Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

International Law
Reference:

Features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe

Gibadullin Timur Damirovich

ORCID: 0000-0003-2752-6347

Postgraduate Student, Department of International and European Law, Kazan Federal University

420008, Russia, Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, Kremlevskaya str., 18

tdgibadullin@gmail.com

DOI:

10.25136/2644-5514.2022.4.37243

EDN:

AQZGNM

Received:

30-12-2021


Published:

30-12-2022


Abstract: The aim of the work is to identify and disclose the distinctive features of the regulation of the protection of cultural heritage in accordance with the main conventions of the Council of Europe in this area, which are the subject of the study. The methodological basis of the article is the methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, formal-logical, descriptive, system-structural, historical, comparative, formal-legal methods. The paper identifies problems related to the protection of cultural heritage that exist on a global scale and at the level of Russia, describes the efforts of the international community to solve such problems. The definition of cultural heritage is given. The list of all international treaties adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which in one way or another affect the issues of cultural heritage, is given, the greatest importance of five of these conventions is argued. The features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of this international organization, highlighted on the basis of the study of these international treaties, are considered. The author points out such features as paying special attention to human rights; attaching great importance to the participation of civil society and the public in activities related to cultural heritage; the frequent absence of its explicit division into tangible and intangible heritage, etc. Taking into account the highlighted characteristic features of the States parties to the most significant international treaties mentioned above can contribute to improving the effectiveness of their application of these conventions - not only individually, but also in a complex. This also applies to Russia. The author identifies areas related to the features of the convention protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe, on which it may be advisable for Russia to intensify its activities. The scientific novelty of the article is determined by the above-mentioned conclusions and recommendations of the author. It is also expressed in the disclosure of some of the above-mentioned features of the regime of the main conventions of the Council of Europe in the field of protection of cultural heritage, for example, paying special attention to human rights.


Keywords:

Council of Europe, cultural heritage, cultural property, European heritage, common heritage of Europe, protection of cultural heritage, human rights, civil society, integrated conservation, sustainable development

This article is automatically translated.

From day to day, cultural heritage — an irreplaceable link between the past, present and future generations, a reflection of the history and identity of peoples — continues to be in danger. During armed conflicts, it is attacked with the aim of destroying the cultural identity of groups, communities and individuals, of which cultural heritage is a part. At the same time, it becomes an object of economic exchange in the context of globalization, which negatively affects the intangible cultural heritage, which finds expression, for example, in the disappearance of languages or customs of the peoples of the world [38, p. v].

There are certain problems related to the protection of cultural heritage, including on the territory of Russia. These include frequent violations of legislation in this area (among other things, when the objects in question are excluded from the Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation, when financing measures to protect cultural heritage, when carrying out urban planning and land use) [32]. All this leads to damage and destruction of the priceless cultural heritage of our country. In addition, the mentioned problems include the fact that the powers of representatives of civil society and the public in the field of cultural heritage protection are in some cases insufficiently broad [31, p. 19], and this also negatively affects the preservation of the objects and manifestations under consideration.

It is worth noting that the problems described above also have an impact on human rights. In particular, they create difficulties for the full realization of the right to access to cultural values enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation [29, part 2 of Article 44]. This is explained by the fact that, as stated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, part of this right is the right to the preservation of cultural heritage objects [30, paragraph 4.1].

But how are things going with solving the problems of preserving these objects and manifestations? Answering this question, it should be noted that the last few decades have marked the awareness of the international community of the urgency of solving these issues, along with a significant shift of relevant efforts from the national legal to the international legal level [44, p. vii]. Only under the auspices of UNESCO during the first five years of the XXI century, three conventions related to cultural heritage were signed [13, 12, 11], and more recently, in 2017, even the UN Security Council adopted for the first time a resolution devoted exclusively to the protection of cultural heritage [22].

These problems are not ignored at the regional level. In particular, a lot of attention is paid to the issues under consideration by such a regional international organization as the Council of Europe. For example, in the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of February 22, 2017 on the European Strategy on Cultural Heritage for the XXI Century, it was announced that the very statutory goal of the Council of Europe, which is to achieve greater unity among its members [20, paragraph a of Article 1], can be implemented through joint actions, including in the field of cultural heritage [28, Preamble, para. 2]. In general, this international organization has developed a truly extensive legal framework for the protection of the objects and manifestations under discussion, which, however, is studied in the framework of the domestic science of international law, a small number of works are devoted to.

In this regard, and also, among other things, due to Russia's membership in the Council of Europe and the direct influence of its legal acts on it, we believe that issues of cultural heritage protection at the level of this international organization deserve increased attention.

Before proceeding to the main part of our work, we will outline the methodological basis of this study. She used methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, formal-logical, descriptive, system-structural, historical, comparative and formal-legal methods.

