[Hu Xiaohui] Revision of the World Heritage Convention and its Significance in China
Summary: The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage promulgated in 1972 is a global landmark event in which UNESCO uses culture as the starting point to carry out cultural teleology and universal value exploration.
However, it has failed to clarify a core theoretical issue in the main text and its "Operation Guidelines" in the continuous revision, that is, it should be based on the transcendental position of culture as an ideal concept, and can transcend the various differences and diversity of cultural experience phenomena as a factual concept.
Only by achieving a level of logical universalization can different cultures and their subjects be placed on equal positions as interactive subjects, and common value standards can be inferred in a rational way.
Unfortunately, the wavering position of the Convention makes this standard appear to be just an empirical standard summarized and summarized from the culture as a factual concept.
Such mistakes not only easily cause people to misunderstand the Convention, but also easily cause various countries to ignore or even obscure the rights of heritage subjects in the practice of performance protection.
China's heritage protection work should recognize and correct this mistake in order to return to its own standard and uphold a rational purpose and direction.
Keywords: World Heritage Convention; revision; universal value
Author profile: Hu Xiaohui, male, researcher at the Institute of Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100732), mainly engaged in theoretical research on folklore and folk literature.
1.
Cultural connotation and significance of the World Heritage Convention
After the Second World War, cultural divisions intensified day by day.
Nationalism and regionalism inspired by global modernization surged across the country.
Different cultures increasingly emphasized the uniqueness of their own cultural identities, and the resulting cultural conflicts threatened world peace.
Some people even believed that "the biggest differences among mankind and the most important reason for conflicts are cultural differences." [1]Thus, in 1945, UNESCO came into being.
Its basic purpose and mission was to safeguard unity in cultural diversity and basic human freedoms, and pointed out: "The universal principles that are common to all United Nations agencies must be followed: 'Respect for equity, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all regardless of race, gender, language or regional differences.'" [2]
The reason why culture is unified is not only because all cultures should have a unified connotation of the concept of "culture", but also because it is both a factual concept of experience and a transcendental ideal concept.
In other words, it is an empirical fact that different regions and different ethnic groups have different cultural phenomena, but at the same time, culture, as a practical and creative activity of people, is also an ideal construction and transcendental setting with teleological significance, that is, culture should also embody humanistic ideals and human values and take human self-realization as the rational purpose.
As Yeager pointed out, the real "culture" is not a descriptive concept in the morphological sense, but an idea or ideal, that is, shaping people according to the idea or ideal.
Culture is not an unconscious unity of style, but a conscious spiritual creation system, that is, it educates and cultivates people into real people according to their own rational purposes [3]6 - 8.
Therefore, the empirical facts of cultural diversity must also obtain intrinsic unity and objective universal value through transcendental ideals and human values.
The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "World Heritage Convention" or Convention) formulated and promulgated by UNESCO in 1972 is a global landmark event that uses culture as the starting point to carry out cultural teleology and universal value exploration.
"Before the birth of the World Heritage Convention, the international community protected cultural heritage and natural heritage separately"[4]10.
The Convention's "new meaning is that it connects nature protection and cultural protection, which have until now been almost regarded as unrelated"[5].
After that, not only cultural heritage and natural heritage were considered comprehensively, but they also accepted the joint test of international perspective and "outstanding universal values".
As Yukio Nishimura, a former vice president of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and a member of the UNESCO Japan Committee, pointed out: "World heritage does not use the usual word 'international', but uses the word 'world' to express it, thereby gaining a vision beyond cultural nationalism to understand the diverse and unique earth.
It is precisely because of this that the World Heritage Treaty [Convention], which is supported by more and more countries, has become the world today." [6]Precisely because the World Heritage Convention advocates a new concept and new practice that transcends the existing pattern of cultural nationalism, some scholars have pointed out: "In order to use cultural heritage protection to promote internationalism and control nationalism, the League of Nations developed the concept of 'common heritage' in the early days 'On the basis of' universal heritage ', the concept of' common heritage 'was developed, which ultimately affected the entire field of cultural heritage protection." [7]27 Although expanding the extension of cultural concepts cannot fundamentally solve the universal problem of cultural values, the Convention clearly states its purpose at the beginning of the preamble, which is to "establish a permanent and effective system organized based on modern scientific methods for the collective protection of cultural heritage and natural heritage with outstanding universal value." According to the first six articles of the Convention, on the premise of fully respecting the rights of sovereign states, heritage of "outstanding universal value" must be "preserved as part of the world heritage of all mankind" and "recognized as part of world heritage." Part of it, therefore, the entire international community has the responsibility to cooperate and protect it." After entering into force, the Convention played a considerable role in the international field,"quickly attracted widespread attention from member states, and became one of the most successful conventions in the United Nations system"[8].
