ILA Committee of Participation in Global Cultural Heritage Governance

Intersessional Meeting in Oxford, 2 – 3 July 2019

Wolfson College, University of Oxford

Linton Rd, Oxford OX2 6UD, United Kingdom

The Intersessional Meeting began with a general introduction of the mandate and agenda of the meeting [. An overview of the work which had been done prior to the meeting was also set [. In the introductory session, the theme of the meeting would be set by addressing the notion of participation and the presence of the notion in international law and works, under the helm of Cultural Heritage Law.

The meeting would then be divided into 6 round table discussions. Each round table focusing on a specific task. The first round table focused on “the specificity of cultural heritage governance”. In this discussion, the concept of culture was largely analyzed. Institutions under the United Nations, such as UNEP (Environmental Program) and ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), and other non-profit organizations such as ICANN were presented under this theme. The manner with which these international organizations and international law perceives culture was discussed. How is culture defined and how is cultural heritage understood, were all matters touched upon in the round table discussion. The determining factors of culture were discussed. Indigenous culture was brought up and provided for an interesting discussion. How does the term indigenous add, if anything, to the understanding of culture. Tangible heritage and indigenous heritage appear to be two different things under cultural heritage law. There appears to be a reference of tribal, indigenous understanding when referring to culture under international organizations. Access to cultural heritage was addressed. Under the UN HRC, ‘Special Rapporteur on Cultural Right’, identification of cultural heritage is made by the state. Under international law and international human rights practice, obligations are made with regards to the state as a representative of the people and not the actual community.

Key questions which appear to have arisen are, is there a blueprint in cultural heritage law? Also, what role do non-state actors play in cultural representation? Parallels are made between communities and culture, cultural representation. This approach provided for the continuous parallel being made between a communities physical, ethnic identity and culture.

The second round table discussion was divided between 2 parallel round tables. ‘UNESCO and its particular bodies’ was the focus of the one parallel table, whilst the other parallel round table focused on “Participation, heritage and regional organizations”. In the second parallel round table, ‘ARIPO’ (African Regional Intellectual Property Organization) was presented by our team. Additionally, presentations were made on the ‘Arctic Council’, ‘OIC’ (Organization of Islamic Council), ‘OSCE’ (Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe) and ‘CARICOM’ (Caribbean Community). All presentations were shaped around the templates provided for prior to the intersessional meeting. How each organization is structured was presented. The manner with which participation is dealt with by each organization was discussed. The role which culture plays in each organization was addressed.

The third round table discussion, and last of the first day of the Intersessional Meeting, was also divided between 2 parallel round table discussions. Both round table discussions focused on ‘Specialized organizations and international NGOs’. The ‘FAO’ (Food and Agriculture Organization) was presented by our team. Additionally, ‘NAFTA’ (North American Free Trade Agreement), ‘UNWTO’ (World Tourism Organization) and ‘MERCOSUR’ (Trade Bloc, Southern Common Market) were all presented. All presentations were shaped, as in the second parallel round table discussions, using the same template.

The second day of the Intersessional Meeting began with the fourth round table discussion. ‘Human rights, heritage and participation’ was the title of the discussion. In this discussion, participation of the people, communities, appeared to be the key focus. International organizations and bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights and International Organization for Migrants were presented under this theme. Additionally, international treaties, such as ‘UN CRPD’ (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) were discussed. Points were made regarding the access of the people to each organization. The dynamics of participation in each group, law, was discussed. Collective participation appears to be lacking a platform. The European Court of Human Rights is one such body, whereby a collective group, community, is not able to pursue a case as a group. Culture appears in most of these organizations indirectly. Cultural heritage and cultural identity once again become a fundamental issue in the round table discussion. What is cultural heritage and how can it be defined?

The fifth round table discussion focused on ‘Participation, heritage and regional organizations’. A similar theme and approach were used in this discussion. Organizations such as the ‘EU’ (European Union), the Andean Community and the ‘CoE’ (Council of Europe) were discussed. The Andean Community presentation provided for interesting examples and cases, in which culture was dealt with by the Andean Court of Justice (ONIC v SIC, 2012). The form of participation in each organization was discussed. The round table discussion moved on to presentations of interesting cases at the end, adding another angle to the topic. Cases such as ‘Rubin v Iran’ and ‘Heffel v Attorney-General of Canada’. An interesting conclusion to the round table discussion was provided by the presentation of the ‘Geneva Initiative on Participation’.

The ending of the fifth round table discussion then focused on summarizing the discussions of the Intersessional Meeting. The summary was organized under four questions:

What is the notion of participation? Who defines who gets to participate and in what terms? What is the nature of participation? Lastly, in what contexts does participation take place?

In discussing these set questions, the round table brought up further issues and questions which seem to reappear throughout the meeting:

Should participation be a procedural right or a substantial right; buried into state management (as with human rights)? Who gets to participate? Is it defined?

How does participation affect culture? Is culture is treated as subsidiary?

Is community and heritage tied to territory? How is either defined?

The sixth and final round table discussion of the Intersessional Meeting discussed the ‘Programme for the future’. It was discussed whether the literature arising from this committee should take the final form of a report or that of an official guideline, principles. It was agreed upon to reconvene in the upcoming months via email, in order to discuss how to further the agenda regarding global cultural heritage governance. This would include working on the following steps:

• Publications
• submissions
• reports