Abstract

The ability to protect and safeguard cultural heritage is of vital importance to some communities. Without the ability to maintain control over these expressions, external subjects could freely appropriate them, which could negatively affect the community’s identity, spirituality, and general well-being. Increasing awareness regarding cultural heritage provides momentum to better define a legal framework for the protection of the intangible goods that constitute cultural heritage. It is fundamental to ascertain whether the current intellectual property rights (IPR) regime represents an adequate model of protection vis-à-vis intangible cultural heritage (ICH). The culture’s unique concerns, which variably affect ICH, make it difficult to compare the rationales for these two legal domains. These concerns are pivotal in elaborating the need for legal protection. Not only does misuse and misappropriation of ICH cause economic damage, but it also violates the community’s human rights and identity. Accordingly, a range of issues must be taken into consideration, starting with the desirability of the commodification, or “reification,” which would allow communities to control the commercialization of their ICH through the current IPR regime. To adequately address concerns about commodification, a legal framework must be developed that can guarantee adequate advantages for the countries and communities where the intangible goods originate. This legal framework must, in due time, boost the efforts of these communities to promote a self-sustainable model of economic development and lead them through the inevitable social policy changes that would accompany new ICH protections. Therefore, our study aims to clarify theoretical and practical legislative tools available to help the actors concerned ascertain how to exploit, trade, and market their own resources and heritage within the global market. Bearing in mind that there are numerous potential legal remedies or amendments to the current legal regime covering the protection of cultural heritage, it is not conceivable to tackle this issue as one uniform hurdle. Each community’s ICH concerns are extremely specific, and, as a result, it may be appropriate to apply ad hoc legal remedies to some, but not all, circumstances involving ICH. This analysis consists of five Parts. Part I defines fundamental concepts associated with ICH. Part II looks at ICH as a continuous process of social involvement that helps preserve cultural identification. Part III analyzes the current forms of protection available for cultural expression and knowledge. Part IV discusses the shortcomings of adopting a single, all-embracing, umbrella solution and analyzes ways in which the current IPRs can help protect ICH. And finally, Part V proposes ways to modify and improve the current IPRs to protect ICH more efficiently.
Full Paper
Paolo Davide Farah
Founder, President and Director

‍Professor Paolo Davide Farah is Founder, President and Director of gLAWcal – Global Law Initiatives forSustainable Development, Associate Professor(with tenure) at West Virginia University, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences,John D. Rockefeller IV School of Policy and Politics, Department of Public Administration and “Internationally Renowned Professor/Distinguished Professor of Law” (Full Professor level) at Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), Law School,Beijing, China.

Riccardo Tremolada
Research Associate

Since March 2013, Riccardo has been a Research Associate at gLAWcal – Global Law Initiatives for Sustainable Development. Riccardo works as an Associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. He joined the firm in Rome in 2013 and was resident in the Milan office in 2017 and in the Washington D.C. office in 2018.

Summary

The ability to protect and safeguard cultural heritage is of vital importance to some communities. Without the ability to maintain control over these expressions, external subjects could freely appropriate them, which could negatively affect the community’s identity, spirituality, and general well-being. Increasing awareness regarding cultural heritage provides momentum to better define a legal framework for the protection of the intangible goods that constitute cultural heritage. It is fundamental to ascertain whether the current intellectual property rights (IPR) regime represents an adequate model of protection vis-à-vis intangible cultural heritage (ICH). The culture’s unique concerns, which variably affect ICH, make it difficult to compare the rationales for these two legal domains. These concerns are pivotal in elaborating the need for legal protection. Not only does misuse and misappropriation of ICH cause economic damage, but it also violates the community’s human rights and identity. Accordingly, a range of issues must be taken into consideration, starting with the desirability of the commodification, or “reification,” which would allow communities to control the commercialization of their ICH through the current IPR regime. To adequately address concerns about commodification, a legal framework must be developed that can guarantee adequate advantages for the countries and communities where the intangible goods originate. This legal framework must, in due time, boost the efforts of these communities to promote a self-sustainable model of economic development and lead them through the inevitable social policy changes that would accompany new ICH protections. Therefore, our study aims to clarify theoretical and practical legislative tools available to help the actors concerned ascertain how to exploit, trade, and market their own resources and heritage within the global market. Bearing in mind that there are numerous potential legal remedies or amendments to the current legal regime covering the protection of cultural heritage, it is not conceivable to tackle this issue as one uniform hurdle. Each community’s ICH concerns are extremely specific, and, as a result, it may be appropriate to apply ad hoc legal remedies to some, but not all, circumstances involving ICH. This analysis consists of five Parts. Part I defines fundamental concepts associated with ICH. Part II looks at ICH as a continuous process of social involvement that helps preserve cultural identification. Part III analyzes the current forms of protection available for cultural expression and knowledge. Part IV discusses the shortcomings of adopting a single, all-embracing, umbrella solution and analyzes ways in which the current IPRs can help protect ICH. And finally, Part V proposes ways to modify and improve the current IPRs to protect ICH more efficiently.

