elements, which have no specific physical location anchored to one relevant territory, but on the contrary may “belong” to more than one State, or be “transferred” from one State to another, for example when the community bearer of an element migrates to another country.20

12In this respect, the 2003 Convention contains an initial set of rules emphasising the territorial link between State Parties and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Article 2 of the 2003 Convention defines Intangible Cultural Heritage as including the “cultural spaces associated” with its expressions and practices; Article 11 on the “role of States Parties” prescribes that “each State Party shall: (a) take the necessary measures to ensure the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory”; Article 12 on “inventories” provides that each State Party shall draw up inventories related to the Intangible Cultural Heritage present in its territory; Article 13 on “other measures for safeguarding” establishes that each State Party shall adopt specific measures to ensure the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage present in its territory; Article 23, paragraph 1, on “requests for international assistance” outlines that “each State Party may submit to the Committee a request for international assistance for the Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory”.

  • 21 The first version of the Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention defines, (...)

13In contrast, a second group of provisions of the 2003 Convention emphasises the universal interest of the international community to safeguard the Intangible Cultural Heritage wherever located: The Preamble to the 2003 Convention highlights “the universal will and the common concern to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of humanity”; Article 1.5.13 of the “Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” (hereafter: the Operational Directives)21 encourages State Parties to jointly submit multinational nominations for inscription on the two Lists provided by the 2003 Convention, by treating them in a more favourable way than national nominations; also relevant to this point is Article 17, paragraph 3, of the 2003 Convention, to which we will return.

  • 22 See United Nations Treaty Series 1980, vol. 1155, I-18232, p. 331.
  • 23 See Bortolotto 2012 on the condition of territoriality in regards to the requirement for inclusion (...)
  • 24 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)

14As for the legality of the Decisions of the Committee relating to the territorial condition examined here, in respect to the Representative List, Article 16 of the 2003 Convention adopts the wording of “States concerned”, does not require any condition of territoriality, and refers to the criteria for inscription to be established by the Committee. These criteria can be found in the Operational Directives. In particular, the criterion R5 refers to the “Submitting States” rather than to the “States concerned”, as opposed to Article 16 of the 2003 Convention, and as such this criterion is interpreted to mean only nominating States. This interpretation is in accordance with the practice of States in their application of the 2003 Convention, as prescribed in Article 31, paragraph 3(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.22 This same criterion then establishes a condition of territoriality by requiring that the inscription of an element on the Representative List occurs only if the element is included in an inventory of intangible cultural heritage within the territory of the nominating State.23 Thus, with Decision 6.COM 13,24 the Bali Committee interpreted the condition of territoriality established in criterion R5 restrictively, establishing that the inscription of an element on the Representative List can only happen when the nominated element relates to practices within the territory of the nominating State. This limited interpretation of the criterion R5 is undoubtedly permissible, and is justified by the need to reserve to State Parties sovereignty in deciding whether and when to nominate for inscription practices related to an element that exist within their respective territories.

  • 25 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)
  • 26 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Dec (...)
  • 27 See Scovazzi 2009.
  • 28 See Economides 2003.

15In respect to the List of Urgent Safeguarding, Article 17 of the 2003 Convention adopts the wording of the “State party concerned”, does not require any territorial condition, and refers to the criteria for inscription to be established by the Committee. These criteria are found in the Operational Directives. In particular, criterion U5 corresponds to criterion R5 as aforementioned, and similarly establishes a condition of territoriality, which the Committee has also interpreted narrowly with Decision 6.COM 7.25 Therefore, the same exclusions apply to this last Decision, mutatis mutandis, as to Decision 6.COM 13.26 Yet, with regard to the list of Urgent Safeguarding, Article 17, paragraph 3, distinguishes specific cases of extreme urgency and states that for such cases the Committee may inscribe an element “in consultation with the State Party concerned.” Furthermore, criterion U6 provides that in cases of extreme urgency, “the State Party(ies) concerned” must be “duly consulted regarding inscription of the element in conformity with Article 17.3 of the 2003 Convention.” Thus, according to Article 17, paragraph 3, and criterion U6, in cases of extreme urgency, inscription on the List of Urgent Safeguarding can happen after consultations with the State Party concerned, and even in the absence of any explicit request by that State Party. In these situations, the “State party concerned” can be distinguished from the territorial State, and correspondingly a State Party with a cultural link to a certain Intangible Heritage is entitled to nominate for inscription on the List an element that is wholly or partly in the territory of a different State Party.27 Article 17, paragraph 3, and criterion U6 are based on the need to safeguard Intangible Cultural Heritage that is in extreme danger, even when the territorial State that could nominate the element at danger does not want to or cannot do so.28

