Skip to main content

Criteria of Protection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law and Religious Cultural Heritage in Europe
  • 624 Accesses

Abstract

Even though there is a wide and unarguably justified agreement in Europe on the necessity of protecting the (functional and non-functional, tangible and intangible, private and public) elements of religious cultural heritage, there is no general consensus regarding the criteria of the relevant legal protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gesetz zum Schutz deutschen Kulturgutes gegen Abwanderung of 6.8.1955, revised in 1999 (Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 1754) and 2007 (Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 757).

  2. 2.

    The protected elements are listed according to the relevant Monument Protection Act (Bundesgesetz betreffend den Schutz von Denkmalen wegen ihrer geschichtlichen, künstlerischen oder sonstigen kulturellen Bedeutung; Denkmalschutzgesetz - DMSG) published in: Bundesgesetzblatt No 533/1923 and recently amended (Bundesgesetzblatt I No. 170/1999 & 92/2013).

  3. 3.

    According to English Heritage (2013) Listing Selection Guide. Places of Worship, p. 20.

  4. 4.

    See Department for Media, Culture and Sport (2010) Scheduled Monuments. Identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, London, pp. 18–19.

  5. 5.

    English Heritage (2013) Scheduling Selection Guide. Religion and Ritual post-AD 410, p. 14.

  6. 6.

    Listing Selection Guide, op. cit., pp. 19–20. A set of criteria is being used also within the context of the Heritage at Risk programme; see English Heritage (2013) The Heritage At Risk Register 2013. Criteria For Inclusion On the Register, p. 4: “Places of worship considered for inclusion on the Register must be listed grade I, II* or II and be used as a public place of worship at least six times a year. Places of worship are assessed on the basis of condition only. If the place of worship is in ‘very bad’ or ‘poor’ condition it is added to the Register. Once on the Register, places of worship can move through the condition categories (e.g. from very bad to poor, to fair, even good) as repairs are implemented and the condition improves until they are fully repaired and can be removed from the Register”.

  7. 7.

    Lovbekendtgørelse No. 1088 af 29. August 2007 om bygningsfredning og bevaring af bygninger og bymiljøe, Title 2, § 4 (1). The buildings of the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church are subject to ad hoc legislation.

  8. 8.

    Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (last revised in July 2013): official text available online at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.

  9. 9.

    Cf. the ‘International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection’ within the framework of the 1954 Hague Convention (for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict), which is the only worldwide agreement for the protection of cultural property during military conflicts, providing (in Art. 8) for a special level of protection for a limited number of centres which contain monuments and other immovable cultural property of very great importance. According to WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.12 (November 16, 1994) “To date, only one monumental complex, the whole of the territory of the Vatican City State, has been entered in the Register” (official document available online at: http://whc.unesco.org/. Accessed on March 31, 2014; for an indicative list of registered cultural properties see CLT/CIH/MCO/2008/PI/46, also available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/. Accessed on March 31, 2014).

  10. 10.

    Criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi) respectively. See Operational Guidelines, op. cit., p. 20 f. The full list of the relevant criteria is available online at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/. Accessed on March 31, 2014.

  11. 11.

    UNESCO (1980) Report, CC-80/CONF.016/10, p. 3.

  12. 12.

    UNESCO (1984) Report, SC/83/CONF.009/8, p. 6.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 7.

  14. 14.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/263. Accessed on March 31, 2014.

  15. 15.

    UNESCO (1984) Report, SC/83/CONF.009/8, p. 9.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  17. 17.

    UNESCO (1988) Report, SC-88/CONF.001/13, Paris, p. 18.

  18. 18.

    ICOMOS (1987) Evaluation and Recommendation Document, No. 383, p. 3. See UNESCO (1988) Report, SC-87/CONF.005/9, p. 8.

  19. 19.

    UNESCO (1990) Report, CLT-90/CONF.004/13, p. 5.

  20. 20.

    UNESCO (1997) Report, WHC-96/CONF.201/21, pp. 723.

  21. 21.

    UNESCO (1998) Report, WHC-97/CONF.208/17, p. 42.

  22. 22.

    UNESCO (2001) Report, WHC-2000/CONF.204/21, Paris, p. 41.

  23. 23.

    UNESCO (2001) Report, WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 45.

  24. 24.

    Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 4th Session (Paris, June 4–8, 2012) available online at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/directives. Accessed on March 31, 2014.

  25. 25.

    The relevant Lists of intangible elements and associated criteria available online at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011. Accessed on March 31, 2014. A constructive criticism on the relevant UNESCO Lists in: Logan W. (2007) Closing Pandora’s box: Human Rights Conundrums in Cultural Heritage Protection, in: Silvermann H. & Fairchild Ruggles D. (eds.) Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, Springer, pp. 33–52 (p. 37 f.).

  26. 26.

    Decision 4.COM 2, 4th Session Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 28 September to 2 October 2009, ITH/09/4.COM/CONF.209/Decisions, p. 95.

References

  • Hipp, A. (2000). Schutz von Kulturgütern in Deutschland. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mynors, C. (2006). Listed buildings, conservation areas and monuments. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsivolas, T. (2013). The legal protection of religious cultural goods [in Greek]. Athens/Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieshaider, W. (2002). Denkmalschutzrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung für die österreichische Praxis. Wien/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tsivolas, T. (2014). Criteria of Protection. In: Law and Religious Cultural Heritage in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics