INTANGIBLECULTURALHERITAGEINNATIONALLAWS

Summaryoverviewofthe“Osmose“researchreport

SideeventduringtheseventhsessionofthegeneralassemblyofStatepartiestothe2003conventionforthesafeguardingofintangibleculturalheritage.

Adialoguewiththe2003UNESCOConvention

Paris,June6,2018

2

3

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Theauthorsareresponsibleforthechoiceandpresentationofviewscontainedinthisconceptnoteandforopinionsexpressedtherein,whicharenotnecessarilythoseofUNESCOanddonotcommittheOrganization.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Authors:LīgaĀbele,MarieCornu,JérômeFromageau,CleaHance,LilyMartinet,VincentNégri,AnitaVaivade,NoéWagenerDesign:MarieTrape

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.-PRESENTATIONOFTHEOSMOSEPROGRAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ManagedbyAnitaVaivade(LatvianAcademyofCulture)andMarieCornu(ISP-CNRS),theFranco-LatvianprogramOsmose aims at studying through a comparative approach the different national experiences in relation tointangibleculturalheritage.ThegoaloftheresearchprogramistounderstandhowthelawapprehendsthenotionofintangibleculturalheritageandtheinfluenceexertedbytheConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage(hereaftertheConvention)onlawatthenationalandlocallevel.Theproject“Osmose”iscarriedoutbyaFrench-Latvianteamofresearchers-MarieCornu,JérômeFromageau,CléaHance,LilyMartinet,VincentNégri,NoéWagener,CatherineWallaert,LīgaĀbeleandAnitaVaivade.TheprojectalsobenefitedfromthecontributionsofChristianHottin,EmilieTerrier,MarieTrape,DaceBula,SanitaPretkalniņaandDainaTeters.TheprojectreceivedthesupportfromaScientificCommittee(seeAnnex1)andwasmadepossiblethankstothecollaborationoftherespondents (seeAnnex2)whocontributedtothecollectofinformation.The Osmose program is funded by the Latvia-France Cooperation Program ‘Osmose’, the Latvian NationalResearchprogram‘Habitus,’andtheFrenchMinistryofCultureandCommunication.TheprojectisalsosponsoredbytheInternationalSocietyforResearchonArtandCulturalHeritageLaw(ISCHAL)andbytheIntangibleHeritageSectionofUNESCO.

1.1.-PROGRESSOFTHEOSMOSEPROGRAMThefirstbienniumoftheOsmoseprogram(2014-2015)wasdevotedtosettingacommonframeworktoundertakethecomparativestudyandidentifyingresearchdirection.Thesecondbiennium(2016-2017)wasusedtosetasharedcomparativemethodandtodecidethemainaxesofresearch.Aqualitativequestionnairewasdraftedandaddressedtorespondentsattheendoftheyear2016.Theanswersgatheredhaveoftenbeencomplementedandcommented by staff members of governmental institutions in charge of intangible cultural heritage,anthropologistsandethnologistsfromthevariousStates.Twenty-fourStatespartiestotheConventionfromdifferentregionsoftheworldanddiverselegaltraditionswerestudied:Algeria,Belgium,Brazil,China,Congo,Egypt,Estonia,France,Germany,Iceland,Iran,Italy,Kenya,Latvia,Madagascar,Malawi,Mali,Mexico,Morocco,Poland,Spain,Switzerland,Zambia,andZimbabwe.Inaddition,thechoicewasmadetoincorporatewithinthescopeoftheresearchtwonon-partyStatestotheConvention(theUnitedStatesandCanada)inordertoenrichthecomparison.Thestudywasundertakenjustbeforethetenthanniversaryoftheentry intoforceoftheConvention.Thus, itgivestheopportunitytoanalysehowthisinternationalinstrumentinfluencedthelawsofseveralStatepartiesandnon-partiesinitsearlyyears.Itoffersapanoramaofnationalexamplesandexperiencesdrawnfromtwenty-sixStates. The authors of the study hope that this comparative perspective will reinforce the interest in the

4

developmentofintangibleculturalheritagelawinthevariousStates.Severalthematicseminarsopentothepublicwereorganizedtodeepenthestudyofcertainaspectsofintangibleculturalheritagelaw,notablyonthedevelopmentoftheconceptofintangibleculturalheritage(Paris,November4,2014),onsubjectiverightsrelatedtointangibleculturalheritage(Riga,September8,2017),aswellasonlabelsandotherlegalmechanismsofintangibleculturalheritage(Paris,November10,2017).Onthebasisofthesedocumentsandexchanges,afinalreportoftheresearchwasdrafted.Itwillbepublishedbeforetheendoftheyear2018.Thepresentdocumentpresentsthemainconclusionsofthisreport.

1.2.-OBJECTANDAXESOFRESEARCH

Inordertounderstandthelinksbetweennationallawsandthe2003Conventionandidentifythedifferentlayersit iscomposedof, it isnecessarytoapproachthecategoryof“intangibleculturalheritage”withina longtermhistorical trajectory. Laws related to ICH are dispersed thematically and with diverse content and levels ofnormativity.Theselawsarenotalwaysmeanttoestablishdefinitelegalregimes;insteadtheymaybesoftasfordutiesandobligations.Also,insomecountriesnewICHlawsarebeingdrafted,orheritagelawsbeingamendedinordertointegrateICHtherein.But“ICH,”asaterm,isoftennotdirectlyusedinlegaltextsthatdealwithissuesthatmaybeconceptualisedasbeingpartofICH.Asaconsequence,oneoftheproject’scontributionsistotakeintoconsiderationtheselessevidentorinvisibleformsoflegalregulationsinrelationtoICH.Theprojectcapturesand demonstrates such rich legislative diversity, it provides examples and cases of already existing legislativeapproachesandnewrightsthatcouldberecognised.

ThehypothesisattheheartoftheOsmoseprojectisthatintangibleculturalheritagerepresentsaninterestingvantagepointtoobservetwodynamicsofculturalheritagelaw:

- Adynamicofglobalizationoflaw,aswenoticethatnationallaws–someofwhichhavebeendevelopingfor decades tools to protect folklore, language or traditional know-hows – are being restructured inrelationtothisnewcategoryofculturalheritage,

- Adynamic throughwhich laws are becomingmore complex:wewitness in the domain of intangibleculturalheritage,moreandmoreinstancesoflawsofdifferentnatureinteractingtogether(Statelaw,locallaw,personalandgrouprights;individualrightsandcollectiverights;rightstoprotectone’sheritageandrightsofone’sheritagetobeprotected;etc.).Thisdynamicobviously,compelsustoreconsidertheequilibriumthattraditionallydefinesthelegalprotectionofculturalheritage.

Inthiscontext,theteamofresearchersoftheOsmoseprojecthasidentifiedseveraloverarchingaxisthatstructurethecomparativestudy.

- ThefirstaxisexploreshoweachStatehasinvestedthecategoryof“intangibleculturalheritage,”andhowadialoguewasestablishedbetweenthe2003Convention,theirrespectivelegalsystemandtheirpastexperiences.

