فهرست مطالب

Islamic Studies on Human Rights and Democracy - Volume:1 Issue:2, 2018
  • Volume:1 Issue:2, 2018
  • تاریخ انتشار: 1397/02/11
  • تعداد عناوین: 10
|
  • Hossein Mir Mohammad Sadeghi Pages 3-5
  • Ben Boer * Pages 9-16

    The question of safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage is important topic in every country because every culture and every sub-culture has a wide range of intangible heritage, whether the culture is new or whether the culture is old. Intangible heritage is important to communities around the world. It must be identified, it must be understood, it must be analyzed and, as far as possible, protected. As we know protection can take many forms: If the culture is strong and the relevant community cares about its heritage, then it is able to conserve that heritage without any real assistance from Government or from other organizations. This is obviously a desirable thing. However, in many countries, the tangible cultural heritage and the intangible cultural heritage are under some threat, and this is for a wide range of reasons and it is, to some degree, because of conflict or pressure from development activities or from natural causes in terms of storms floods and so on. That is how the intangible cultural heritage has come to play a very important part in stimulating communities and organizations, as well as Governments, to establish both institutional and policy mechanisms to conserve those things that seem to be of value now and which most people would agree should be transmitted to future generations. The relevant international treaties that, one way or the other, had been responsible for framing various kinds of heritage at a national and regional level around the world include those stemming originally from the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Time of Armed Conflict (1954). Later, we have seen Conventions from 1970 and 1995 which focused on the illicit import export and then transfer of the ownership of cultural property or cultural items. We have also seen, of course, the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural Heritage which was which was adopted by UNESCO in 1972. This combination of cultural heritage treaties is a very significant one, although there are several problems in terms of the integration of these Conventions in terms of the way in which they work and in the way in which they are implemented at the national level. One of the things that this paper aims to achieve is to marry some of these issues, in relation to the intangible heritage, with the questions of tangible heritage and, specifically, in the context of World Heritage sites. In addition, it has as a broader context the links between conservation of heritage and the matter of sustainable development, as illustrated through the Sustainable Development Goals.

    Keywords: Tangible - intangible heritage, Protection - conservation, Sustainable Development Goals, Integration
  • Janet Blake * Pages 17-30

    This discussion is strategically situated within two important and inter-connected discourses, namely that of human rights (including cultural diversity) and sustainable development which, in particular, provided the policy framework within which the 2003 Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) was developed. These are vital contexts for ensuring sustainability of communities and of safeguarding their heritage. Within this human rights/sustainability framework, a primary focus is on participation as a (procedural) human right and how the role of communities (and groups and individuals) in safeguarding ICH is perceived under the 2003 Convention. An important question here is: how much room is allowed for diversity and even dissent within communities? In recent years, field human rights issues have been introduced more explicitly into the protection of cultural heritage than ever before as illustrated in the Human Rights Council (HRC) Report on the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage which recognised cultural heritage as a proper subject for human rights. The safeguarding intangible cultural heritage now places a duty on States to ensure its viability, implying the recognition of a wide range of social and cultural rights of bearer communities. In recent international policy documents on the sustainable development goals, the three fundamental principles of sustainable development are understood as: human rights; equality; and sustainability. UNESCO has been working for the past 10 years to place culture much more firmly in this development agenda, not as an adjunct (or even an obstacle to) development but as a key driver of it. This has, to some degree, been successful but there remains much work to be done before culture is accorded its proper place in setting international development goals and their implementation. All of this makes the 2003 Convention and its policy context highly relevant since (a) it can contribute to sustainable community development and (b) further the international debate on the role of culture more generally in development. Sustainable development depends upon innovation which, in turn, depends upon the use of knowledge over time such as that embodies in ICH. This draws out an apparent paradox whereby the ability to innovate is often built upon inherited ‘traditions’, which reminds us that the idea of a ‘traditional heritage’ is not something stuck in the past but, rather, a set of skills, know-how, understandings that have been passed on through generations and have acquired new shapes and additional elements over time. In this way, intangible cultural heritage is truly a living heritage that can contribute in various ways to sustainability of communities, their livelihoods and of the environment.

    Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, Sustainability, Human rights, Community participation, Policy-making context
  • Lucas Lixinski* Pages 31-50

    This paper examines the potentials and pitfalls of the requirement of sustainable development as part of the definition of intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC). It argues that the requirement of sustainability can have the effect of excluding communities from the management of their own heritage, which stands in tension with the spirit of the ICHC, meant to be more community-centric with respect to cultural heritage. In this respect, sustainability, as a requirement meant to help safeguard heritage for future generations, may in fact contribute to its disappearance if it is not fully integrated with the views of communities.

    Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, UNESCO 2003 Convention, Community-centric management, Sustainability
  • Rahul Goswami* Pages 51-62

    The work of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH) under the UNESCO 2003 Convention, although 'cultural', is also essentially multidimensional in nature. Questions about livelihood and income, about product and market, about loss of habitat, about the need for long-term support of one kind or another are often raised by government officials and tradition bearers. Our work touches a much larger audience than state party functionaries, and its interests are fundamentally deeper than those of government and that is why addressing 'development' as an outcome has become central. Perspectives gathered in several countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including India, show that the more our training and that transitions to an economics that is participatory and not exploitative, the more we will see safeguarding becoming an accepted development methodology. Already we find that a wide variety of actors and stake-holders are considering their activity and subjects as being ‘ICH’ or in the universe of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and associated expressions. These actors and stakeholders may be educational and academic institutions, bearer and practitioner associations, civil society, NGOs, private sector and philanthropic foundations. Yet countries still fail to envision and conduct safeguarding ICH as part of their efforts towards attaining sustainability in natural resource use. One way to enable this is the localisation of ICH safeguarding training materials and methods as the foundation for capacity-building. This requires a novel approach, working on local needs with contact points in ministries, and in non-state institutions and organisations, and particularly with ICH groups and associations. Training on inventorying, safeguarding plans, national or sub-national policies, ICH and development, ICH and gender, ICH and biodiversity/climate change/environment will all benefit from specific treatment. The vectors influencing safeguarding may be economic, policy (cultural and other), social, demographic and political change, environmental and natural (including disasters). Thus we need to study and apply the learning about development pathways that are in tune with the agro-ecological and climatic conditions and respect natural boundaries. Education is critical, to sensitise people to the inter-related subjects of culture, heritage, knowledge, transmission, and environment. In this way, for example, the connection between the raw material from which a musical instrument is crafted and the forest is made clear because the forest is nearby and requires protection. Under such an approach ICH safeguarding helps a country meet one or more of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), contributes to livelihood security and earning avenues for host communities, strengthens the ability of communities to adapt to the effects of climate change, deepens their capacity for undertaking environment stewardship as a foundational step for ICH safeguarding. It is practitioners and tradition bearers who are likely to provide the most compelling expertise. The UNESCO 2003 Convention shares subjects and aims with a number of international conventions and agreements on biodiversity, environment, flora and fauna, climate change. They all share goals of conservation and sustainable use, which are central to the SDGs. To meet their objectives, these (and other) conventions and treaties have developed a number of complementary approaches and operational tools that can benefit the work of the ICH Convention, and strengthen its contribution to having local and national ecological and natural habitats be treated with much greater care than has hitherto been done.

    Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, Development pathways, Environmental sustainability, Livelihood security
  • Julian Burger* Pages 63-70

    This paper looks at what the concept of intangible cultural heritage means for indigenous peoples. It will consider how that heritage has been and continues to be appropriated, used without consent, commoditised or profaned. It will review some of the actions taken internationally and nationally to protect indigenous peoples’ intangible cultural heritage and their effectiveness. By drawing on examples for Asia, it will argue that measures designed to protect the ICH of indigenous peoples contribute to the wider protection of the environment and to sustainability.

    Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, Indigenous peoples, Appropriation, Commodification, Environmental sustainability
  • James A.R. Nafziger* Pages 71-78

    The core concept of “cultural landscapes” is a tool that has helped shape research agendas and policy in several disciplines. These include, for example, archaeology, anthropology, cultural heritage law, economic development studies, environmental management, environmental and natural resources law, geography, and international law. It is noteworthy that much of the resulting work has been closely linked to the principles of sustainable development and cultural heritage protection, which have thereby served as bases for establishing a shared, multidisciplinary understanding and application of the concept. Accordingly, interdisciplinary work has focused on interactions between humans and their environment and on cultural identity with landscapes as key factors in achieving biodiversity and land-use sustainability. There is no continuous transition or spectrum between natural and cultural landscapes. Instead, as we shall see, it is precisely the varying types of fusion between natural and cultural phenomena in distinctive ways among different indigenous cultures as well as the corresponding variance of interactions between human cultures and the natural environment that justify the specificity of the core concept of a cultural landscapes. These may variously include, build upon, be projected upon or simply ignore natural landscapes among various different peoples. Significantly, each type of fusion or interaction generates distinctive legal issues. Sometimes, of course, natural and cultural landscapes are one and the same. A peoples' identity with a particular landscape, as well as the character of that identity, may be fundamental in their lives and livelihood. For example, in the rugged reindeer-herding environment of northern Finland, the landscape enveloping Sami herding is both a natural and a distinctively cultural phenomenon on which their enthusiasm for the traditional means of their individual and community livelihood relies. For them, herding transcends the obvious exploitation of animal resources: Their landscape is cultural in no small measure. International cooperation is essential in empowering indigenous peoples, protecting their interests in cultural landscapes, and advancing everyone's interest in sustainable development. Towards that end, it is essential to develop a comprehensive typology of cultural landscapes defined by categories that merge natural and cultural phenomena in distinctive ways. Each of these categories will require its own distinctive approach and means of implementation. Moreover, the foundation of the transnational regime to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in and to their cultural landscapes is International Human Rights Law (IHRL), underpinned by the so-called International Bill of Rights, and supported by cultural heritage treaties, especially the 1972 World Heritage Convention (of fundamental importance), treaty law protecting indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights and international environmental instruments.

    Keywords: Cultural landscapes, Natural landscapes, Indigenous, tribal peoples, Human rights
  • Laleh Daraie* Pages 79-94

    With a civilization that is thousands of years old, culture and nature have formed close linkages in Iran that are more complex than commonly recognized by mainstream environmental institutions and programmes. Cultural tradition and living tradition have been part of people’s lives and how they related to the environment. In fact, the relationship between people and nature cannot be separated from their knowledge and how they behave. The landscape/seascape approach embraces this complexity and recognizes that cultural and natural values are interlinked. Landscapes and seascapes encompass tangible and intangible heritage, and in pursuit of environmental sustainability, it is important to recognize the role of intangible cultural heritage. A thriving socio-ecological production, a landscape/seascape is where the local communities are actively involved in the sustainable management and the use of natural resources; where cultural sensitivities, heritage, and knowledge shape the core of where land and nature management come together. Therefore, intangible cultural heritage and knowledge of land/sea management need to be recognized and find its place in the decision-making processes on environmental sustainability. This article summarizes some of the GEF SGP UNDP Iran program experiences since its inception in 2001, by elaborating on a few case studies where local knowledge has contributed to environmental sustainability.

    Keywords: Knowledge, Landscape, Socio-ecological systems, Heritage, GEF SGP UNDP
  • Sousan Cheraghchi* Pages 95-104