It has at least three extraordinary global implications: first, all countries are currently parties to the Convention, although the demands of developed and developing countries may differ; second, UNESCO's administrative tools unify standards for heritage selection and development around the world; and finally, the Convention marks the emergence of international policies for heritage preservation and a hierarchical world system of cultural accumulation.
Thus, such international agreements represent a major turning point in the history of global cultural policy [9]73.
The fact that so many countries have joined the Convention does not just for their own economic interests, as some scholars imagine, but means that all countries have common needs and efforts to pursue universal values in the era of globalization.
The local and national values of heritage in the past are no longer enough to meet the requirements of the times.
These values still need to be tested by universal values.
2.
The revised content and shortcomings of the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of World Heritage"
Unfortunately, the main body of the World Heritage Convention does not clearly explain core concepts such as "outstanding universal values." The reason is of course that the Convention had a drafting and running-in period of more than 20 years before its promulgation, and "due to the limitations of the times and the competition for interests of all parties when the treaty was formulated, the treaty did not provide for many contents or was unclear"[10].
The more fundamental reason is that the convention is somewhat wavering in its basic theoretical stance.
This is concentrated in the fact that it originally wanted to guide and regulate the culture as a factual concept with the culture as an ideal concept, but in fact it focused too much on the latter and blurred the former.
In other words, culture as a concept of fact expresses itself as diverse empirical facts, while culture as an ideal concept is not an empirical fact, but a value ideal and a transcendental purpose.
The so-called "outstanding universal values" should have been a criterion for evaluation based on the cultural standpoint of transcendental teleology, but the wavering stance of the Convention makes this criterion seem to be just an empirical criterion summarized and summarized from the culture as a factual concept.
For this reason, UNESCO has issued the continuously revised "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of World Heritage"(hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines") since 1977.
By July 2015, more than 20 versions have been released.
These revisions are mainly "reflected in three aspects, namely, changes in the interpretation of outstanding universal value concepts, changes in the 10 standard provisions, and changes in the conditions for authenticity and integrity"[7]55.
Over the past 40 years, the changes in this operating guide reflect the continuous enrichment and improvement of UNESCO's understanding of the core provisions of the Convention, because "World Heritage requires 'outstanding universal value', and its particularity lies in that this value carries a special symbolic meaning-important to all mankind.
Heritage originally belongs to the country or individual, but world heritage must obtain international recognition "[7]6.
In the process, UNESCO itself is gradually getting rid of its Western-centric way of thinking.
In the more than ten years after the Convention came into effect, most of the world heritage sites selected were categories that Western science is good at identifying, researching and selecting.
It was not until the introduction of the concept of "cultural landscape" in 1992 that this tendency was remedied.
Of course, the 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage further corrected this bias [9]88.
But the key question is not who will set such standards, but what position to set such standards.
Unfortunately, such issues have not been clarified.
The "Operation Guide" mainly provides supplementary explanations in the following aspects:
1)Changes in the concept of common heritage.
The first article of the 1997 and 1999 editions of the "Operation Guidelines" clearly states that cultural heritage and natural heritage not only belong to every country, but also are invaluable and irreplaceable wealth of mankind as a whole.
Their loss is also the loss of all nations in the world.
Some of these heritage sites are considered to have outstanding universal value because of their characteristics and deserve special protection.
"Therefore, world heritage can be understood as a process, and the connotation of heritage will change during the process of inclusion, from 'unique national treasures' to 'heritage of all humanity'."[7]61 After such a process,"'Heritage' ranges from inheritances left by the original ancestors owned by private individuals or small groups, through family heritage, clan heritage, national heritage, to the 'world heritage' shared by mankind today.
During this period, the main part and connotation of the heritage have undergone major changes "[11].
However, at present, it is obvious that the Convention has underestimated the possible problems arising from changes in the subject of heritage, especially rights issues.
Article 11, paragraph 3, stipulates: "To include a property in the World Heritage List, it is necessary to obtain relevant consent from the State.