- The second axis focuses on interactions between intangible cultural heritage law and three otherbranchesofthelawthatwereparticularlyidentifiedascomplex:humanrights,environmentallaw,andintellectualpropertylaw.

- Thethirdaxisaimsatanalysingdifferentprocessesofformulating,inlegaltermsandatthenationallevel,safeguardingmeasuresofintangibleculturalheritage.

- Theforthaxisoffersareflexiononlegalclaimsbroughtinrelationtointangibleculturalheritageissuesfromthestudyofcaselaw.

5

2.-THESTANCEOFSTATESTOWARDSTHECATEGORYOF“INTANGIBLECULTURALHERITAGE”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Followingtheadoptionofthe2003ConventionandconsideringthegreatnumberofStateparties,thecategoryof “Intangible Cultural Heritage” is today part of the political and legal vocabulary of many States, it is alsotranslatedinmanylanguages.Thisdynamiccanleadustothinkthatthelawisglobalizing,notablyataconceptuallevel. Nevertheless, it also compels us to take notice of variations and differences in theways that this newcategoryisperceived,adaptedanddevelopedbythevariousnationallegalsystems.TherelationshipbetweentheConvention and the national legal systems is not a one-way dynamic, but manifests real dialogues, as theinfluenceshavebeenreciprocal:TheConventionhavingoriginallybeeninspiredbynationalexperiences.

The first axis of the “Osmose” research questions the various historical contexts this category of heritageintegratesbytakingunderconsiderationtheterminologyalreadyinplaceandpreviouslyused,oratthesametime(2.1.).TheConventionalsoreferstoothernotionsthatareintimatelylinkedtothisheritage,henceourfocusonthenotionof“community”andthewayitwastranslatedinnationallegislations(2.2.).Thisresearchalsolooksintothevarietyofwaysnationallegislationsdefinethenotionof“IntangibleCulturalHeritage.”Inordertodosoweanalysedthedevelopmentprocessesofnationalinventories(2.3.)Finally,thescopeofICHvariesinrelationtothechoicesmadebytheStatesandtheexampleofthevarietyofstatusesgrantedtoLanguageisagoodillustrationofthisphenomenon(2.4.).

2.1.-LINKINGNEWLAWWITHALEGALPAST

TheConventionwasdevelopedinrelationtothelegaltoolsalreadyexistingininternationallaw,suchasthe1972WorldHeritageConvention, but also in relation tonational legislations in place, amongstwhich the Japaneselegislationisoneofthemostcited.Inmanycases,nationallegislationshaveprecededinternationallawinthefieldofICH.Atthenationallevel,therearedifferentconceptualandterminologicaltrajectoriesthatcanbelinkedtoICH,evenifothertermsareactuallybeingused.

Ingeneral,thefirstlegislationspertainingtoculturalheritagethatthenationStatesadoptedexpresstheinitiallogics of the legislator in relation to the categorization of heritage. Some of the legislations adopted at thebeginningofthe20thcenturyalreadymentionedcategoriesofICHelementstojustifythenecessityofprotectingsometangibleculturalheritage:forinstance,“oldtraditions”and“folklorememories”inFrance,or“legendsofthepeople”inLatvia.Wecanalsonoteattemptstoconceptualizethisheritageinsomediscussionsevenbeforethesefirstlegislationspertainingtoculturalheritagewereeveradopted.Forinstance,therewasanattempttocategorize“themonumentsof languageand traditions (folklore)of thepeople”asa sub-categoryofmovableculturalproperty(Latvia),butthepropositionwasnotretainedinthefinalversion.

More recently,oneyearbefore theadoptionof theConvention, thenotionof “Masterpiecesof theOral andIntangibleHeritage”wasused,notonlybyUNESCOattheinternationallevel,butalsobytheFrenchCommunityin Belgium, where it found echo in a national legislation. Rapidly, this notion was strongly criticized in theinternational community, who preferred to substitute this paradigm of differentiation by a more inclusiveapproach, invitinga largerrecognitionof ICH.Nevertheless,thegeneralchange interminologybroughtbythe2003Convention,doesnotimplyaradicaleliminationofalltraditionalconceptsatthenationallevel.Forinstance,theterms“folklore”and“intangibleculturalheritage”canbefeaturedinthesamelegislation.InLatvia,theformerisusedtonameaninstitution,anarchivethathasbeeninfunctionsincethe1920s.Thehistoryof institutionsdemonstratesthattheterm“folklore”hasbeenusedthroughoutthe20thcentury,fromitsearlyyears(Belgium)andalsoinitssecondhalf(USA,Iceland),andsometimescurrentlyinsomeplaces.Conversely,someStatesalreadyreferredto thecriteriaof“intangibility” in relationtoculturalheritagebeforetheadoptionof theConvention(Algeria,Brazil).

Sincetheentry intoforceoftheConvention,wecanobserveatrendofadoptionofnewlegaltools, includingnationallegislationsinwhichthenotionof“intangibleculturalheritage”iscentral(forinstance,amongsttheStatesstudied:China,Spain,LatviaandMadagascar).OthersincorporatetheirdesireforthesafeguardofICHintheir

6

lawspertainingtoculturalheritageingeneral(Latviaiscurrentlyadoptingsuchamendments),andsometimesbydirectlyreferringtothe2003Convention(France).

Various national legislations addressed the question of the safeguard of ICH long before the adoptionof theConvention,butitisreallywiththeConventionthattheprincipleofparticipationwaseffectivelyputforwardasbeingfundamentalforthesafeguardingofICH.StatesaregraduallystartingtodefineparticipatoryrightsaswellasrightsnottoparticipatetothesafeguardofICH(Latvia).Insuchacontext,thenotionofcommunityiscrucial,designatingsubjectsofrights(forinstancebydefiningvariationsinthedefinitionoftheterm“community,”whichisthecaseinLatvia)whoareattheheartoftheidentificationofICHandsubsequentlyofitssafeguarding.

2.2.-RECEIVINGINDOMESTICLAWCONCEPTSBORNBYTHECONVENTION:FOCUSONTHENOTIONOFCOMMUNITY

The2003Conventionpropelsnewactors,aggregatedunder thenotionofcommunity,within thedesignationspaceofwhatisrecognizedasculturalheritage.BeforetheConvention,thisspacewasenclosed,reservedtoStateorgans.Article2oftheConvention,throughthedefinitionof ICH, introducescommunitiesasguarantoroftherecognitionofthisheritageandassuch,establishestheminthegameof institutionalizedactors. Inthisgame,communitiesactastheyeastofaprotectionprocessof ICH,and, inthatwake,ofthepromotionofaculturalexperience.Thecommunityisthespaceofaculturalexperience.