For the purposes of analyzing the issues raised in the title of our work, first of all it is necessary to define cultural heritage. From the point of view of international law, including the law of the Council of Europe, cultural heritage can be defined as material and intangible property received from previous generations, which should be preserved and passed on to future generations [34, p. 8]. Cultural heritage can be archaeological monuments, buildings, sculptures, paintings, natural objects with cultural aspects, rituals, oral traditions, etc.

At the same time, there is no single definition of tangible cultural heritage in international law. As for the intangible cultural heritage, its definition is contained in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003. According to him, this concept "means customs, forms of representation and expression, knowledge and skills — as well as related tools, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces — recognized by communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals as part of their cultural heritage" [12, paragraph 1 of art. 2].

Having decided on the terminology, we will turn directly to the legal framework of the Council of Europe in the field of cultural heritage protection.

Firstly, it must be said that a number of international treaties concerning these objects and manifestations have been adopted under the auspices of this international organization. These international legal acts include:

- European Cultural Convention (December 19, 1954) [6];

- European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (May 6, 1969) [3];

- European Convention on Offences against Cultural Property (June 23, 1985) [1];

- Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (October 3, 1985) [9];

- European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (revised) (January 16, 1992) [4];

- European Convention on Co-production of Films (October 2, 1992) [2];

- European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (November 5, 1992) [7];

- Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (February 1, 1995) [18];

- Council of Europe Landscape Convention (as amended by the 2016 Protocol) (October 20, 2000) [14];

- The European Convention for the Protection of Audiovisual Heritage (November 8, 2001) [5], as well as the Protocol on the Protection of Television Programs to this Convention (November 8, 2001) [17];

- Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society (October 27, 2005) [19];

- Council of Europe Convention on Joint Film Production (revised) (January 30, 2017) [16];

- Council of Europe Convention on Offences against Cultural Property (May 19, 2017) [15].

In addition, the international organization under consideration has adopted a significant number of "soft law" documents in the field of cultural heritage protection, which, among other things, include provisions on best practices in this area and the implementation of relevant conventions [27, 26, 24].

At the same time, it is mainly the latter that contain the legal foundations for the protection and development of European cultural heritage [41, p. 758]. Of course, the obvious binding nature of the norms of these international treaties for the participating States implies their greatest impact on the protection of cultural heritage among all the documents of the Council of Europe in this area.

In connection with the above, it seems that the regime of protection of cultural heritage at the level of this international organization, established precisely by conventions, is of particular interest. It seems that it is also of interest due to the fact that in the domestic doctrine the conventions discussed in the complex are rarely considered; from the relevant works, the works of S. N. Molchanov can be distinguished [33]. As for the foreign science of international law, these issues are covered, among others, in the works of D. Blake [34], R. Crofurd-Smith [35], K. Odendahl [41], D. Theron [42], A. Yakubovsky [37].

All the above-mentioned international treaties have been supported by the member States of the Council of Europe to varying degrees, but some of them, as of January 2022, have been ratified by the overwhelming majority or even all the member States of this international organization, and other States participate in some. Such international treaties include, with some exceptions, the five most significant, in our opinion, conventions of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage:

- European Cultural Convention of 1954;

- Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, 1985;

- European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (revised) 1992;

- Council of Europe Landscape Convention 2000 (as amended by the 2016 Protocol);

- The Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005 (this Convention is the mentioned exception, since as of January 2022, 21 of the 47 member States participate in it).

It is these international treaties that simultaneously have a significant number of ratifications, have entered into force and most directly relate to the protection of cultural heritage, exerting the most extensive influence in this area. 

It should be noted that in the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe dated February 22, 2017 about the European Strategy on Cultural Heritage for the XXI Century, these five conventions are called "fundamental" [28, p. 4].

In addition, for example, when mentioning in paragraph 8 of the preamble of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005 of other documents of the Council of Europe, just the other four listed conventions are highlighted.

Finally, in foreign literature it is also either explicitly noted that among the international treaties of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage, almost all of the mentioned conventions are the main ones (D. Blake) [34, p. 325], or increased attention is paid to them (R. Crofurd-Smith) [35, p. 912-918].

We, in turn, also believe that among the international treaties of this international organization in the field under consideration, these conventions can be called the main ones.

The study of these legal acts as the subject of our research allows us to highlight the features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe, in the disclosure of a number of which (for example, the first one) the scientific novelty of this work is expressed. Scientific novelty, moreover, is contained in our conclusions and recommendations, which are in the final part of this study.

1. Firstly, we have revealed that the main conventions of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage pay special attention to human rights. This correlates with one of the main broad political and social goals of this international organization, namely, ensuring respect for human rights.

