01908nas a2200205   4500000000100000000000100001000000100002008004100003653001900044653004500063653002900108653005100137100001800188245011300206856016100319300001000480490000700490520119100497022001401688       2011                            d10aAustralia (AU)10aLists of the 2003 Convention (ICH\_1331)10aHuman rights (THE\_5675)10aSDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals (ICH\_1395)1 aWilliam Logan00aPlaying the devil’s advocate: protecting intangible cultural heritage and the infringement of human rights  uhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/306256667_Playing_the_devil s_advocate_protecting_intangible_cultural_heritage_and_the_infringement_of_human_rights  a14-180 v223 aAdopted in 2003 and coming into force in 2006, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage has now been ratified or otherwise approved by 112 national governments. It is notable, however, that a number of countries which have been strongly involved in the World Heritage system have so far chosen not to ratify the Convention. Australia is one of these countries. This paper explores some of the reasons for this widespread resistance in terms of the key concepts, the system now set up under the Operational Directives, the impacts on communities whose intangible heritage has been nominated or not nominated for inscription on the Representative List, and human rights. In writing this paper, I am playing Devil’s Advocate, raising the issues that cause concern but with the view that, if these issues can be resolved, resistance to ratification may disappear. Nevertheless the paper concludes that, as an alternative to adopting the listing established under the Convention, a more democratic and broadly based set of consultative programs might achieve more effective maintenance of the diverse intangible cultural heritage of Australia and other resistant nations.  a0726-6715