Nevertheless, the 2003 Convention did not introduce for the first time in International law the notion ofcommunityasawaytodesignateasocialgroup.Indeed,thepoliticalandterritorialconflictsduringthe19thand20thcenturytorepeoplesapartandproducedminorities,singledoutunderthetermcommunity;theuseofthisterminologyaimedatside-liningthesegroupsfromthenation-State,positioningthematthefringes–outerlimits– of the State. The specificity of a community expresses itself through cultural attributes, recognized to beimmediatelyconfined–“communitarised”- in the third-spaceofadominantcultureor religion.Thenotionofminority,thatthenotionofcommunitytherebycovers,stemsoutfromthisdynamic(notablyseetheadvisoryopinionofthePermanentCourtofInternationalJustice,TheGreco-Bulgarian“communities,”July31st,1930).

The2003Conventionusesthenotionofcommunityinanotherway.Throughthisinstrument,internationallawhenceforthinitiatesadynamicofintegratingcommunitiesinthepoliciesandpreservationprocessesofculturalheritage.Thecommunity,thusintegratedinthegameofactors,isoneofthesymptomsofarewritingofthesocialcontract,inwhichtherightofindividualstotakepartintheworkingsoftheStateisheightened,amovementinactionsincethe1990s.

Intheelaborationofthenationallegislationspertainingtotheidentification,promotionorsafeguardingofICH,andalongsidetherecognitionoftheactionandimportantrole–promotingfunction–ofthecommunities,itisnotsomuchaninversionoftherecognitionmechanismthatoccursbutratheraredistribution,evenascattering,of theprerogativesof recognitionanddesignationof ICH. Indeed, thecommunitiesarenotsubstitutedtotheState.ThespaceallottedtocommunitiestranspiresmoreonthegroundofthecollectiverepresentationuponwhichtheStateprojectsitsidentity,thanwithintheinstitutionalstructuresoftheStatethemselves.Wecanthusobservethattheideaof“onepeople”and“oneNation”willimpactthenatureandthescopeoftheprerogativesofthecommunities,evenontheirdesignationinordertoaffiliatethemtoexistingsocialstructures.

The notion of community represents a portal for dynamics of sharing, of participation and access to culturalheritage.Itrenewsthewordingsofnational laws,whichareadapted,elaborated,modified,toincorporatetheintangibledimensionofculturalheritage.Thenotionofcommunityinthedefinitionanduseofnationalpoliciespertainingtoculturalheritagealsoproducesanambivalence:itoperatesatthesametimeasubjectificationofthegroups and populations, by transforming them into communities, and an objectification of practices andexpressionsofthesecommunities,bytransformingthemintoculturalheritage.Thecommunity,alignedwithICH,isafictionthatestablishesapermanency:ononeside,ICHisaresourcethattheStateusestomanagepopulationsorsocialgroups;onetheotherside,culturalheritagerepresentsaleverageforcommunitiestoassertthemselvesbeforetheState.

7

2.3.-THEINVENTORYASADEFINITIONALTOOLOFICH

IftheConventionanditsimplementationhaveofteninfluencedthedevelopmentoftheinventories,someStateshavenonethelesstakenlibertiesinthechoiceofthecriteriaandcategoriesthatUNESCOotherwisepromotes.Thus,Kenyahaswovenarelationshipwithtangibleheritagebyusingthecategoryofculturallandscape.AsforGermany,itcreatedthecategoryofelementsofself-organizedandcivilsociety.Thesenewcategoriesareoftenat the fringe of the category of intangible cultural heritage. In a similarway, some States diverged from thetraditionalcriterialistedbytheConventiontoregisteracertainintangibleculturalheritage.Malawirequestsforinstance, that theelementsmustbeanonymous.Brazil considers thatanelementmustbeof interest for thenationalmemory,theidentityandtheconstitutionofitssociety.AspartoftheframeworkoftheOsmoseproject,thereasonsforrefusingtoinventoryacertainintangibleculturalheritagewerealsostudiedtobetterunderstandwhatweresomeofthelimitssetonthiscategory.Forinstance,animalwelfareandtheneedtoencouragedialoguebetweencommunitiesjustifiedinItalytherefusaltoregisterthePaliodeSienneandtheGiostradelSaracino.

2.4.-DEFININGTHEPERIMETEROFICH:FOCUSONLANGUAGE

Whenapproachedfromthevantagepointofnationallegislation,languageisagoodexampletounderstandhowthescopeofthedefinitionofICHvariesfromoneStatetoanother.ToimplementtheConvention,someStatessimplyreinvestthelogicinitiatedbythe2003Convention,othersrefertolanguageasanICHelementinitsownright.Forinstance,oneofthesub-categoriesof“ICH”intheEstonianinventoryis“languageanditspoeticgenres”andsixelementsfromvariousdialectsareregistered.

Furthermore,thewaysbywhichStatesapproachandframethequestionoflanguageinrelationtothenotionofheritageisveryenlighteningontheinteractionbetweenICHlawandlanguage.Thequestionnairesstudiedintheframework of theOsmose project illustrate the richness of legal approaches pertaining to language.We canidentifythreemainseriesofmechanisms.1/Someusethecategoryofheritagetodesignatelanguageandapplytoitaspecificregime(sharedheritageornationalheritage).Moreoften,andinaratherdisconcertingway,thisidentificationthroughheritageisnotformulatedintermsofICH,atleastnotexplicitly.2/Inamajorityofcases,languagesareconsideredthroughtheprismofhumanrights(useoflanguageinprivateandpubliclife,accesstolawandjustice,righttotranslation,etc.)and,again,notthroughICHlaw.HerethecaseoftheKashubianlanguageinPolandcouldbementioned:ithasthestatusofaregionallanguage,andtheeducationrightstothislanguageareestablished.Whentheclaimtoaprotectionoflanguagerisesfromalinguisticcommunity,wecouldnaturallybeledtothinkthatthe2003Conventionoffersapertinentframework.But,asmadeevident,ICHlawdoesnotrepresentthemainvectorforprotectionoflanguage,evenwhenpresentedthroughitsheritagedimension.Whatare theobstacles that impede language tobe,moreoften, consideredasan ICH?3/Most likely, theneed toformalize linguistic rights to the benefit of individuals and groups, implies themobilization of othermotives,notablyintherealmofhumanrights.Inaway,thisphenomenonstressesthecontradictionsandweaknessesofthe2003Convention.ButwecouldjustaswellclaimthatnothingrefrainsStatestolegallyinvestbywayofICHcertainnotionsleftoutinthe2003text.Inthiscase,iftheICHtoolaccordingtotheConventiondoesnotmeetthelegalexpectationsintermsoflinguisticrights,itcouldnonethelessbeusedtosupportaclaimonarighttoalanguage. Hence, the question that should be explored is the one to knowwhat could be the convergencesbetweenthe2003Conventionandlinguisticrights.

8

3.-INTERACTIONSBETWEENINTANGIBLECULTURALHERITAGEANDOTHERLEGALFIELDS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ICHisaverycrosscuttingcategoryofculturalheritageitselementsconnecttoagreatvarietyofsocialrealities.Hence, ICH safeguarding issues manifest themselves in legal domains that were not usually associated withheritagepreservation.TheanswerstothequestionnairesputforwardthreelegalbranchesthataresensitiveinthesafeguardingofICH:environmentallaw(2.1.),humanrights(2.2.)andintellectualpropertylaw(2.3.).