When several countries claim sovereignty or jurisdiction over a territory, the inclusion of an item of property in that territory in the Catalog shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute." However, when heritage is inherited from family to national heritage or even world heritage, how to treat the rights of the original subject? Since "outstanding universal values" are given by people, why do the Convention and the Operating Guidelines highlight the identification of States Parties and the World Heritage Committee rather than the identification of the heritage subject itself? How to avoid this world heritage declaration system causing new unequal ordering or discourse hegemony? In theory, if the "common" standard is only based on the empirical summary of various cultural facts, then it will be difficult for this standard to avoid interference by artificial subjective factors and accidental factors, and it will be difficult to avoid new unequal ordering.
On the contrary, if "common" standards are formulated from the transcendental standpoint of culture as ideal concepts, such results can be largely avoided.
Because the former generally cannot be logically universalized based on reason and conscience, while the latter can be universalized in a mutually subjective manner among different cultures.
2)Outstanding universal values are generated from an international perspective.
Article 6, paragraph 1, of the 1980, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2002 versions of the Operational Guidelines clearly states that the Convention does not attempt to protect all property of great interest, value and importance, but only those options that are most prominent from an international perspective.
This shows that "outstanding universal values" do not first come from the nation-state and regional levels, but from the recognition and distribution at the international level.
However, the so-called "international vision" actually does not only refer to the expansion of vision, but mainly refers to viewing or even changing the order of cultural experience as a factual concept from a cultural transcendental perspective as an ideal concept.
Only in this sense can we say,"UNESCO must change this order in accordance with its ideals...
UNESCO has taken the initiative to intervene in the List to gradually move towards the image of a 'world heritage for all humanity'"[7]59 - 60.
From this point of view, the Convention was not carefully designed as a tool of power.
Cultural experts, environmental experts, and scientists envision it as a practical redistribution tool to protect the interests of countries that are deprived of adequate infrastructure.[9]84 It embodies a value of global distributed justice.
The purpose of the World Heritage List is "to respect each other's cultures on the basis of respecting shared heritage, which includes respect for both regional cultures of different regions within the same country and respect for cultures between different countries)"[11].
However, due to the wavering between the two positions of the Convention itself and its "Operating Guide", not only is its practical intention weakened, but it will also attract some criticism and doubts: Are the universal values of the Convention a kind of condescending and obscuring discourse "hegemony" that conceals various special values? In fact, the subtext that the Convention fails to explain is that the reason why standards of universal values can be universally recognized and pursued is precisely because they are inevitable results based on conscience and reason.
They are the objective understanding of human interactive subjects, not purely subjective.
Experiential understanding, and therefore it is essentially different from various subjective relative discourse hegemony or willfulness and arbitrariness.
3)Explanation of "universal".
Article 6 of the 1977 and 1978 editions of the "Operation Guide" specifically explains the meaning of the word "universal" in "outstanding universal values" and points out that some wealth may not be considered by everyone everywhere to be of great significance and importance, and different cultures or different periods of time may differ.
In terms of cultural wealth,"universal" refers to a wealth that is highly representative in its culture.
The convention should have made it clear that the criteria for determining whether "universal" is not derived from empirical induction and statistics, but from cultural positions and transcendental settings as ideal concepts.
This is equivalent to Koichiro Matsuura saying: "The significance of universality in today's world can be understood as follows: Each member of the international community promises to jointly create a system that transcends politics and economics, with moral ideals as the cornerstone of the system." [12]It can be seen that universal values are a transcendental agreement and humanistic pursuit that is "committed by all members of the international community" and universally recognized.
UNESCO is trying to inject humanistic factors into globalization through conventions, thereby leading globalization to be more in line with human nature.
direction.
This once again shows that the so-called "universality" of the Convention should be based on a cultural transcendental position as an ideal concept, that is, based on a criterion of judgment based on the universal position of protecting humanity and human rights.
4)About the concept of "prominent universal values".
Article 49 of the 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2015 editions of the "Operation Guidelines" defines: "Prominent universal values mean that cultural and/or natural meanings are so unique that they transcend national boundaries and are of common importance to all mankind, present and future generations."The revision of the 1994 edition of the "Operation Guide" added three intangible elements of "living tradition","art" and "literature".
Most of the heritage related to these elements comes from Asia, Africa and Latin America, which was previously ignored by the "outstanding universal value" of world heritage [13].
It can be seen that the explanation of this core concept in the Operation Guide has changed.
As Shi Chenxuan pointed out, the concept of "prominent universal values" has gone from "the most prominent" to "so special", which reflects UNESCO's dual pursuit of cultural diversity and universal values [14]47.
Not only that, some scholars believe that "outstanding" can be understood as the best or most representative case of a certain heritage.