glawcal comments

Our events

No items found.

Our concerns

The growth in green energy investments worldwide is an important reality and rising trends are to be expected in the future. When designing the proper policy agenda for renewable energy investments, we must take into consideration the legal, regulatory and political frameworks in both developing and developed countries. gLAWcal aims at analyzing national approaches on the matter, combining scientific, social and economic considerations. At the same time, it wishes to develop partnerships among European and non-European institutions, so as to deliver an integrated approach on sustainable energy investments, combining global and local perspectives.
The need to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology are topical issues that affects international relations. It is crucial for developing countries to achieve a substantive degree of IPR protection, not only for the promotion of creativity and innovation, but also for the maximization of technology transfer from developed countries. gLAWcal examines IPR regimes and their impact on competition with the objective of providing a better understanding of the competition-dimension of IP rights. Intellectual property rights are also extremely crucial to sustainable development in manifold ways, from the protection of traditional knowledge and cultural products, to access to essential medicines. Our organization focuses on the policy frameworks and institutions shaping debate and policy development in this sector.
In the last fifteen years, all around the world there has been a tendency to put much hope in the rise of civil society, its emergence being welcomed as a sign of progress towards a more democratic system. Many places in the world are today laboratories for change thanks to bottom-up movements supported by civil society organizations. By looking at contentious politics and how they converge and interact with institutional politics, we can better understand what directions a country’s political system and its governance is taking. gLAWcal supports collective forms of actions aimed at the creation of better societies, on many social issues, and in various geographical areas.
Improvements in people’s economic wellbeing have increased citizen demands for a cleaner environment. As societies undergo the transition to industrial development and modernity, their citizens begin to concern themselves with needs and wants beyond the material, including the protection of the environment. However, growing levels of environmental consciousness and awareness are often not matched by proper environmental legislation enforcement at the local level. gLAWcal looks at environmental rights developments in developing countries, and aims at delivering policy advices and capacity building support in areas where law implementation is lacking. With this purpose, our organization seeks to improve environmental protection not only for the benefit of the populations directly affected, but also for the sake of the entire planet.
Globalization, and the consequent international exchange of goods, services, cultures, ideas, has brought increased wealth for many on the one hand, while exerting pressure on core societal values both in developed and developing countries on the other hand. Public opinion and policy makers have warned against the threat posed by international trade and liberalization to policies and measures meant to protect the so-called non-trade concerns (NTC), such as environmental protection, sustainable development, good governance, cultural rights, labour rights, public health, social welfare, national security, food safety, access to knowledge, consumer interests and animal welfare.When trying to protect these issues, developed countries have put into place trade measures that have encountered resistance or dissent in developing countries, being perceived as protectionist actions or as an attempt by the importing countries to impose their social, ethical and cultural values on exporting countries.The challenge of integrating Non-Trade Concerns embodies the willingness to overcome national egoisms and embrace universally a number of fundamental values, creating an ethical and juridical platform to win over cultural differences and issues of national sovereignty. gLAWcal’s research aims at identifying ways to protect NTC within international economic law. By shedding new light on developing countries’ trends towards inclusion of NTC in the domestic and international arena, gLAWcal provides a comprehensive perspective on law enforcement, creating a bridge between the international and the domestic realities.