Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Kowalski Wojciech

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: Konwencja UNESCO 1972r

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Zagadnienie ochrony miejsc pamięci w teorii i w praktyce

Kowalski Wojciech

Ochrona Dziedzictwa Kulturowego

2018

Nr 5

75--89

Po analizie aktów prawa różnych państw i umów międzynarodowych autor dochodzi do wniosku, że aktualny stan regulacji ochrony prawnej miejsc pamięci jak i praktyki nie jest zadawalający. Na poziomie krajowym poza nielicznymi wyjątkami ochronę miejsc trzeba „wyinterpretowywać” z przepisów ogólnych ochrony zabytków. Podstawowy natomiast dokument powszechnego prawa międzynarodowego, Konwencja z 1972 roku, daje wprawdzie podstawę do wpisu takich miejsc na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa, ale w praktyce jej stosowania Komitet Dziedzictwa ograniczył możliwość ich dokonywania. W przypadku miejsc zagłady ograniczenie to poprzez wprowadzenie kryterium „symbolicznej reprezentacji” takich miejsc nosi cechy działania bez podstawy prawnej i narusza art. 1 konwencji. W konsekwencji, dalszym skutkiem tej decyzji jest wyhamowanie procesu rozwoju ochrony prawnej miejsc pamięci.

As a result of analyse of chosen national and international legal acts author came to conclusion that no definition specifying places of memory as objects of legal protection had yet been adopted in these regulations. However this in no way means that places of memory remain completely outside legal area, although they are covered by the legal system of heritage protection merely within the framework of general definition of heritage. In particular, author argues that places of memory can be protected under 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention as definition of heritage (art. 1) encompasses „historical value” criterion in relation to all elements of this heritage, namely to monuments, groups of buildings and sites. Such thesis is strongly supported by practical application of criterion VI of Operational Guidelines by World Heritage Committee. Almost all monuments and sites inscribed on the World Heritage List under this criterion are to maintain memory of important events, beliefs, ideas etc. Intangible component was therefore a basis of these inscriptions although presence of material component as “a witness” was also important. It is however specially interesting to note that the Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration Camp (1940-1945) was inscribed as the only one symbol of Holocaust what was underlined by the condition that no other such monuments would be inscribed in the future. It seems clear that by this fact the new principle of „symbolic representation” was adopted by Committee. The problem is that such principle has no legal basis, in particular it cannot be found in the 1972 Convention and for this reason decision establishing it is not binding for future inscriptions.

Miejsca pamięci na tle UNESCO 1972 world heritage convention oraz kryterium VI wytycznych operacyjnych jej stosowania

Kowalski Wojciech

Ochrona Dziedzictwa Kulturowego

2017

Nr 4

149--162

Author argues that places of memory can be protected under 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention as definition of heritage (art. 1) encompasses „historical value” criterion in relation to all elements of this heritage, namely to monuments, groups of buildings and sites. Such thesis is strongly supported by practical application of criterion VI of Operational Guidelines by World Heritage Committee. Almost all monuments and sites inscribed on the World Heritage List under this criterion are to maintain memory of important events, beliefs, ideas etc. Intangible component was therefore a basis of these inscriptions although presence of material component as “a witness” was also important. It is however specially interesting to note that the Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration Camp (1940-1945) was inscribed as the only one symbol of Holocaust what was underlined by the condition that no other such monuments would be inscribed in the future. It seems clear that by this fact the new principle of „symbolic representation” was adopted by Committee. The problem is that such principle has no legal basis, in particular it cannot be found in the 1972 Convention and for this reason decision establishing it is not binding for future inscriptions. Taking into account delicate and sometimes even political nature of inscription of some places of memory it seems reasonable that already existing practice of „serial inscriptions” can be adopted as a solution in cases of similar sites. It should make possible to leave apart the policy of „symbolic representation” as not only legally defective but leading also to situation where several places of memory of universal importance for whole humanity will stay without any legal protection.