3.1.-INTERACTIONSWITHENVIRONMENTALLAW

CommunitiescreateICHinrelationtotheirenvironment,theirinteractionswithnature.Accordingtoarticle2oftheConvention,thisICHistransmittedfromgenerationtogeneration,itisconstantlyrecreatedbycommunitiesandgroupsinresponsetotheirenvironment,theirinteractionwithnatureandtheirhistory.Agricultural,pastoralpractices,modesof logging, fishing,huntingand foragingare tightly linked to thespecificitiesof thedifferentnatural spacesonwhich theyareapplied: for instance,humid zones, irrigated zones (saltedponds,wetlands,peatland,alluvialplains,etc.).Inthisframework,thereexistsaprofoundinterdependencybetweenculturalandnatural heritage. ICH refers to technics that notably aim at regulating the access to natural resources to theadvantageofthecommunities,andthusinadurableway.SafeguardingtheseelementsofICHimplies,notonlytherecognitionoftherightsofcommunitiestoaccesstheseecosystems,butalsotousetheresourcesmeanwhilepreservingtheirtraditionalwaysoflife.Theserightsmustnonethelessbeexercisedinasustainablewayinordertomoderatetheimpactthatthesepracticescanhaveontheenvironment.ForinstanceinLatvia,theregulatoryframeworkoftheprotectionofnaturalareasthatareparticularlysensitiveimplementgeneralbansonforagingforest resourcesandwetlands, except for the traditionofpicking cranberries, as a tradition transmitted fromgeneration to generation. A written license is issued only to the people living in the vicinity, with specificrestrictions (access period, frequency, etc.) in order to limit the potential negative impacts on the naturalenvironment.

AccordingtotheConvention,agoodnumberofknowledgeandpracticeslinkedtonatureandtheuniversearerealmanagementsystemsofresourcesofsustainabletraditionalknowledge.Inthatcase,thesafeguardingofICHdirectlycontributestothepreservationoftheenvironmentandconservationofbiodiversity.ThesacredforestinKenya andCongo are excellent examplesof theway ICH can contribute to the safeguardof natural heritage.Nevertheless,thisrelationbetweennatureandICHisambivalent.Whentherelationshipisnotmutuallybeneficial,theremaybethenecessitytoimplementprovisionstocontaincertainnegativeeffectsthatanICHpracticemaycometohaveontheenvironment.Inthesetwohypotheses,customarynorms,uses,transmittedfromgenerationtogeneration,playacrucialrole.Theyenabletomaintainabalancebetweenthesafeguardingof ICHandthenecessitytopreservetheenvironment.Moreandmorepreservationmethodsimplementedbyenvironmentallawtakeunderconsiderationissuesrelatingtotherespectoftraditionalknowledgeandpracticeswhendealingwiththemanagementofnaturalresources.Indeed,thesetraditionalpracticeshavelargelyproven,becauseoftheirlonghistory,theircapacitytopreservecertainformsofbiodiversity.

3.2.-INTERACTIONSWITHHUMANRIGHTSLAW

In this section,we observe that if therewas an original explicit intimacy between human rights and the ICHsafeguardingsystem,thisintimacydoesnotappearwhenweanalysetheimplementationofeitheroneofthesetwogrounds.Indeed,contrarytothedirectmentionofhumanrightsintheConvention’spreamble,alackofanymentionofalegalrule,caselaworculturalpolicylinkingthetworealmsblatantlycomesthroughtheanswerstothe questionnaire. Thus, the legal scholar is compelled to adopt a prospective approach to analyse suchinteraction.Tothatextent,wehavereferredtoinstancesofimplementationofculturalrightstopracticesthatcanbeassimilatedtoICH;wewillcalltheseinstancescasesofimplicitinteractions.

Wedistinguishtwotypesof implicit interactions:ontheonehand,humanrightsasasupportmechanismtoa

9

traditionalpracticeandontheotherhand,humanrightsasalimitation.Withintheinstancesofhumanrightsasasupport,wedifferentiateproclaimedrightsfromclaimedrights.Proclaimedrightsareessentiallytherightsofaculturalcommunity recognizedby theStatewithout referring toaspecificheritage.Theyderive fromandarecontingenttothehistoryoftheStateandofwhatthegovernmentiswillingtogranttothesecommunities,whichoftenpre-datetheState,usuallyfollowinga long-lastingpoliticalstruggle.Wehavetheexampleof indigenouspeopleintheUSA,Canada,BrazilandMexico;butalsothereligiouscommunitiesinIranandaparticularityoftheLatvian State that protects its national community. Regarding claimed rights, they relate essentially to theinstanceswhenheritageholderswillbringanactioninjusticetodefendaspecificculturalpracticeonthegroundofhumanrightsviolation.Inthatcase,thetraditionalcharacterofthatpracticeisnottheessentialelement,whatmatters is theability to frame itasa fundamental right.Thecasesmentioned throughout theanswers to thequestionnairefocusonthreefundamentalrights:freedomofspeech,freedomofreligionandequalprotection.

Inthecaseswhenhumanrightslimitatraditionalpractice,wefindtheusualnecessitytobalancethedifferentfundamentalrights.Thus,aKuKluxKlangroupintheUSAcannotrequesttheprotectionofitstraditiononthegroundoffreedomofspeechwhenitotherwiseviolatesthefundamentalrightsofothercitizens.OrtheItaliangovernmentwhodidnotfollowthroughwiththecandidacyofatraditiontotheinternationallistofICHbecauseitcouldhaveoffendedMuslims.

Thus,iftheConventionoffersavolunteeringimagetothesafeguardingofICHbytheState,theinteractionofthisheritagewithhumanrightsillustrateamorecontentioussideofthisrelationship:maybeanotherreasonwhythisinteractionstillremainsimplicitintheimplementationofthesetwolegalgrounds?

3.3.-INTERACTIONSWITHINTELLECTUALPROPERTYLAW

The questions of the safeguarding of ICH and of its protection through intellectual property law have beenintertwined from the start. More than half of the answers to the comparative law questionnaire mentionintellectualproperty.Theanalysisofthedatagathered,complementedbyastudyofthenationallegislationsinforceintheStatespartoftheresearchproject,outlinesthatStateshavefollowedfourmainpathstoprotectICHthroughintellectualproperty.

The first path followed by some States consisted in the introduction of specific provisions protecting a sub-categoryofICH,usuallynamed“folklore”or“expressionsoffolklore”,intocopyrightlaw.TheywereinfluencedinthatapproachbyinstrumentsadoptedbyUNESCOandWIPO,notablytheTunismodelLaws(1976)andthemodelprovisions for national laws on the protection of expressions of folklore against illicit exploitation and otherprejudicial actions (1982). States having sought this path aremainly Arab and African States, such as Egypt,Morocco,MaliorCongo.Inseveralcopyrightlegislations,theinfluenceoftheworkconductedbyUNESCOandWIPO canbe felt, but legislators also sometimes emancipated themselves from thesemodels. Zimbabwe, forinstance,establishedacomplexsystemofreservationofrightsforcertainworksoffolklore.