The International Expert Conference on Natural and Cultural Heritage Strategies held in Amsterdam in 1998 defined "outstanding universal values" as: outstanding responses to universal characteristics common to all human cultures.
This is manifested in the diversity of ecological geography in natural heritage.
In different political, economic, social, and cultural environments, such reactions will be expressed in different forms, and the result is cultural diversity [15].
From this point of view, although the revision of the "Operation Guide" has continuously deepened the understanding of the concept of "prominent universal values", it has neither emphasized its formal significance as a value yardstick and a transcendental position, nor emphasized that it is a reflection of the "cultural" or cultural teleological criterion of the ideal concept.
They have never made a clear distinction between the formal standard of universal value and the specific content, nor have they shown that "outstanding universal value" is certainly given by people, but it is not a random and subjective empirical judgment by a few experts, but is based on the standards set by the transcendental position of the culture as an ideal concept.
Only such criteria can show that heritage protection practices under the Convention are not intended to create a new unequal ordering, but to promote a new cultural practice."World Heritage establishes 'citizenship' and a kind of governance that never existed with a prominent concept of universal values"[7]57.
This "non-existent regime" was similar to the "cosmopolitan states" that later became known as "cosmopolitan states" that provided a framework for global justice through human rights)[16]14 or global civil society.
No wonder some foreign scholars believe that the World Heritage Convention shows that "heritage" is also a practical imperative of symbolic capitalization and accumulation [17]14.
The implementation of the modern nation-state is actually a way to join the global modernization process politically and legally.
It is also a good opportunity to introduce the universal values advocated by the United Nations and create a new civilization in the world, because it at least means to some extent Join a "cosmopolitan country" or global civil society.
The World Heritage Standards "serve as a direct interpretation of outstanding universal values, and their revision will promote continuous reflection on values universally recognized by all mankind...
In the process...
the understanding of 'values' in the field of heritage protection, and the understanding of the State party's own culture is expressed through standards promoted by UNESCO to form universal values"[7]64.
However, the Convention's sitting on the fence and wavering position has prevented it from clarifying a core theoretical issue in the main text and the continuous revision of its "Operating Guidelines": That is to say, it should be based on the transcendental position of culture as an ideal concept.
Only this transcendental position can transcend the various differences and diversity of cultural phenomena as factual concepts, reach a level of logical universalization, and can different cultures and their subjects be placed on the equal status of interactive subjects, and a common universal value standard can be inferred in a rational way.
Precisely because the Convention does not clarify this point, its main body and its "Operating Guidelines" have always ignored such issues: how do heritage holders and inheritors assign value to their heritage, and whether this value assignment can be given due respect, what rights positions and procedural guarantees for participation can the recognition of universal values and common heritage be reserved for this value assignment.
It is precisely because the public law protection model adopted by the Convention and its "Operational Guidelines" lacks clear regulations and guarantees on the rights and participation procedures of heritage subjects, it is easy for various countries to ignore or even obscure the participation rights of heritage subjects and cultural rights in the practice of performance protection.
Of course, although the World Heritage Convention has not yet directly defined the concept of heritage as "regarded as their cultural heritage by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals" like the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, it has a global perspective and The introduction of universal values has made an undeniable contribution to international cooperation and common value recognition for heritage protection, especially promoting the global process of revaluation and value reconstruction of heritage.
Specifically, the recognition of the value of heritage is inherently a constantly changing process.
Heritage that was originally considered worthless may be given value, heritage that was originally of special value may be given universal value, and vice versa.
Some people say that folk customs are cultural realities, while heritage is officially recognized, but this is not the case.
Not to mention that many folk customs also require official recognition in China before they can be transformed from "superstitions" that were not on the table in the past to open and legitimate intangible cultural heritage.
Although not all folk customs are intangible cultural heritage, the word "folk customs" is a concept invented and used by scholars in Chinese, German and English.
Before I knew the word, there might be certain phenomena in the lives of ordinary people.
They either had no names at all or had local names, but they were generally not called "folk customs".
Before hearing of the concept of "folk customs", ordinary people generally did not know which folk customs were and which were not in their lives.
Only after generally understanding this concept can ordinary people call certain phenomena in their lives "folk customs" and thereby distinguish them from non-folk customs.
In other words, folk customs are not so-called cultural realities, but cultural naming and value identification that need to be inspired by foreign concepts.
Similarly, although the declaration and review of heritage require so-called international recognition and expert evaluation, after all, the holder or inheritor of the heritage requires the first declaration and demonstration, at least the recognition and declaration of the country where it is located.
