@incollection{9319,
  author = {H. Schreiber and S. Urbinati},
  title = {International cultural heritage law and other international legal regimes},
  abstract = {This chapter discusses the rules and concepts that might be applied to understand the complex relationship between core international cultural heritage law norms and instruments and other international legal regimes that influence and conflate with heritage, though not being devoted to heritage at its core. International cultural heritage law as a subfield of general international law has been developing for almost 70 years: the moment of adoption, in 1954, of the Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts and its First Protocol. Today, it appears as an extremely fragmented landscape of international norms deriving from many international instruments of hard and soft law, referring to tangible heritage, underwater heritage, intangible heritage, norms regulating transfer of cultural property, architectural, audiovisual or documentary heritage just to mention few, adopted by different international organisations (such as UNESCO, UNIDROIT, WIPO, European Union, Council of Europe). Even if they are perceived as belonging to the same ‘heritage family’ they do not necessarily ‘share’ the same values and approaches (just to mention the exemplary case of conflicting narratives surrounding ‘world heritage’ and ‘intangible heritage’). What complicates this ‘heritage legal landscape’ and makes it even more dense and diverse is the number of instruments indirectly coping with heritage, adopted within other-than-heritage legal regimes such as: environmental law, maritime law, human rights law, intellectual property law etc. Besides these instruments, there is also a growing body of case law developed by international judicial courts and non-judicial bodies. The lens through which the analysis in this chapter is conducted involves concepts heavily discussed in recent years: the fragmentation of international law that has for years been perceived as a threat to the credibility and alleged coherence of international law on the one hand, and on the other, the concept of the rapprochement of legal regimes. Instead of traditional ‘lamenting’ on fragmentation and focusing on the issues arising from the isolation of legal regimes that eventually collide, we start by ‘embracing’ the fragmentation as an inherent feature of the international cultural heritage law as such and from detecting guidelines that effectively exist within general international law (Vienna Convention), international cultural heritage law and, also, amongst it and other legal regimes. We analyse practical challenges related to the plurality of legal regimes arising for all heritage practitioners and professionals, no matter whether they have a legal or non-legal background. We demonstrate the relevance of other-than-UNESCO treaties. We also identify old and new techniques utilized and elaborated by the relevant subjects to carry out the isolation, rapprochement and sometimes clashes between legal regimes on the example of diverse linkages between intangible cultural heritage law (as a ‘foreground’ heritage treaty) and other legal norms that influence its implementation (‘background’ regulations). By introducing this case study, we want to explain how the ICHL works in practice and show where to look for and find instruments to safely navigate through it and achieve heritage goals.},
  booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook of Heritage and the Law},
  pages = {61-81},
  url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85191445091&doi=10.4324%2f9781003149392-7&partnerID=40&md5=7b8f0d4df0b751454e4771634b1988fd},
  doi = {10.4324/9781003149392-7},
}