Thesecondpath,lessusedthanthefirstone,onlyconcernstwoAfricanAnglophoneStates:KenyaandZambia.TheseStateshaveadoptedlawsthatestablishhybridsystemscombiningpriorauthorisationwiththerecognitionofmoral rightsofheritageholders,and respect for theprinciplesof freepriorand informedconsentand theequitable sharing of benefits. These laws transpose in part the Swakopmund Protocol on the Protection ofTraditionalKnowledgeandExpressionsofFolklore(2010).Becausetheyonlyhavebeenrecentlyimplemented,itseemsriskytogiveanopinionontheimpactthattheselegislationsmayhaveonthesafeguardofICH.

Thethirdpathentails,converselytothefirsttwothattriedtoinjectconsiderationslinkedtoICHwithinintellectualproperty laws, the recognition of intellectual property rights to communities within laws pertaining to thesafeguarding of ICH. This case ismarginal, only two States engaged in that process: Latvia and China. Latviarecognized,ontheonehand,arightofcommunitiestotheirnameonelementsofICH,and,ontheotherhand,apaternityrightwhenanelementisusedforlucrativepurposesoranyothertransaction.AsfortheICHlawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina(2011),itenshrinedanopposablerightofethniccommunitiestoensuretherespectoftheirmoralrightsonculturalexpressions.

Thelastpathisverydifferentfromthepreviousones.Communities,alongtimebeforeWIPOandUNESCOgotinterested in ICH, have taken this path. In the domains of traditional arts and crafts and culinary traditions,industrialpropertyrightshavebeenusedtodefendcommunitiesagainstacompetitionthatcould,inthelongrun,

10

devitalizetheirICH.Insomecases,protectionfromcompetitionisreservedforaspecificcommunityoracategoryofproducts.Forinstance, intheUSA,theIndianArtsandCraftsAct(IACA)(1990)wasenforcedtoprotecttheNativeIndianartsandcraftsmarketfromcopies.CommunitiesinFrancealsoresorttogeographicalindicationstoprotect agricultural products and foodstuffs as well as handicrafts that have a geographical anchoring.Nevertheless,thesedistinctivesignsruntherisktofreezetheknow-howsintime.GapscanalsoformbetweenthecommunitythatownsadistinctivesignandthecommunitypracticinganICH.OneofthesolutionstoendthesediscrepancieswouldbetocreatealabelspecifictoICH,likeGermanyandSwitzerlandhavedoneit.Usingtheselabelsindicatestothepublicthattheelementisregisteredintheirnationalinventories.

4.-NATIONALLEGALTOOLSTOSAFEGUARDTHEICH……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Thissectionfocusesonthenationalprocessbywhich ICHsafeguardingmeasuresaregivena legaldimension.Threeinitialassessmentscanbedone:

- As such, the 2003 Convention does not impose for its implementation one type ofmechanism overanother: it sets out some goals to attain, but it leaves State parties largely free to determine theconditionsinwhichtheyintendtoreachtheseresults.

- All national safeguarding measures of ICH cannot be only apprehended within the legal domain. Itappearsfromthenationalanswerstothecomparativelawquestionnaire,thatthereisawiderangeofdifferent tools used by the States: legal measures, administrative and financial technics, education,researchandtrainingactions,etc.Thedifficultydoesnotresidesomuchinthediversityofthesetoolsratherthanintheporosityoftheirrespectiveboundaries:inthefieldofICH,manylegaltoolsexpresssuch a weak element of “ bindingness,” that they cannot usually be distinguished from measuresconsidered “administrative” or “financial” (the procedures according to which an element can beregisteredinaninventory,therighttousealogoorthecriteriadefiningtheattributionofasubventionareallexamplesofevasiveformsthatlegalsafeguardingmeasurescanadopt).

- Delineatingnationalsafeguardingmeasuresisallthemorecomplexthatweobservegreatdifferencesintheanalysisof theactionsundertakenbefore the2003Convention: SomeStates andauthors aimat“recycling”pre-existingtoolsinthewakeofthesafeguardofICH,whenothersestablishabsolutelynolinkatall.Forinstance,canweclassifytheIcelandiclegislationonnames(PersonalNamesAct,n°45,May17,1996)asanationalsafeguardingmeasure?Wemadethechoice inourresearchnottosolvethatissue:notthatwethinkitwouldbeimpossible,butbecause,fromalegalstandpoint,weconsiderthatultimatelyitisnotimportanttoknowwhetherthesetoolspredatingthe2003Conventionshouldinfactbe analyzed as safeguardingmeasure of ICH; in any event, studying their legal structures opens aninterestingdebate.

Hence,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweentwoperspectives:theanalysisofthelegalformsingeneral(4.1.);theanalysisofspecificlegislationsthatexplicitlypresentthemselvesindirectrelationtotheConvention(4.2.).

4.1.-THEPOTENTIALITYOFTHELEGALTOOLBOXOFICHSAFEGUARDING

Ifweadoptastrictlytechnicalstandpointonthelegaltools(independentlyfromthejustificationsweattachtothemassafeguardingmeasuresofICHornot),wecanobserveagreatdiversity.Inthiscontext,oneofthemajorgoalsofthereportistoofferananalyticaltoolenablingtocomparetheformsofbindingnessofthesafeguardingmeasuresofICHinthedifferentnationallegalsystemsstudiedintheframeworkoftheOsmoseproject.

Thenationalsafeguardingmeasurescanbeclassifiedinrelationtotheirlegalpower,fromtheweakestlegality(measurestheleastlegallybinding)tothestrongestlegality(measuresthemoststronglylegallybinding)

11

- Firstlythemeasurewiththeweakestlegalitythatwecouldidentifyisthe“dry”definition,i.e.thesimpledefinition,of“ICH”a)forwhichtheprocesswasnotlegallyframedandb)towhichnolegalconsequenceswasattachedifonlythesimplefactthatthepracticewassuchdefined.Conversely,themeasurewiththestrongestlegalitythatwecouldidentifyentailstherecognitionofsubjectiverightstoasubjectoflaw(aState,individualsorgroups),whichisthesourceoflegalobligationsforeveryoneelsebecausethisrightisenforceableanytimeinthenameofthesafeguardof ICH. Inbetweenthesetwoextremes,agreatmany number of national safeguarding measures exist, which can potentially greatly vary in types(grantingofalogo,officialsubventions,geographicalindications,etc.)

- Secondly, national safeguarding measures can be classified in relation to the decision process thatproduced them: from themeasure deriving from a consensus (“contractual”measures) tomeasuresoriginatingfromaunilateraldecision(“unilateral”measure)–andthesetwoextremepointsframeanewintermediary “zone,” in which, again, most of themeasures are located (what we often refer to as“participation”apparatus).