Of course, the reason why there is a phenomenon of overstepping in this process is also because the Convention fails to clearly stipulate that the value of the heritage should first be recognized by the heritage holder or inheritor, and its declaration should first be approved by the holder or inheritor.
and participation.
Only by declaring first and self-recognizing can it be recognized domestically and internationally.
These are two steps of value recognition that cannot be confused or replaced by each other, just as folk customs are often recognized internally as "folk customs" after external recognition or inspiration.
Therefore, whether it is folk customs or heritage, it is generally possible to gain self-recognition through comparison with outsiders or the outside world or mutual inspiration.
Even the uniqueness of value can be more clearly recognized by comparison with other unique values and universal values.
Therefore, whether value recognition is inspired by the outside is not only a matter of fact, nor is it the key point.
The question we should pay attention to is, What kind of stance does the standard of this value come from? Generally speaking, the standard of special value mainly comes from the cultural experience standpoint as a factual concept, while the standard of universal value should come from the cultural transcendental standpoint as an ideal concept.
Although the Convention itself does not clarify this point, our analysis of the Convention and its implementation practice should make it clear.
3.
The significance of the revision of the World Heritage Convention in China
In 1985, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress made a decision to approve accession to the World Heritage Convention.
Over the past 30 years, China's protection practice has made achievements in material heritage, but its understanding, criticism and implementation of the spirit of the Convention have not been satisfactory.
It should be said that the problems arising from the implementation of the Convention in various nation-states include not only the position of the "scriptures" itself, but also the problem of the "scriptures" being misinterpreted.
We can see that, on the one hand, the fundamental reason for some nominal phenomena in the practice of heritage protection in China is the lack of respect for the heritage and the inheritors themselves, that is, the lack of implementation and enforcement of the universal values advocated by the Convention, which leads to administrative arrangements and profit-seeking, only using the heritage and its inheritors as a means rather than an end at the same time, resulting in putting the cart before the horse.
This serious disconnect from the transcendental position of culture as an ideal concept occurs first in the minds and consciousness of scholars, not among officials and ordinary people.
Because the main task of scholars is to produce knowledge and concepts, if scholars 'understanding is not in place or even lags behind practice, it will be scholars' dereliction of duty.
The responsibility of scholars is to first understand what the "scripture" is, whether there is a problem with it, and what it originally wanted to say and do.
After all, China's heritage protection work is a practice carried out on the premise of fulfilling the contract, rather than doing its own things behind closed doors.
Therefore, whether we can take advantage of the practical opportunity of heritage protection to effectively practice modern universal values in China and use international universal value standards to force certain "special" domestic administrative standard rules requires the enlightenment of scholars first, followed by the awakening of officials and ordinary people.
Of course, the universal value demands of the Convention will not be realized automatically.
Especially in a society where administrative power is too strong, we cannot just expect some administrative officials to take the initiative to delegate power.
However, we can see that joining the Convention does provide a historical opportunity to improve the economic and political status of local people and change traditional concepts and cultural management systems.
To truly seize this opportunity, scholars and local people also need to take the initiative to exert their respective enthusiasm, rather than just passively waiting.
Only when we first understand the universal value demands of the Convention and try every means to reflect it in the details of the system and actions, will the Convention not become a vase.
The heritage protection practice carried out by China through its accession to the Convention is also a process of our citizen experience.
In other words, the question of more fundamental significance to China is: In the process of local heritage becoming world heritage, can local people learn to grow from their original subjects and obedient people into national citizens and world citizens? Can inheritors gain enlightenment and self-recognition of universal values along with their heritage? It all depends on us.
The more we can proactively exert our initiative, the more likely we are to break through the ice of certain systems by pursuing outstanding universal values of heritage and global justice, slowly correct certain administrative standards, and even promote cultural management.
Change in the system.
Of course, under the current institutional framework of China, the role that scholars can play in reality is still limited, but we can base ourselves on our own duties and first carry out propaganda and popularization of the spirit of the Convention, that is, first carry out self-enlightenment and social enlightenment in terms of ideology and concepts.
In addition, the protection advocated by the Convention is not to protect all heritage, nor is it to protect the special value of various heritage, but to protect heritage with outstanding universal values and common values of mankind.
If people in a region are unwilling to participate in this kind of conservation practice of universal values and common heritage, their choice should be respected.