Thus, starting from the 1954 European Cultural Convention, the main international treaties of the Council of Europe related to cultural heritage state the obligation of the participating States to ensure access to it [6, Article 5; 9, Article 12; 4, paragraph ii of Article 9; 19, paragraph d of Article 12], and such provisions can be considered aimed at ensuring the right of access to cultural heritage.

In addition, the most recent of the main relevant conventions, namely the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005, human rights issues are most explicitly addressed. It is the first international treaty (taking into account universal international treaties) that quite definitely places cultural heritage in the field of individual rights [46, p. 37]. Article 4 of the Convention under consideration provides for the right to cultural heritage, according to which any individual, individually or collectively, has the right to use cultural heritage and contribute contribution to its enrichment.

The approach of this international treaty, based on human rights, allows us to focus the preservation of heritage on the development of human potential [40, p. 61]. The considered approach is also valuable from the point of view of securing not only the directly relevant human rights, but also his duties. This international treaty, in addition to the obligation of the participating States to ensure the exercise of the right to cultural heritage, provides for the obligation of individuals and groups to respect the heritage of others [19, paragraph b of Article 4], which contributes to conflict resolution, as well as, in the respective States, post-conflict reconstruction and development through cultural means [45, p. 45].

In general, it seems that the trend related to the regulation of human rights issues in the Council of Europe conventions on cultural heritage will continue to grow.

2. Another feature of the Council of Europe's approach to the protection of cultural heritage, related to another broad political and social goal of this international organization (the promotion of democracy) and manifested not only in conventions, is the consolidation in relevant documents of provisions concerning the importance of the participation of civil society and the public in a number of activities related to cultural heritage in particular, in its detection and protection [34, p. 324]. For example, similar provisions are contained in:

- The Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985, in which the participating States, for example, undertake to create a mechanism for cooperation in the field of architectural heritage protection between the state, civil society institutions and the public [9, paragraph 1 of Article 14];

- The 2000 Council of Europe Landscape Convention (as amended by the 2016 Protocol), according to which the participating States, among other things, should develop procedures for the participation of stakeholders, including the population, as well as local and regional authorities, in the definition and implementation of policies for the protection and planning of landscapes, as well as management of them [14, paragraph c of Article 5];

- Recommendations 1990 (2012) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of January 24, 2012 "On the right of everyone to participate in cultural life", which, although it says that the key role in the protection of cultural heritage should belong to the state, also at the same time it is noted that it should be the initiator, regulator and stimulator of interaction between state institutions and non-profit and private organizations, in particular contributing to the protection and development of cultural heritage [23].

The apotheosis of ensuring democratic participation in issues related to cultural heritage was the adoption of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society in 2005, the very name of which may indicate a similar bias. According to it, the participating States should encourage universal participation in the process of identifying cultural heritage, its interpretation, study, use, protection and preservation [19, paragraph a of Article 12].

At the same time, it should be understood that effective participation of the population in the issues under consideration cannot simply be imposed from above. It is necessary to have mechanisms that facilitate such participation and prevent certain individuals or groups from dominating it, which can undermine public confidence in the process [36].

In addition, it seems very important that the 2005 Framework Convention separately establishes the need to ensure the participation of representatives of civil society in activities related to cultural heritage. Article 19, paragraph d, states that participating States should recognize the role of "voluntary organizations", both as partners of the State in activities related to cultural heritage and as constructive critics of policies in this area.

3. Further, there are a number of features of the approach to the protection of cultural heritage and its perception in general, manifested in the main conventions of the Council of Europe devoted to it, which distinguish this approach from the corresponding paradigm at the universal level (here we mean UNESCO).

Thus, a similar feature is the frequent absence at the level of the Council of Europe of an explicit division of the objects and manifestations under consideration into tangible and intangible heritage [39] (both from a textual point of view and from the point of view of separate approaches to protection), which is practiced by UNESCO.

For example, the European Cultural Convention adopted back in 1954 — the first international treaty of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage — refers simultaneously to such a classical intangible manifestation of cultural heritage (which, however, is not designated there as "intangible" as opposed to "material") as language [6, art. 2], and about such material objects as "objects of cultural value" [6, Articles 4-5].

Interestingly, in the same year, the first international treaty on the protection of cultural heritage was adopted already under the auspices of UNESCO, namely the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict [8], which concerned only material objects. Only after almost half a century, an international treaty on intangible cultural heritage appeared at the universal level — the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003, which clearly draws a line between such manifestations and material objects both from a textual point of view and from the point of view of establishing a separate protection regime.

Returning to the international treaties of the Council of Europe, it is worth noting that the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985, like the European Cultural Convention of 1954, contributes to the protection of not only material cultural heritage (in this case architectural), but also, for example, traditional skills associated with it [9, paragraph 5 of Article 10]. The latter include, for example, the skill of the so-called "dry masonry", that is, construction of stone without the use of binding mortar. Noteworthy is the fact that a non-governmental organization for the preservation of this traditional method was even established in Croatia, which was noted by the Council of Europe [47].