5 Conclusion

16In this framework the following conclusion can be drawn. First, Decision 6.COM 13 of the Bali Committee which establishes the condition examined here, of territoriality for inscription on the Representative List, is compatible with the Convention of 2003, and is therefore lawful. Second, Decision 6.COM 7 of the Bali Committee, which interpreted the condition of territoriality narrowly, appears to be compatible with the process for inscription to the List of Urgent Safeguarding, save in cases of extreme urgency. In fact, in situations where Intangible Cultural Heritage is in extreme danger and therefore in need to be safeguarded by States other than the territorial one, the Decision at stake appears to be contrary to the 2003 Convention, and therefore unlawful.

Bibliographie

References

Berliner, David, and Chiara Bortolotto (2013): Introduction. Le monde selon l’UNESCO. Gradhiva 18: 4–21. http://gradhiva.revues.org/2696 <accessed January 2014>

Blake, Janet (2006): Commentary on the UNESCO 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.

Bortolotto, Chiara (2008): Il processo di definizione del concetto di ‘patrimonio culturale immateriale’: elementi per una riflessione. In Il patrimonio immateriale secondo l’UNESCO: analisi e prospettive. Chiara Bortolotto, ed. Pp. 7–48. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

– (2010): Addio al territorio? Nuovi scenari del patrimonio culturale immateriale. Lares, Rivista Quadrimestrale di studi demoetnoantropologici 76 (3): 355–374.

– (2012): Gli inventari del patrimonio culturale intangibile – quale “partecipazione” per quali “comunità”? In Il patrimonio culturale intangibile nelle sue diverse dimensioni. Tullio Scovazzi, Benedetta Ubertazzi, and Lauso Zagato, eds. Pp. 75–92. Milano: Giuffrè.

Economides, Constantin (2003): Intersessional Working Group of Government Experts on the Preliminary Draft Convention of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 22-30 April, par. 19. Paris: UNESCO, available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgibin/ulis.pl?database=ged&lin=1&mode=e&gp=0&look=default&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&req=2&au=Economides,%20Constantin, <accessed January 2014>

Francioni, Francesco (2011): The Human Dimension of International Cultural Heritage Law: An Introduction. European Journal of International Law: 9–16.

– (2012): Public and Private in the International Protection of Global Cultural Goods. European Journal of International Law 23: 719–730.

Kono, Toshiyuki (2007): UNESCO and Intangible Cultural Heritage from the Viewpoint of Sustainable Development. In Standard-Setting in UNESCO, Volume I: Normative Action in Education, Science and Culture, Essays in Commemoration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of UNESCO. Arief Anshory Yusuf, ed. Pp. 237–265. Paris: UNESCO.

– ed. (2010): The Impact of Uniform Laws on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kono, Toshiyuki, and Gerard Wrbka (2010): General Report. In The Impact of Uniform Laws on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century. Kono Toshiyuki, ed. Pp. 1–8. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Lixinski, Lucas (2011): Selecting Heritage: The Interplay of Art, Politics and Identity. European Journal of International Law 22: 81–100.

– (2013): Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martens, Kerstin (1999): The role of NGOs in the UNESCO System. Transnational Associations No. 2: 68–82.

– (2001): Non-governmental Organisations as Corporatist Mediator? An Analysis of NGOs in the UNESCO system. Global Society 15: 387–404.

Picchio Forlati, Maria Laura, ed. (2014): Il patrimonio culturale immateriale di Venezia come patrimonio europeo. Venezia: Ca’ Foscari Ed., available at http://virgo.unive.it/ecf-workflow/upload_pdf/Sapere_Europa_1.pdf, <accessed January 2014>

Puglisi, Giovanni (2012): Prefazione. La dimensione interdisciplinare del patrimonio culturale intangibile. In Il patrimonio culturale intangibile nelle sue diverse dimensioni. Tullio Scovazzi, Benedetta Ubertazzi, and Lauso Zagato, eds. Pp. xvii–xx. Milano: Giuffrè.

Scovazzi, Tullio (2009): Le concept d’espace dans trois conventions UNESCO sur la protection du patrimoine culturel. L’Observateur des Nations Unies: 7.

