Age as a criterion of value for tangible cultural heritage objects under Russian law

Authors

  • Maria A. Aleksandrova St. Petersburg State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.114

Abstract

UNESCO’s activities are dedicated to the conservation of both intangible and tangible cultural heritage. One of the most difficult issues in constructing a system for the protection of tangible cultural heritage objects is the criteria for identifying objects as cultural heritage. Obviously, it takes time to assess the cultural or historical value and significance of a tangible object. In most cases, granting the status of a cultural heritage object is assigned much later than its creation. However, international acts also do not contain specific requirements for how old a particular object should be in order to qualify it as an object of cultural heritage. UNESCO’s practice is known for several cases of adding to the World Heritage List relatively young sites. The Russian Cultural Heritage Object Act (2002), along with the laws of some other countries, establishes a specific age (40 years) that any object must reach in order to become a cultural heritage object. An exception is made only for memorial apartments and buildings (they can be attributed as objects of cultural heritage immediately after the death of famous personalities) and for objects of archeology (they must be at least 100 years old). This rule of law is mandatory, which means that it does not make other exceptions to the rule of 40 years. Such a rule of law significantly distinguishes the Russian approach from foreign legislation. On the one hand, such regulation may negatively affect the possibility of protecting outstanding objects from the late Soviet and early new Russian period. On the other hand, the approach of granting the status of cultural heritage objects to many relatively new objects can negatively affect urban development. The author proposes to evaluate and review this provision of law in order to find the optimal balance of public and private interests. 

Keywords:

UNESCO, cultural heritage object, age of cultural heritage object, tangible cultural heritage, public and private interests, cultural heritage protection

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Davydov, Dimitrii, Hones, Ernst-Rainer, Ringbeck, Birgitta, Stellhorn, Holger. 2018. Denkmalschutzgesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen. Kommentar. 6. Aufl. Wiesbaden. Kommunal- und Schul-Verlag.

Davydov, Dimitrii. 2018. Zu nah an der Gegenwart. Die Zeitgrenze als Merkmal des Denkmalbegriffs. Denkmalpflege als kulturelle Praxis. Zwischen Wirklichkeit und Anspruch, Hrsg. Niedersachsisches Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege: 64–68. Hannover, C. W. Niemeyer Buchverlage GmbH.

Jokilehto, Jukka. 2006. Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context. City & Time 2 (1): 1–16. Available at: http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/docs2006/CT-2006-44.pdf (accessed: 25.06.2020).

Downloads

Published

30.11.2020

How to Cite

Aleksandrova, M. A. (2020). Age as a criterion of value for tangible cultural heritage objects under Russian law. Pravovedenie, 64(1), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.114