In addition, it must be said that even the very definition of archaeological heritage for the purposes of the European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (revised) 1992 includes intangible manifestations. Confirmation of this can be found in the explanatory report to this international treaty, which states that according to the definition of archaeological heritage contained in the Convention, "not only objects [of archaeological heritage] are important", but also "any evidence of any kind that can shed light on the past of mankind" [25, p. 3].

4. Another distinctive feature of the regime of the main conventions of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage, in comparison with the regime of protection of such objects and manifestations at the universal level, is the coverage by European conventions of objects whose cultural value may not always be immediately obvious — due to their inconsistency with generally accepted ideas about beauty, something outstanding or inspiring.

This applies to the two most recent of the five international treaties of the Council of Europe under consideration. If, for example, according to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, objects of "outstanding universal value" are World Heritage sites [10, Articles 1-2], then paragraph 7 of the preamble of the Council of Europe Convention on Landscapes of 2000 (as amended by the Protocol of 2016) explicitly states that landscapes in areas in decline, as well as in ordinary areas, are also important for ensuring the quality of life of people. In accordance with the definition of cultural heritage for the purposes of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society in 2005 [19, paragraph a of Article 2], such objects can include not only something beautiful or inspiring from an aesthetic point of view, but also manifestations of conflicts and inhumane acts of the past that affect modern values [35, p. 917].

In this regard, we can talk about a certain trend related to the coverage of such "non-obvious" heritage, which, as it seems, will be preserved in further international treaties of the Council of Europe related to cultural heritage.

5. It is interesting that, despite a number of features of the Council of Europe's approach to the protection and perception of cultural heritage in general that distinguish it from the UNESCO approach, there is a significant influence of universal international legal instruments in the main relevant conventions of the Council of Europe.

So, in particular, it is possible to note the influence of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 on the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985. It manifests itself even in the definition of architectural heritage for the purposes of the last international treaty [9, Article 1], the three categories of which mentioned in this definition in the English-language text of the 1985 Convention are identical to the categories of world cultural heritage in the English-language text of the 1972 Convention [10, Article 1].

In addition, it is worth mentioning the similarity of approaches of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 and the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society of 2005, which are characterized by a dynamic understanding of cultural heritage and an emphasis on the participation of groups and communities in activities related to it [35, p. 917].

6. It should also be noted that one of the notable characteristic features of the Convention protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe is the active use of the concept of "common" European heritage.

This concept can be interpreted in different ways. As indicated in the literature, it is possible that the common heritage of Europe is understood as a set of diverse objects and manifestations of cultural heritage located in the member States of the Council of Europe [35, p. 914]. In other words, this concept may simply imply the entire amount of cultural heritage located on the territory of the States of the region in question. It is also possible that the concept under discussion refers to a cultural heritage that has a special meaning for Europe (because of its presence in all or many European states, or because it is the result of the interaction of various European peoples), which implies a separate interest in the preservation and development of such cultural heritage Europe as a whole, and not just a particular member state [35, p. 914]. For the latter, this can have both pros and cons.

It is important to note that the concept of a common European heritage (in various formulations) is found both in international treaties and other documents of the Council of Europe of the last century, and in relatively recent international legal acts.

From the documents of the XX century, an example can be given, in particular, the European Cultural Convention of 1954, the States parties to which undertake to take the necessary measures to promote the development and protection of "their national contribution to the common cultural heritage ["heritage" in the English text] Europe" [6, Article 1], or the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985, in paragraph 3 of the preamble of which architectural heritage is called "the common heritage of all Europeans".

In addition, the concept of "European heritage" was directly related, for example, to the European Plan for Archaeology in 1994, and, interestingly, one of the important events of this plan was the conference held in 1995 at the British Museum on Bronze Age Europe, the theme of which was chosen due to the fact that in this archaeological period, Europe was the most unified in terms of trade and communications [34, p. 323].

As for relatively recent international treaties, the 2005 Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society is relevant in connection with the issue under consideration, where a separate article of the same name is already devoted to the "common heritage of Europe" [19, Article 3]. This may indicate that this category has been increasingly consolidated in the legal acts of the Council of Europe over time.

In addition, it should be said that the reference in the documents of the international organization in question to this category may also imply the existence of a common "European identity", an important role in the definition and consolidation of which is played by the pan-European heritage, and which can become the basis for further integration and cooperation in this region [34, p. 323].