Inlightofthenationalanswerstothecomparativelawquestionnaire,itappearsthatthegreatmajorityofthesemeasures reside inbetween these twoscales.Weoffer to regroupall thesemeasuresunder the terminology“label.”Twocommonfeatureofalltheselabelswouldbetheirsemi-contractualandsemi-normativecharacters:semi-contractualat leastwithregardtothegrantingprocedure,becausethere isalwaysthepossibilityfortheheritageholdertothwarttheprocessofgrantingthelabel;semi-normativeinasmuchasthetermsofthecontractcannotbenegotiated,butareimposedasawhole.Thismassiveuseof“label”isnotsurprizing:wecansensethattherearestrongconnectionsbetweenthecontractuallogicofthelabelandtheparticipatorylogicofICH;butitisanillusion(almostawrongfulimplementationoftheConvention)asthesetwolegalmechanismsare,infact,sodifferentfromoneanother(itisnotbecausethereisanagreementtoreceivealabelthatthereisparticipation,unlesswereduceparticipationtoasimplecontract).

Hence,thelastquestiononecanaskistounderstandwhyStatesuselabelssomuch,orsaidinanotherway,whytheydonotleanmoretowardsadoptingmeasuresthathaveastrongerlegalityandaremorestronglyunilateral.Thefollowinghypothesis,ofgreatsimplicity,isofferedbythereport:wecannotimposeexcessiveconstraintstoheritageholders,whichwouldentail imposingwaysoflifetoindividualsinthesamewayweimposeworkandrestoration tomonuments. In these conditions, it is not surprizing that in ICH lawalways, or almost, oscillatebetweenthesetwoextremepoints.

4.2.-THETRANSLATIONOFTHECONVENTIONINNATIONALLAWS

SeveralStatesstudiedforthisprojectchosetogobeyondtheratification,agreement,approbationoradhesionprocesstothe2003Convention.TheseStatesadopted,subsequentlytotheentryintoforceoftheConvention,national laws in their national legal systems that expressly follow in its wake. We can witness through therelationshipsthattheselawshavewiththeConventionsomanypracticesofimplementation;nevertheless,suchareadingshouldnot leadtosmoothoutthecomplexityandthediversityof formsofthephenomenontakingplace:atthenationallevel,itappearsthatthelawsstudiedareadopted“inreferenceto”theConvention,ratherthan“inimplementationof”thelatter.

The“references”aremanifesteitherataformallevel(directreferencetotheConvention:measuresquotingentirestipulationsfromtheConvention,measuresdirectlyreferringtoarticlesintheConvention,measuresinvokingoneorseveralconceptsfromtheConvention);oratasubstantiallevel(measuresintroducedascomplementingtheConvention,complementingorguidingitsinterpretation).Inanycase,weobservethatinthatprocess,theissueofICHissiftedthroughthesieveofnationallegaltraditions.Indeed,Statestendtostickonitpre-existingmodelsoflegalthinking,whichthemselves,inreturn,donotremainunaffected:theyevolveincontactwithICH.

In order to demonstrate that process, the report focuses especially on recent legislations (in particular thelegislations from Spain, Flanders, France, China and Latvia). This report shows already the variability of legalcontentsthattheselaws(ofmoreorlessgreatambition)offerandthewaystheytakeseriouslyornottherightsofICHholders.ICHrevealsotheractors,notablycollective,moreoftenobliteratedintheclassicalsafeguardingmechanism of this heritage. When resorting to, or inventing new legal mechanism, the States confront thecomplexquestionof the legal translationof theprincipleofparticipation, thecornerstoneof this system.The

12

Conventiondidnot framethisprincipleasa sophisticated legalnotion, in thesameway that itevacuatesanyprecisionsregardingthenotionofcommunity,evenifotherformsofnormativitytakeaholdofit.Nevertheless,thenationallegislatorsareultimatelyresponsibletodefinethelegalsubstanceandarrangementofparticipation,aprocess that someStateshaveattempted. From thisoverviewof theprimary groundworks laidoutby thenational legislators: what teachings can we draw regarding the technics used? What is certain is that theincorporationofthelegalmaterialdedicatedtoICHwithinthenationallawswithholdspotentialitiesthat,uptothisday,arenotyetknown.Ifwelackhindsightinrelationtotheimplementationoftheselaws,wecanobservethat the references toheritageholders’groupsand theirnecessaryparticipation,whicharekeynotionof theConvention, remain more or less, sometimes apprehended in a very limited way. Through this notion ofparticipation,itisthisprocessofimplementationthatweneedtograsp.TheimplementingmeasuresofICHfocusmoreoftenonthedevelopmentofthenationalorregionalinventories,withoutalwaysmeasuringuptotheissueofparticipationandparticularlygivingitalegalmeaning.

AmoredetailedanalysisoflawsspecificallydesignatedforthesafeguardingofICHwilldemonstratethevarietyofmechanismschosenbythelegislators.Fourlawsareanalysed(China,Spain,LatviaandMadagascar)asexamplesoflegislationsadoptedaftertheyear2003thatfocusonthesafeguardofICHineachcountry.TherespondentstotheOsmosequestionnairealsoreferredtotheselawsas implementationlawstotheConvention.Thesamereferenceismentionedinthetextsofthelegislation(withinthebodyofthetext,thepreamble).WedonotstudyheretheordinanceslinkedtotheseaforementionedlegislationsorlawsinwhichICHismentionedasapartoftheculturalheritage.

Wecanwitnesssomesimilaritiesinthegoalsofthesefourlegislations,notablyinthedefinitionofICHsafeguardingasafullpartoftheculturalheritageofthecountry.Wecanidentifynuancesmoreontheleveloftheinherentmotivationforthissafeguard.Thismotivationcanbepresentedasthedesiretopromotevalues,creativity,thedevelopmentand improvementof thequalityof life (Latvia)up tomore specificmotives as socio-economicalaspects(Madagascar).

Each of the four legislations effectively uses theConvention’s definitions – the definition of ICH and fields ofoccurrencesontheonehand,andthesafeguardingmeasures,notablythenationalinventoryofICH,ontheotherhand.Nevertheless,insomecountries,thescopesofICHarecomplementedbyelementsspecifictothiscountry(China,Spain). IntheSpanish legislation,theculinaryheritageandthepractices inusingnatural landscapearementionedasSpanishICHelements(article2,paragraphf)andg)).TheChineselegislationmentionscalligraphyandacrobaticgymnastics(article2,paragraph2).

ThelevelofspecificationoftherightsofindividualsandorganizationsaffectedbythesafeguardofICHvaries.Itgoes from the lack ofmention of these rights (Spanish legislation) up to a rather detailed description of therequiredbehavioursandpertainingsanctions(Madagascar).Thisdiversityalsocharacterizestheobjectofthelaw.InthecaseswhentheobjectreferstotheregulatoryinstitutionalandorganisationalframeworkoftheState,thestatusofpublic institutions,thewaytheyoperate,aswellasthecooperationbetweenvariouspublicactors isincorporatedwithintheimplementationscopeofthelegislativeprovision(Spain,Latvia).IntheLatvianlegislation,therightsof individual,notablyofcommunities,werementioned inorder tounderline theiractiverole in thesafeguardingoftheirownheritage,butthelegislatorremainedsatisfiedwitharathervaguedescriptiononthescope of these rights and obligations. In the meantime, in the Madagascar and Chinese legislations, thebehaviouralmodesrequiredonthepartoftheactorsofthesafeguardofICHaswellastheirsanctionsforanyabusearedefined.