    From the earliest days of their existence, humans have had close interaction with the natural environment surrounding them, in order to satisfy their survival and reproductive needs as well as their mental and cultural development. While humans have always exploited the Earth’s natural resources to survive, develop and progress, they have also safeguarded the environment and natural resources and human ingenuity and efforts in meeting their needs, while protecting the nature so as to preserve it for future generations. Through this they have, over the passage of thousands of years, gradually led to the development of traditional knowledge and skills for the exploitation of natural resources. Nowadays, these skills, practices, knowledge and know-how (along with their associated material culture) which have been transmitted from one generation to another, are collectively known as “intangible cultural heritage”. This has been shaped through the direct interaction between local communities living in different climates and varied ecosystems and will continue for as long as traditional ways of livelihood and interaction with the environment are allowed and supported to continue as before. As a consequence, the environment and intangible cultural heritage have a direct and reciprocal relationship and their survival is mutually dependent. This interdependence and the need for an integrated policy and legal regime to preserve and safeguard nature-based intangible heritage while preserving the environment, and vice versa, is nowadays accepted by the international law system. Iran is a country of high biological diversity located in its many, diverse environmental zones and habitats and, at the same time, enjoys an extremely rich cultural heritage – both tangible and intangible – that has been developed by the various peoples inhabiting the Iranian plateau over millennia as a response to their physical environment. Hence, in addition to the obvious intrinsic value of this heritage as the inheritance of the Iranian people and as a marker of identity for diverse cultural groups in the country, including tribal peoples and pastoralists, also diverse peoples living in various areas and provinces of the country, it is also the basis for living in the often challenging environmental conditions of Iran and continues to provide a foundation of knowledge and know-how for the present and future generations in Iran to live in and enjoy the natural resources of Iran’s environment in a sustainable manner. In this country, as in many if not the majority of countries, the policy- and law-making frameworks for protecting cultural heritage, on the one hand, and the environment, on the other, have been established separately and little has been done to develop integrated policies and laws to safeguard intangible cultural heritage and protect the environment in the areas they overlap. It is therefore necessary both in theory and practice to revise and correct the relevant policies, laws and regulations. This paper has as one of its main goals to address some challenges and shortcomings in Iran's policy and legal frameworks for protecting cultural heritage and the environment, including a lack of coordination between these two scopes. At the same time, it aims to address some limited opportunities that exist in certain policies, laws and regulations, as well as in administrative plans and measures, along with some proposals from the writer that may help to develop an integrated protection framework for cultural heritage, the environment and sustainable development.

    Keywords: Cultural Heritage (tangible, intangible), Environmental protection, Sustainable development, Iran, Law, policy frameworks
  • Evrim Ölçer Özünel* Pages 105-126

    Since the 1970’s the sustainable development has been an important subject for UNESCO. Several expert meetings and gatherings have been organized and declarations and reports written. However, after establishing of the post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development, various sectors of UNESCO began to deal with the issue in concerning community participation and environmental sustainability, inclusive social cohesion and the economic aspects of sustainable development. Especially for the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, sustainable development became essential. Among other interrelated aspects of sustainable development, environmental sustainability is the core of intangible cultural heritage. As is stressed in reports of UNESCO-ICH, environmental sustainability requires ensuring a stable climate, sustainably managing natural resources and protecting biodiversity. These, in turn, depend on improved scientific understanding and knowledge sharing about climate change, natural hazards, the space environment and natural resource limits. Strengthening resilience among vulnerable populations in the face of climate change and natural disasters is essential to limiting their human, social and economic costs. The aforementioned lines show us how environmental sustainability is important for intangible cultural heritage studies. We know that traditional knowledge, values and practices accumulated and renewed across generations as part of intangible cultural heritage have guided human societies in their interactions with the surrounding natural environment for millennia. As it is put forward in many research studies today, the contribution of intangible cultural heritage to environmental sustainability is recognized in many fields, such as biodiversity conservation, sustainable natural resource management and natural disaster preparedness and response. However, it is not always possible to align local knowledge with those set out in theory. Often local practices remain in the shadow of fancy theories especially concerning with the local traditional knowledge. In this context we will discuss modern theories of environmental sustainability, together with the problems arising from local practices. We will try to reveal contradictions between modern sustainable development discourses and local traditional knowledge with examples from the world and Turkey, like eco-farms or eco-tourism activities.

    Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, Environmental sustainability, Eco-farms, Eco-tourism