7. It should be noted that a number of documents of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage, including the main relevant conventions, enshrine the principles of "integrated conservation" of such objects. If we talk about the five main international treaties of the Council of Europe under consideration, the relevant provisions have always been included in them, starting with the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985 [9, Article 10; 4, Article 5; 14, paragraph d of Article 5; 19, paragraph g of Article 5, paragraph a of Article 11]

This particular approach, developed by this international organization, involves the integration of the preservation of cultural heritage, including in urban planning policy, in environmental protection policy and, in particular, the inclusion of the principles of the protection of cultural heritage and its management in all decision-making processes, and also assumes the appropriate adaptation of cultural heritage to modern needs.

It should also be noted that comprehensive conservation requires legal, technical, financial, administrative and human resources, involving the interaction of various sectors, professions, government agencies and the public, as well as professional training and overcoming corporatism [42, p. 22].

8. Another feature of the Convention protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level that deserves mention is the focus on sustainable development issues.

This applies to the last two of the conventions under consideration, and if the Council of Europe Landscape Convention 2000 (as amended by the Protocol 2016) mentions sustainable development in general, as well as sustainable landscape protection, sustainable management and planning three times [14, paragraph 3 of the preamble, paragraph e of Article 1, paragraph 4 Article 11], then in the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society 2005, similar issues occupy a much more important place, and the sustainable use of cultural heritage is given a whole separate Article 9.

Using the well-known definition of the concept of "sustainable development" given in the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development "Our common Future" [21, p. 59], the concept of "sustainable use of cultural heritage", in our opinion, can be defined as such its use that meets the needs of the current generation, but which will not prevent future generations from satisfying their needs. In view of this, it can be concluded that the need for the sustainable use of cultural heritage implies even the definition of cultural heritage itself as such, which was given by us in this paper earlier.

9. Finally, it is impossible not to highlight such a characteristic feature of the considered international treaties of the Council of Europe as the recognition in them of a direct link between cultural heritage and quality of life. It can be seen in the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 1985 [9, paragraph 4 of Article 10], in the Council of Europe Convention on Landscapes of 2000 (as amended by the Protocol of 2016) [14, paragraph 7 of the preamble], in the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society of 2005 [19, paragraph 4 of the preamble] It seems that such recognition is connected, among other things, with the important place that the quality of life occupies in the European system of values [34, p. 327].

Thus, we have identified the main features of the protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe in accordance with the most important conventions in this area adopted under its auspices. It seems that taking into account these features by all interested parties can form a better understanding of the main trends in the development of the law of the Council of Europe in the field of protection of cultural heritage and the prospects of this right. In addition, it seems that taking into account the identified characteristics of the States parties to the international treaties under consideration can contribute to improving the effectiveness of their application of these conventions - which is important, not only individually, but also in a complex.

The latter applies, among other things, to Russia. Moreover, in our opinion, it should intensify its activities in areas related to some of the features of the Convention protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level considered in this study.

So, in the light of the specific problems mentioned in the introduction of our work related to the protection of cultural heritage that take place on the territory of Russia, it seems that it should pay more attention to the principles of integrated preservation of such objects and manifestations.

Again, in the light of these specific problems, it may be appropriate for Russia to ensure greater participation of representatives of civil society and the public in the protection of cultural heritage, including giving them broader powers in this area. This can be facilitated, in particular, by Russia's ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Significance of Cultural Heritage for Society in 2005. As already noted, it obliges the participating States to encourage very serious public participation in activities related to cultural heritage, and separately speaks of the need to ensure the participation of representatives of civil society in these activities.

The ratification of this international treaty can also have a positive impact in the context of the second of the features of the convention protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level (concerning human rights) studied in this paper. In particular, it seems that if Russia participates in the 2005 Framework Convention, the content of the constitutional right to access to cultural values may be supplemented. The fact is that, as already mentioned, Article 4 of this Convention provides for the right to cultural heritage, and it includes, for example, the right to contribute to its enrichment, which, in turn, can be included in the content of the said constitutional right.