AllthelegislationsalsodefinetheinstitutionalframeworkforthesafeguardofICHineachrespectivecountry.Theadministrative tools that were selected manifest a more political, rather than regulatory, approach to themanagement of this field. These laws order the subsequent adoption of documents that will detail thecompetences,operatingrules,thecooperationmechanismsbetweenthevariousinstitutions(Latvia,Spain),aswell as between institutions and individuals and communities (Latvia). The Chinese legislation also indirectlymentionsdocumentsforplanningasanadministrativetoolforthesafeguardingofICH.

One of the only biding provisions in the Convention pertains to the creation by the States of one or severalinventoriesofICHexistingontheirterritory.Theinscriptionofanelementononeofthesenationallistsdeterminesits further registration on one of the Convention’s lists. Hence, every States studied in the framework of theOsmoseproject,withtheexceptionofIceland,haveundertakentoinventorytheirICH.MostoftheStatesevensituatedthecreationandtheupdatingofaninventoryattheheartoftheirpoliciesrelatingtoICH.Forthatmatter,

13

thistaskrepresentsoftenoneofthemainmodalitiesofparticipationofcommunitiesinthesafeguardoftheirICH:eithertheyinitiatetheinventoryofsomeelements,ortheycontributetotheinventories.

Weobserveagreatdiversityinthedevelopmentoftheinventories.Thereexistnationalinventories,likeinAlgeriaorLatvia,regionalinventories,likeinSpain,andevenlocalones.ThecityofMoroccoforinstanceestablisheditsowninventoryofICH.Sometimestheinventoriesoverlap,likeinBelgiumwheretheinventoriesofcommunitiesarecoupledtoaninventoryfortheregionofBrussels-Capital. Inothercases,theinventoryisseenasamulti-layeredsystem.Forinstance,Chinahasanationalinventoryandanationalrepresentativelist.Switzerlandisalsoan interestingexample. Itestablished from its inventory indicative tentative list toplan itsnominations foraninscriptionontherepresentativeList.ThislistissimilartotheoneestablishedbytheWorldHeritageConvention(1972).Theoperationsundertakeninrelationtotheinventoryprocesshaveoftentriggeredthecreationofadhocinstitutionalbodies.InZambia,forinstance,theNationalICHCommitteewasestablishedtomanagetheinventoryofICH.Thecreationofinventoriesalsosometimesrequiredtheadoptionofprovisionstoframetheproceduresofincorporationoftheelements.TheOrdinanceofMarch5th,2012,pertainingtothecommitteeonethnologicalandintangibleheritageformalizedforinstancetheFrenchprocedureofinventory.

5.-JUSTICIABILITYANDJUDICIALIZATIONOFICH……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ThestudyofthedynamicsofjusticiabilityandjudicializationhelpstounderstandhowICHcrystallizeslitigationandhowitisbroughtbeforethecourts.Beforeall,itisimportanttonotethattherespondentsmentionaverylimitednumberof case lawexplicitly referring to ICH. The legal existenceand formal recognitionof ICHbeing ratherrecent,thisassessmentisnotsurprizing.Nevertheless,afteraddingtothefewcaselawdirectlydealingwithICH,othercase lawdealingwithelements thatcanbeassimilated to ICH,wewereable tooutline threespacesofjudicializationandstartareflectiononthejusticiabilityofthisheritage.ThefirstspaceofjudicializationthatweidentifiedcoversthecaseswhentheclaimoveranICHclasheswiththeculturalidentitycreatedbyaStatethroughitsfundamentallegalprinciples.Notably,thistensionappearsthroughadecisionbyaCanadianSupremeCourtJudgepertainingtothenatureofan“aboriginaltitle,”asrecognizedbytheConstitution.Inthiscase,thechiefJudgeorderedthelowercourtstotakealsounderconsiderationtraditionalindigenouspeople’s customsevidence, in addition to theonesprescribedbyCommon Law.Wealso feel thistensionwhentheFrenchadministrativesupremecourtconfirmstheimpossibilitytofundareligiousassociationforitsreligiousactivitiesbecauseoftheprincipleofseparationbetweenChurchandtheState,whichisconsideredafundamentalruleoftheFrenchRepublic.

Secondly,wealsofoundthattheheritagizationprocessfavorslitigation.InFrance,theproceduretoinventoryICHhas progressively been judicialized. Several parties have contested administrative decisions in relation toinventories.OthershaveinvokedthefactthatanelementwasincludedinoneoftheConvention’sliststosupporta legalclaim.Courtshavethereforebeencalledupontoruleonthemeritofsuchregistration innational law.Heritagizationprocessesalsotriggersomelitigationbecauseofthedifficultytoapprehendtogetherthetangibleandintangibledimensionsofoneheritage.Thus,aHawaiiantribeintheUSArequestedtherepatriationofhumanbonesas“livingpeople”whiletheyaredefinedasculturalobjectsbythelaw.Othercaselawrelatetourbanspacesandtheirusagesandopinionsdivergeregardingtheinteractionbetweenthesetwoaspects.InMexico,acourtextensively interpretedthepreservationschemeofahistoricalcitycentertoincorporatethelocalgastronomytradition.Conversely, a Swiss court refused that thepreservationmechanismsapplied to tangibleheritagebeextendedtoICH.

Finally, in some cases, the traditional practices of a local community clashwith the values of the rest of thepopulation,whichopensaspacefavourabletojudicialization.Thestudyofthecaselawmentionedintheanswersput forward a strong tension between the safeguarding of ICH and the protection of animal welfare. ThequestionnairesmentionfivedecisionsfocusingonICHelementsthatimplyactsofviolenceonanimals:CorridaandcockfightsinFrance,theKrakelingenfeestinBelgium,thevaquejadainBrazilandtheSanteriareligionintheUSA.WecomplementedtheanalysisofthesedecisionswiththeEuropeancaselawonritualslaughter.

14

Across-analysisofthesespacesofjudicializationputsforwardthreeaspectsofICHjusticiability.Firstly,itrevealsthelegalgroundsusedforlitigation.Threemainlegalgroundsstandout:theConvention,constitutionalrightsandlegalexceptionconcededtoheritagepractices.ThesethreelegalgroundsallmanifestthecapacitythatICHhastoattractanimportantpoliticalleverageinordertodeveloplegaltoolsforitssafeguard.

AsecondimportantaspectofthejusticiabilityofICHrelatestothecapacitytobringacaserecognizedtoheritageholdersbythecourts.Theanalysisofthecaselawunderlinesthediversityofstructuresusedbytheclaimants:isolated individuals, institutions, tribes… Moreover, it stands out from our analysis that the definition of“community”andofitsrepresentativesisrarelydeterminanttodefinethecapacitytoclaim.