– (2010): La Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoin eculturel immatériel. In International Law: New Actors, New Concepts – Continuing Dilemmas: Liber Amicorum Božidar Bakotić. Budislav Vukas and Trpimir Šošić, eds. Pp. 301–317. Leiden: Brill.

– (2012): La Convenzione per la salvaguardia del patrimonio culturale intangibile. In Il patrimonio culturale intangibile nelle sue diverse dimensioni. Tullio Scovazzi, Benedetta Ubertazzi, and Zagato Lauso, eds. Pp. 3–28. Milano: Giuffrè.

Scovazzi, Tullio, Benedetta Ubertazzi, and Lauso Zagato, eds. (2012): Il patrimonio culturale intangibile nelle sue diverse dimensioni. Milano: Giuffrè.

Sola, Angélique (2008): Quelques réflexions à propos de la Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel. In Le patrimoine culturel de l’humanité – The Cultural Heritage of Mankind. James A. R. Nafziger and Tullio Scovazzi Tullio, eds. Pp. 487–528. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Srinivas, Burra (2008): The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. In Le patrimoine culturel de l’humanité – The Cultural Heritage of Mankind. James A. R. Nafziger and Tullio Scovazzi Tullio, eds. Pp. 529–557. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Torggler Barbara, Ekaterina Sediakina-Rivière, and Janet Blake (2013): Evaluation of UNESCO’s Standard-setting Work of the Culture Sector. Part I – 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Executive Summary, October. www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/ITH-13-8.COM-INF.5.c-EN.doc, <accessed January 2014>

Ubertazzi, Benedetta (2010): Territorial and Universal Protection Of Intangible Cultural Heritage From Misappropriation. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 8: 69–106.

– (2011): Su alcuni aspetti problematici della convenzione per la salvaguardia del patrimonio intangibile. Rivista di diritto internazionale 94: 777–798.

– (2013): UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and NGOs. Italian Yearbook of International Law.

– (2014): NGOs and the UNESCO Convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Institutionalization and networking, rather than deaccreditation. In Il patrimonio culturale immateriale di Venezia come patrimonio europeo. Maria Laura Picchio Forlati, ed. Pp. 115-130. Venezia: Ca’ Foscari Ed., available at http://virgo.unive.it/ecfworkflow/upload_pdf/Sapere_Europa_1.pdf, <accessed January 2014>

Zagato, Lauso (2008): La Convenzione sulla protezione del patrimonio culturale intangibile. In Le identità culturali nei recenti strumenti UNESCO. Lauso Zagato, ed. Pp. 27–70. Padova: Cedam.

Zingari, Valentina (2014): Ascoltare i territori e le comunità. Le voci delle associazioni non governative (ONG). In Il patrimonio culturale immateriale di Venezia come patrimonio europeo. Maria Laura Picchio Forlati, ed. Pp. 71–92. Venezia: Ca’ Foscari Ed., availableat http://virgo.unive.it/ecfworkflow/upload_pdf/Sapere_Europa_1.pdf, <accessed January 2014>

Notes

1 The UNESCO General Conference adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on October 17, 2003 following a series of expert meetings in 2002 and 2003. The 2003 Convention entered into force on April 20, 2006, three months after the ratification of the 30th State (Romania). The first General Assembly took place on June 2006 for the election of the first Intergovernmental Committee. As of November 20, 2013, the 2003 Convention has been ratified by 157 States. The tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention is currently being celebrated and offers a wide range of actors the opportunity to make an initial assessment and to explore the key challenges, constraints, and possibilities related to its implementation. All stakeholders involved in the safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage are invited to share the events and activities they organize to celebrate this anniversary on the UNESCO web site. All activities can therefore be immediately consulted on a map, a calendar, and a list in their original language. Seehttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00482, <accessed January 2014>. In general, on the 2003 Convention see Berliner, Bortolotto 2013; Blake 2006; Forlati 2014; Francioni 2011, 2012; Kono 2007, 2010; Lixinski 2011, 2013; Sola 2008; Srinivas 2008; Scovazzi 2010; Scovazzi, Ubertazzi, and Zagato 2012; Ubertazzi 2010, 2011; Zagato 2008.

2 On NGOs and the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention see Torggler, Sediakina-Rivière, and Blake 2013; Ubertazzi 2014; Zingari 2014. On NGOs in the UNESCO system in general see Martens 1999, 2001.