References
1. European Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, June 23, 1985, E.T.S. No. 119.
2. European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production, Oct. 2, 1992, E.T.S. No. 147.
3. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, May 6, 1969, E.T.S. No. 066.
4. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), Jan. 16, 1992, E.T.S. No. 143.
5. European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage, Nov. 8, 2001, E.T.S. No. 183.
6. European Cultural Convention, Dec. 19, 1954, 1 Бюллетень международных договоров (2000).
7. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Nov. 5, 1992, E.T.S. No. 148.
8. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, May 14, 1954, XIX Сборник действующих договоров, соглашений и конвенций, заключенных СССР с иностранными государствами 114 (1960).
9. Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, Oct. 3, 1985, E.T.S. No. 121.
10. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Nov. 16, 1972, XLIV Сборник международных договоров СССР 496 (1990).
11. Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, Oct. 20, 2005, https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/cultural_expression.shtml.
12. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Oct. 17, 2003, http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/cultural_heritage_conv.shtml.
13. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Nov. 2, 2001, in Нормативные акты ЮНЕСКО по охране культурного наследия 88 (2002).
14. Council of Europe Landscape Convention (as amended by the 2016 Protocol), Oct. 20, 2000, E.T.S. No. 176.
15. Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, May 19, 2017, CoE T.S. No. 221.
16. Council of Europe Convention on Cinematographic Co-production (revised), Jan. 30, 2017, CoE T.S. No. 220.
17. Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage, on the Protection of Television Productions, Nov. 8, 2001, E.T.S. No. 184.
18. Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Feb. 1, 1995, E.T.S. No. 157.
19. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Oct. 27, 2005, CoE T.S. No. 199.
20. Statute of the Council of Europe, May 5, 1949, 5 Бюллетень международных договоров (1997).
21. World Commission on Environment and Development, Rep. of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future,” U.N. Doc. А/42/427 (Aug. 4, 1987).
22. S.C. Res. 2347 (2017) (March 24, 2017).
23. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1990 (2012) “The right of everyone to take part in cultural life” (Jan. 24, 2012).
24. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Declaration on the protection and rebuilding of places of worship in Kosovo and the wider Balkans (July 18, 2001), https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=090000168050a1ea.
25. Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800cb5e0.
26. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1486 (2000) “Maritime and fluvial cultural heritage” (Nov. 9, 2000).
27. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (91) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of the twentieth-century architectural heritage (Sept. 9, 1991).
28. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21st century, Doc. CM/Rec(2017)1 (Feb. 22, 2017).
29. Конституция Российской Федерации (принята всенародным голосованием 12 декабря 1993 года, с изменениями, одобренными в ходе общероссийского голосования 1 июля 2020 года) [Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on 12 December 1993, with amendments approved during the all-Russian vote on 1 July 2020)], Официальный интернет-портал правовой информации, http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202007040001.
30. Определение Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации от 15 июля 2010 г. № 931-О-О по жалобе гражданки Андроновой Ольги Олеговны на нарушение ее конституционных прав положениями статей 39 и 40 Градостроительного кодекса Российской Федерации, статьи 13 Закона Санкт-Петербурга «О градостроительной деятельности в Санкт-Петербурге», статей 7 и 8 Закона Санкт-Петербурга «О порядке организации и проведения публичных слушаний и информирования населения при осуществлении градостроительной деятельности в Санкт-Петербурге» [Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 15 July 2010 No. 931-O-O on the complaint of citizen Andronova Olga Olegovna about the violation of her constitutional rights by the provisions of Articles 39 and 40 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, Article 13 of the Law of Saint Petersburg “On Urban Planning Activities in Saint Petersburg,” Articles 7 and 8 of the Law of Saint Petersburg “On the Procedure for Organizing and Holding Public Hearings and Informing the Population in the Implementation of Urban Planning Activities in Saint Petersburg”], 2 Вестник Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации (2011).
31. Barkova, O. I., Vlasov, V. A., Mizirenkova, E. A. (2019). Общественный контроль над объектами культурного наследия в муниципальных образованиях как важнейшая теоретическая и практическая проблема власти и гражданского общества [Public control over objects of cultural heritage in municipalities as the most important theoretical and practical problem of government and civil society]. Право и государство: теория и практика, 169(1), 19–24.
32. Markina, I. A. (2021). Пять пока не решаемых проблем в сохранении объектов культурного наследия на территории РФ [Five unresolved problems in the preservation of cultural heritage sites in the Russian Federation]. Retrieved from https://archi.ru/russia/93640/pyat-glavnykh-bolnykh-tem-okhrany-naslediya
33. Molchanov, S. N. (2003). Сохранение и охрана памятников культурного наследия в рамках Совета Европы [Preservation and protection of cultural heritage within the framework of the Council of Europe]. Retrieved from http://smolchanov.narod.ru/CultLawCE.htm
34. Blake, J. (2015). International Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Craufurd Smith, R. (2020). Europe. In F. Francioni, A. F. Vrdoljak (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (pp. 908–930). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. De Vente, J., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Valente, S., Newig, J. (2016). How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society, 21(2). doi:10.5751/ES-08053-210224
37. Jakubowski, A. (2016). Cultural Heritage and the Collective Dimension of Cultural Rights in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In A. Jakubowski (Ed.), Cultural Rights as Collective Rights: An International Law Perspective (pp. 157–179). Leiden: Brill.
38. Lagrange, E., Oeter, S., Uerpmann-Wittzack, R. (2018). Preface. In E. Lagrange, S. Oeter, R. Uerpmann-Wittzack (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and International Law: Objects, Means and Ends of International Protection (pp. v–vi). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
39. Lixinski, L. (2013). Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Meyer-Bisch, P. (2009). On the «right to heritage» – The innovative approach of Articles 1 and 2 of the Faro Convention. In D. Thérond, A. Trigona (Eds.), Heritage and Beyond (pp. 59–65). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
41. Odendahl, K. (2017). Securing and Enhancing the Common Cultural Heritage. In S. Schmahl, M. Breuer (Eds.), The Council of Europe: Its Law and Policies (pp. 749–768). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Thérond, D. (2010). The Council of Europe conventions in the field of cultural heritage and landscape: trends and prospects. In M. Guštin, T. Nypan (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and Legal Aspects in Europe (pp. 20–31). Koper: Institute for Mediterranean Heritage, Institute for Corporation and Public Law, Science and Research Centre, University of Primorska.
43. Vícha, O. (2014). The Concept of the Right to Cultural Heritage within the Faro Convention. International and Comparative Law Review, 14(2), 25–40. doi:10.1515/iclr-2016-0049
44. Vrdoljak, A. F., Francioni, F. (2014). Series Editors’ Preface. In A. Chechi, The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes (p. vii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Wolferstan, S., Fairclough, G. (2013). Common European heritage: reinventing identity through landscape and heritage? In D. Callebaut, J. Mařík, J. Maříková-Kubková (Eds.), Heritage Reinvents Europe (pp. 43–54). Budapest: European Archaeological Council/Archaeolingua.
46. Zagato, L. (2012). Intangible Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. In T. Scovazzi, B. Ubertazzi, L. Zagato (Eds.), Il patrimonio culturale intangibile nelle sue diverse dimensioni (pp. 29–50). Milano: Giuffré.
47. Dragodid.org – preserving the dry-stone masonry techniques of eastern Adriatic. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/-/association-4-grada-dragodid