ThelastaspectofICHjusticiabilitypertainstotheproofofthisheritage.Weseethatsometimesthespecificitiesof thisheritage requireoutgrowing theusual lawsofevidence.Nevertheless, the legalproceduremoreoftenpressuresthisheritageintospecificframeworks,thusredefiningit.Notably,heritageholdersusuallyhavetoprovethattheirtraditionissharedwithaculturalcommunity,orthatitistightlylinkedtoanidentifiablegeographicalzone.

>>FINALSTEPOFTHEPROJECT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..AsymposiumpresentingtheresultswillclosetheOsmoseresearchprojectonSeptember27,2018.ItwilltakeplaceattheLibraryFrançoiseSaganinParis.

MoreinformationontheOsmoseresearchprojectareavailableatdpc.hypotheses.org/le-projet-osmose.

Notably,acommentedbibliography,videosandrecordingsareaccessibleontheblog.

15

ANNEXE1.SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………JanetBLAKE,AssociateProfessorofLawattheUniversityofShahidBeheshti(Tehran),Iran

IsabelleCHAVE,ChiefCurator,FrenchMinistryofCulture,HeritageDirectorate,Departmentforpilotingresearchandscientificpolicies,Paris,France

TimCURTIS,Secretaryofthe2003Convention,UNESCO

ManlioFRIGO,Professor,UniversityofMilan,Italy

KamalPURI,ProfessorQueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia

ANNEXE2.RESPONDENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Note:thelistofrespondantsisgiveninalphabeticalorder,regardlessoftheextentoftheircontributionstothenationalquestionaires.

States Name TitleandInstitution

GroupI

Germany SophieSchönberger ProfessorofPublicLaw,ArtLawandCulturalHeritageLaw,UniversityofKonstanz

Belgium Marie-SophiedeClippele

Researcher,FNRS,Assistant,FacultésUniversitairesSaint-Louis

MarcJacobs Director,FlemishInterfaceCenterforCulturalHeritage(FARO)

Spain SaraGonzálezCambeiro

Anthropologist,LabritPatrimonio

CristinaSánchez-Carretero

InstituteofHeritageSciences(Incipit),SpanishNationalResearchCouncil(CSIC)

France JérômeFromageau PresidentoftheInternationalSocietyforResearchonArtandCulturalHeritageLaw(ISCHAL)

16

ChristianHottin DirectorofStudies(DepartmentofCurators),Institutnationaldupatrimoine

LilyMartinet SeniorResearchFellow,InstituteMaxPlanckLuxembourgforProceduralLaw

NoéWagener AssistantProfessor,UniversitéParis-EstCréteil

Iceland ValdimarTr.Hafstein Professorofethnology,UniversityofIceland

VilhelmínaJónsdóttir Lawyer,studentenrolledinamasterprograminethnology,UniversityofIceland

Italy SabrinaUrbinati Post-DoctoralResearchFellow,UniversityofMilano-Bicocca

Switzerland

AntoinetteMagetDominicé

Lecturer,LawSchool,UniversityofLucerne

GroupII

Estonia MargitSiim CoordinatorofCultureProgrammes,EstonianNationalCommissionforUNESCO

EppTamm IntangibleHeritageSpecialist,EstonianFolkCultureCentre

Latvia LīgaĀbele Researcher,LatvianAcademyofCulture

DaceBula Director,InstituteofLiterature,Folklore,andArt,UniversityofLatvia

AnitaVaivade Researcher,LatvianAcademyofCulture

Poland HannaSchreiber LawLecturer,UniversityofWarsaw

GroupIII

Brazil AnitaMattes Doctorinlaw,UniversityofParis-Saclay

Mexico MartinMichaus Lawyer,Basham,RingeyCorreaS.C.

EsthefaniadePando Lawyer,Basham,RingeyCorreaS.C.

17

MarianaVargas Lawyer,Basham,RingeyCorreaS.C.

GroupIV

China WangLi AssociateProfessor,Central-SouthUniversityofChina,Changsha

Iran SusanCheraghchi LegalExpert,IranianCulturalHeritage,HandicraftsandTourismOrganization(ICHHTO)

GroupV(a)

Congo UlrichKévinKianguebeni

Lecturer,LawSchool,MarienNgouabiUniversity,Brazzaville

Kenya KipropLagat DirectorofCulture,MinistryofSport,CultureandtheArts

GeorgeLitswa CulturalOfficer,Culture&HeritageMuseums

Madagascar

AnjavolaRazafinarivo Researchfellow,MinistryofHandicraft,CultureandHeritage

TahinaRatsiambakaina

HeadofDepartment,MinistryofHandicraft,CultureandHeritage

Malawi ChristopherMagomelo

AssistantExecutiveSecretary(Culture),MalawiNationalCommissionforUNESCO

Mali MoulayeCoulibaly NationalDirectorofCulturalHeritage

Zambia MunukayumbwaMunyima

ResearchFellow,InstituteofEconomicandSocialResearch,UniversityofZambia

Zimbabwe ElvasMari Director,NationalArtsCouncilofZimbabwe

GroupV(b)

Algeria JihaneChedouki

ProtectionDelegateatInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross-ICRC

Egypt

Morocco

18

NonpartyStates

Canada AntoineGauthier DirectorGeneraloftheConseilquébécoisdupatrimoinevivant(CQPV)

RobertK.Paterson Professor,UniversityofBritishColumbia

USA CleaHance DoctoralStudent,UniversityVersaillesSaint-Quentin-en-Yvelines,ÉcolenormalesupérieuredeCachan

MichelleStefano SpecialistintheResearch&Programs,AmericanFolklifeCenter,LibraryofCongress

19

TABLEOFCONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.-PresentationoftheOsmoseprogram.....................................................................................31.1.-ProgressoftheOsmoseprogram.....................................................................................31.2.-Objectandaxesofresearch..............................................................................................4

2.-ThestanceofStatestowardsthecategoryof“Intangibleculturalheritage”........................52.1.-Linkingnewlawwithalegalpast......................................................................................52.2.-ReceivingindomesticlawconceptsbornbytheConvention:focusonthenotionofcommunity.................................................................................................................................62.3.-TheinventoryasadefinitionaltoolofICH........................................................................72.4.-DefiningtheperimeterofICH:focusonlanguage...........................................................7

3.-Interactionsbetweenintangibleculturalheritageandotherlegalfields...............................83.1.-Interactionswithenvironmentallaw................................................................................83.2.-Interactionswithhumanrightslaw..................................................................................83.3.-Interactionswithintellectualpropertylaw.......................................................................9

4.-NationallegaltoolstosafeguardtheICH..............................................................................104.1.-ThepotentialityofthelegaltoolboxofICHsafeguarding..............................................104.2.-ThetranslationoftheConventioninnationallaws........................................................11

5.-JusticiabilityandjudicializationofICH...................................................................................13

>>Finalstepoftheproject.........................................................................................................14

Annexe1.ScientificCommittee..................................................................................................15

Annexe2.Respondents...............................................................................................................15

20

WITHTHEFINANCIALSUPPORTOF:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

UNDERTHEAUSPICESOF:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...