In fact, no matter individuals, groups or nations, even if they are weak or weak, only by bravely joining and actively practicing universal values can they truly realize their desire to maintain their own characteristics, because "only by having the courage to recognize and assume the universal values of mankind can we truly be strong and gain universal respect and dignity"[18].
China scholars should strive to get rid of the purely nationalist and localist sentiments that have become accustomed to nature, because if they are blindly influenced by these emotions and ignore others, then not only may they sacrifice the original and lose objective academic evaluation standards, but also Extreme rights claims between different individuals and groups can also fall into mutual fights and irreconcilable contradictions.
In other words, due to the lack of public testing and institutional constraints of universal value standards, this kind of individual rights claims will inevitably fall into the jungle law of the victory of power.
This situation runs counter to the individual freedom and unique expression we pursue.
Conclusion
The continuous revision of the Convention and its Operational Guidelines also shows that although the exploration of the universal value of heritage is a difficult process, it must always stand on the transcendental standpoint of culture.
The core of universal value standards lies in judging whether human rights are violated and whether it is conducive to safeguarding human nature and basic human dignity based on conscience and reason.
Not only because universal values have transcendental human rights standards and objective positions recognized by global citizenship, but also because they are the "Achilles heel" of China's cultural tradition, they are particularly worthy of our hard practice.
Only by proceeding from a cultural transcendental standpoint as an ideal concept can China's heritage protection work return to its own standard and uphold rational goals and directions, and can we actively respond to the challenges posed by this era.
references
[1][Samuel P.
Huntington.
Is the world pattern after the end of the Cold War a conflict among civilizations? [J].
Book Excerpts, 19954).
[2]Koichiro Matsuura.
Tomorrow's UNESCO [J].
Zhao Hui, Translation.
Global Education Outlook, 20011).
[3]Werner Jaeger.
Paideia.
Die Formung des griechischen Menschen[M].Erster Band.
Walter de Gruyter&Co., 1959.
[4]Ge Yanan.
Research on the International Legal System of World Heritage Protection [D].
Master's Degree Thesis, School of Foreign Affairs, 2008.
[5]Cheng Xiaolin, Jing Feng.
Formulation and implementation of the World Heritage Convention [J].
Urban Development Research, 19961).
[6][Japan] Yukio Nishimura.
"World" Heritage-Beyond Cultural nationalism [J].
Zhang Song, Translation.
Journal of Tongji University, 20033).
[7]Shi Chenxuan.
Evolution of the evaluation criteria for "outstanding universal value" of world heritage [D].
Doctoral Thesis, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, 2008.
[8][Japan] Noriko Aikawa.
UNESCO Treaty on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage-From adoption to the first Intergovernmental Committee [J].
Bai Xi, Translation.
Folk Culture Forum, 20116).
[9]Alexandra Kowalski.
When Cultural Capitalization Became Global Practice: The 1972 World Heritage Convention[M]// Nina Bandelj and Frederick F.
Wherry ed.).
The Cultural Wealth of Nations.Stanford University Press, 2011.
[10]Ma Mingfei.
Dilemmas and solutions for the application of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage--From the perspective of natural heritage protection [J].
Law Review, 20113).
[11]Song Feng, Zhu Jiajie, Li Yanfei.
Rethinking the principle of "integrity" of world heritage sites--Based on the analysis of four concepts in the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention"[J].
China Gardens, 20095).
[12]Koichiro Matsuura.
Can economic globalization create the values of new civilization? [J].
World Education Information, 20023).
[13]Li Tianjing, Xiong Xinkai, Song Feng.
Changes in Article 6 of the evaluation criterion for "highlighting universal value" of world heritage [J].
China Gardens, 20155).
[14]Xu Zhilan.
The impact of UNESCO's concept of cultural diversity on the world heritage system [D].
Doctoral thesis, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, 2012.
[15]Compiled by Wang Yuan.
World Heritage: Defining Outstanding Universal Values [J].
Hangzhou Wenbo, 20111).
[16]Kate Nash.
The Cultural Politics of Human Rights: Comparing the US and UK[M].
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[17]Nina Bandelj, Frederick F.
Wherry.
Introduction: An Inquiry into the Cultural Wealth of Nations[M] // Nina Bandelj, Frederick F.
Wherryed.).
The Cultural Wealth of Nations.
Stanford University Press, 2011.
[18]Hu Xiaohui.
What new things can the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage bring to China--Also on the concept of regional overall protection of intangible cultural heritage [J].
Cultural Heritage, 20141).
(This article was published in "Central Plains Culture Research", No.
6, 2016)