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study, as follows from the title of the work submitted for review, is "Features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe". The stated boundaries of the study are observed by the author. The research methodology is defined in the text of the work: the author used "... methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, formal-logical, descriptive, systemic-structural, historical, comparative and formal-legal methods." The relevance of the chosen research topic in the text of the article is disclosed as follows – the author notes that the problems of cultural heritage protection have recently been given increased attention at different levels, which is confirmed by the number of Conventions adopted in recent years. In particular, the Council of Europe "... has developed a truly extensive legal framework for the preservation of the objects and manifestations under discussion, to the study of which, however, a small number of works are devoted within the framework of the national science of international law. In this regard, and also, among other things, in view of Russia's membership in the Council of Europe and the resulting direct influence of its legal acts on it, we believe that issues of cultural heritage protection at the level of this international organization deserve increased attention." Additionally, the scientist needs to list the names of scientists who are engaged in research on the problems raised in the article. The article defines what the scientific novelty of the work is. As indicated in the study, "The study of these legal acts as the subject of our research allows us to highlight the features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level, the disclosure of a number of which ... expresses the scientific novelty of this work." The features of the conventional protection of the cultural heritage of mankind highlighted by the author (there are nine of them) certainly deserve the attention of the readership. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author substantiates the relevance of the chosen research topic, defines its methodology. In the main part of the article, the scientist lists international treaties related to the protection of the cultural heritage of mankind and adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, identifies those of fundamental importance, and then proceeds to identify the features of the conventional protection of the cultural heritage of mankind at the Council of Europe level. The final part of the work contains general conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work fully corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. As already noted, the author needs to finalize the introductory part of the study. The researcher needs to propose a definition of the concept of "cultural heritage" and list the problems of realizing the right to cultural heritage in Russia as a whole, as well as problems related to the identification of cultural heritage and its protection. The scientist does not reveal the essence of the concept of "intangible cultural heritage". Some provisions of the work need to be illustrated with examples (in particular, the author talks about traditional crafts, but does not give examples of such). The scientist does not define the concept of "unaesthetic cultural heritage". The same can be said about the concept of "sustainable development of cultural heritage". The author should avoid continuous quoting. The bibliography of the study is presented by 37 sources (international acts, monographs and scientific articles, including in foreign languages). From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. There is an appeal to opponents (Smith R.Craufurd), but mostly the author refers to certain scientific works in support of his judgments. The scientific discussion is conducted by the scientist correctly. There are conclusions based on the results of the study, but they are general in nature, and therefore need to be specified ("Thus, we have identified the main features of the protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level in accordance with the most important conventions in this area adopted under its auspices. It seems that taking into account these features by the States parties to these international treaties can contribute to improving the effectiveness of their application of these conventions - which is important, not only individually, but also in a complex. In addition, it seems that taking into account the highlighted features by all interested parties can form a better understanding of the main trends in the development of Council of Europe law in the field of cultural heritage protection and the prospects for this right"). The author needs to clearly identify which features of the protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level should be implemented in Russia, what problems are being identified in this regard, and how they can be solved. The article needs additional proofreading by the author. There are typos and stylistic errors in it. The interest of the readership in the presented article can be shown, first of all, by specialists in the field of public international law, provided that it is finalized: additional justification of the relevance of the research topic, clarification of some provisions of the work, formulation of clearer and more specific conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of shortcomings in the design of the work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of studying the features of "... conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe". The author has chosen an important and special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of international law, while the author notes that "Certain problems related to the protection of cultural heritage exist, including on the territory of Russia." It studies mainly various conventions and international treaties at the European level (as is clear from the title of the article), but also the world (Unesco and UN Security Council documents) and other normative acts, including the Russian Federation: "... the last few decades have marked the awareness of the international community of the urgency of solving these issues, along with a significant shift in relevant efforts from the national legal to the international legal level [44, p. vii]" and the practice that has developed under the convention protection of "... cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe". A certain amount of scientific literature (both foreign and Russian) on the stated problems is also studied and summarized. At the same time, the author notes that "... in the Russian doctrine, the conventions discussed in the complex are rarely considered; from the relevant works, the works of S. N. Molchanov can be distinguished [33]. As for the foreign science of international law, these issues are covered, among others, in the works of D. Blake [34], R. Crofurd-Smith [35], K. Odendahl [41], D. Theron [42], A. Yakubovsky [37]." Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work "... the regime of protection of cultural heritage at the level of this international organization, established precisely by conventions, is of particular interest." It can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues and the use of certain experience. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the research: "methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, formal-logical, descriptive, systemic-structural, historical, comparative and formal-legal methods." In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific and special legal methods of cognition. The methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and separate the conclusions of various approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw some conclusions from the materials of the opponents. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author used a formal legal method that allowed for the analysis and interpretation of the norms of current international law "... these international treaties simultaneously have a significant number of ratifications, have entered into force and most directly relate to the protection of cultural heritage, exerting the most extensive influence in this area." In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: solving "... problems related to the protection of cultural heritage taking place on the territory of Russia, it seems that it should pay more attention to the principles of integrated conservation of such objects and manifestations", "... it may be advisable for Russia to ensure greater participation of representatives of civil society and the public in the protection of cultural heritage including giving them broader powers in the area under consideration. This can be facilitated, in particular, by Russia's ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Importance of Cultural Heritage for Society in 2005," etc. At the same time, in the context of the purpose of the study, the formal legal method was applied in conjunction with the comparative legal method, especially since the author cited many scientific works by foreign scientists and international treaties. It is important to note here that the author analyzes certain aspects of the problem of citing foreign studies (there are a large number of them). For example, such an author's conclusion: "... an international treaty, in addition to the obligation of the participating States to ensure the exercise of the right to cultural heritage, provides for the obligation of individuals and groups to respect the heritage of others [19, paragraph b of Article 4], which contributes to conflict resolution, as well as, in the relevant States, post-conflict reconstruction and development with the help of cultural means [45, p. 45]". Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the article, allows you to study all aspects of the stated topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is one of the most important in the world and in particular in Russia, from a legal point of view, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes that "... taking into account the highlighted characteristic features of the States parties to the considered international treaties can contribute to improving the effectiveness of their application of these conventions - which is important, not only individually but also in the complex." The author also cites recommendations and proposals (9 of them), in particular "... the main conventions of the Council of Europe concerning cultural heritage pay special attention to human rights ...", "... enshrining in relevant documents provisions concerning the importance of the participation of civil society and the public in a number of activities related to cultural heritage ...". Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only to be welcomed. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. It is expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, are the following: "The study of these legal acts as the subject of our research allows us to highlight the features of the conventional protection of cultural heritage at the Council of Europe level, the disclosure of a number of which (for example, the first) expresses the scientific novelty of this work." As can be seen, these and other "theoretical" conclusions ("... a feature is the frequent absence at the Council of Europe level of an explicit division of the objects and manifestations under consideration into tangible and intangible heritage [39] (both from a textual point of view and from the point of view of separate approaches to protection), which is practiced by UNESCO") can to be used in further scientific research. Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of some interest to the scientific community in terms of contribution to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "International Law", as it is devoted to topical issues of studying the features of "... conventional protection of cultural heritage at the level of the Council of Europe". The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, since the author considered the stated problems and achieved the purpose of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as well-developed. The subject, objectives, methodology, and results of legal research directly follow from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the used foreign and Russian literature and international treaties should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by the authors of the research. I would like to note the presence of international legal acts, which is especially important in the context of the purpose of the study. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of all aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author has conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study, describes different points of view on the problem, argues for the correct position, and offers solutions to individual problems in Russian legislation.
Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, specific, and they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article in this form may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues stated in the study. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and minor negative sides (rather the typos "... these international treaties ..."), I recommend "publishing" the article.