3 Evaluation of nominations for inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, of proposed programmes, projects and activities that best reflect the principles and objectives of the 2003 Convention and of International Assistance requests greater than US $ 25,000 is accomplished by a Consultative Body of the Committee established in accordance with Article 8.3 of the 2003 Convention by the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention (hereinafter: General Assembly) in 2010. The Consultative Body is composed of six accredited NGOs and six independent experts appointed by the Committee, taking into consideration equitable geographical representation and various domains of intangible cultural heritage.

4 Evaluation of nominations for inscription on the Representative List is accomplished by a Subsidiary Body, composed of representatives of six member States of the Committee among which was Italy.

5 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decision 6.COM 8.1, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

6 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decisions 6.COM 7 and 6.COM 13, that are available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

7 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decision 6.COM 13.14, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

8 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 201, Decision 6.COM 13.4, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

9 On the other conditions for inscription see Bortolotto 2008; Scovazzi 2011; Ubertazzi 2011.

10 See Decision 6.COM 13. See Puglisi 2012.

11 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 201, Decision 6.COM 13.4, that is available on the Convention website at:http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, , <accessed January 2014>.

12 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth session, Baku, Azerbaijan, 2 to 8 December 2013, decision 8.COM 6.a. With this decision, the Committee submitted to the General Assembly the «Examination of the reports of States Parties on the implementation of the Convention and on the current status of elements inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity», as annexed to the same decision and as presented in document ITH/13/8.COM/6.a on Examination of the 2013 reports, <accessed January 2014>. This document is available on the Convention website at:http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00473 . The reports were submitted Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Hungary, Madagascar, Oman, Senegal, and Turkey, and account for a total of 26 elements inscribed on the Representative List and two Best Safeguarding Practices (no elements on the Urgent Safeguarding List). The reports submitted by the States Parties are available online on the website of the Convention athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/8COM/reports, <accessed January 2014>.

13 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth session, Baku, Azerbaijan, 2 to 8 December 2013, decision 8. COM 7.1, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00473, <accessed January 2014>.

14 The letter was posted on the Convention website at www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=fr&pg=635, <accessed January 2014>. This correspondence was then removed from this website after the inscription of the element at stake on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding.

15 Ibidem: 2.

16 Section I.5 of the Operational Directives on “Multi-national files” includes paragraphs 13 and 14. During the eighth session of the Committee, in Baku, a Decision was adopted to recommend to the General Assembly to revise the Operational Directives to establish a procedure not only for extension, but also for reduction of multinational files jointly submitted by two or more States Parties. Also, with the same Decision it was recommended to the General Assembly to revise the Operational Directives to establish a procedure not only for extension of multinational files jointly submitted by two or more States Parties, but also for extension of elements present in the territory of a single State Party (so called serial elements). So, paragraph 14 was substituted by a new paragraph 16, which is inserted in a new section I.5 bis of the Operational Directives on “inscription on an extended or reduced basis”. See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth session, Baku, Azerbaijan, 2 to 8 December 2013, decision 8.COM 13.c, that is available on the Convention website at:http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00473, <accessed January 2014>.

17 See the letter that was sent to the Secretariat for the Committee on November 14, 2013 by the Minister of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan, in response to the letter sent by the Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Chairman to the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organizations. The letter was made available to the author by one of the delegates.

18 See Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Eighth session, Baku, Azerbaijan, 2 to 8 December 2013, decision 8. COM 7.1, that is available on the Convention website at../../../../../../../../EaysBlockStruct/http/www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00473, <accessed January 2014>.

19 See Bortolotto 2010; Kono and Wrbka 2010; Scovazzi 2009; Ubertazzi 2010, 2011.

20 See Scovazzi 2012.

21 The first version of the Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention defines, among other things, the modalities for the inscription on the UNESCO Lists, the granting of financial assistance, and the submission of periodic reports, and was adopted by the General Assembly on 19 June 2008 (Resolution 2. GA 5).

22 See United Nations Treaty Series 1980, vol. 1155, I-18232, p. 331.

23 See Bortolotto 2012 on the condition of territoriality in regards to the requirement for inclusion on an inventory.

24 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decision 6.COM 13, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

25 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decision 6.COM 7 that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

26 See Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (6.COM) – Bali, Indonesia, November 2011, Decision 6.COM 13, that is available on the Convention website athttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00362, <accessed January 2014>.

27 See Scovazzi 2009.

28 See Economides 2003.

Auteur

University of Macerata

© Göttingen University Press, 2015

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access