• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.274-291
• /
• 2020

This year is the 50th anniversary of the adoption by UNESCO in 1970 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the '1970 Convention'). Since its ratification of the 1970 Convention in 1983, the Republic of Korea has domestically implemented the Convention through its Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was first enacted in 1962. This is a different form of implementation than is normally used for other UNESCO Conventions on cultural heritage, in that the Republic of Korea has recently adopted special acts to enforce the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In addition, the 1970 Convention has been developed further through the introduction of new Operational Guidelines in 2015 for the concrete enforcement of the Convention, which has provided momentum for the Republic of Korea to analyze its current national legislation related to the 1970 Convention as well as consider its amendment in the future. Overall, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Republic of Korea effectively reflects the duties of States Parties under the 1970 Convention. These include measures to introduce export certificates, prohibit the import of stolen cultural property, return other state parties' cultural property, and impose penalties or administrative sanctions in the event of any infringements. Indeed, the Republic of Korea's implementation of the 1970 Convention was introduced as an example of good practice at the Meeting of State Parties in 2019. However, changes in the illegal market for cultural property and development of relevant international law and measures imply that there still exists room for improvement concerning the legal implementation of the 1970 Convention at the national level. In particular, the Operational Guidelines recommend States Parties to adopt legal measures in two respects: detailed criteria for due diligence in assessing bona-fide purchasers, referring to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and measures to address the emerging issue of illegal trade in cultural property on internet platforms. Amendment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and other relevant laws should be considered in order to duly reflect these issues. Taking that opportunity, concrete provisions to facilitate international cooperation in respect of the implementation of the 1970 Convention could be introduced as well. Such measures could be expected to strengthen the Republic of Korea's international legal cooperation to respond to the changing environment regarding illicit trafficking of cultural property and its restitution.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.210-220
• /
• 2001

UNESCO convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage(hereafter 'UCH')was adopted in the Fourth meeting of governmental experts on the draft Convention on the protection of UCH. Accordingly, Korea will prepare an appropriate policy for the protection of UCH. This article aims to give policy directions for the protection of UCH in Korea. Korea has some legislation relating to protection of cultural property. However, these legislation did not have effective schemes to protect UCH. Moreover, the Cultural Properties Administration which is a primary agency for protecting UCH has been ineffective in their effort for protecting UCH. To Protect UCH, I suggest establishment of law relating to protection of UCH, designation of competent authorities for protection of UCH in accordance to UNESCO Convention, and establishment of a long term national plan for protection of UCH.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.575-588
• /
• 2013

The concept of cultural landscape, which is defined in the World Heritage Convention, provides a new framework with which to manage the heritage sites. European Landscape Convention proposes that landscape is the basic component of natural and cultural heritage, which in turn contributes to the improvement of human well-being and consolidation of the European identity. While recognizing the international trend, Japan has strived to improve the level of managing and protecting the landscape and cultural landscape through the enactment of Landscape Law and the revision of Cultural Property Protection Law. Now that landscape and cultural landscape has occupied the core of heritage management in the advanced countries, it is required more than ever that the concept of landscape and cultural landscape should be clarified through the legislation and convention in Korea. If the legislation for protecting and managing the landscape and cultural landscape is prerequisite for Korea to be an advanced country, a careful and in-depth examination, along with the consideration of the Korean circumstances, should be further carried out on the international experiences about the legislation from the comparative perspective.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.172-187
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the 'tradition' has been identified and used concretely on the protection system of cultural property. Firstly, this paper investigated the historical process and aspects that the 'cultural property' and the 'tradition' combined, each had different meaning at the beginning. And it investigated the linkage of them which effect to the protection system and to each other on the system operated. Then, it pointed out a rift within the discourse of tradition to which the system have held on, and the problems as its result. This paper applied the viewpoint of anti-essentialism that the tradition is presented with hegemonic act to raise the inevitable continuity with the past, instead of the common notion that the tradition is 'everything that is handed down from the past.' Because the cultural property is the product of the state system, to pursne the linkage of it and the tradition is identical to examine how the tradition have been officially defined in the national hegemony. Since the 1920s the tradition has defined as a fixed, essential, pure reality in the changing process of the protection system of cultural property. This essentialist viewpoint about the tradition have been continued as the institutional premise regardless of many critics, raised by studies focusing on the culture and cultural property. But we see now a rift on the discourse of tradition as the intellectual discourse has been supported to the system, that is caused by the fast-changing global economic environment and a rat race around the registration of intangible cultural heritage of UNESCO.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.171-179
• /
• 2005

Korea has many underwater cultural heritages within the east, west and south seas surrounding the Peninsula that indicate historically important sealanes for trade and transportation. As these underwater cultural heritages are the objects of despoilment because of their relatively easy access through modern technology, their often high historical and priceless value demands strong protection similar to or better than the land cultural properties. Currently, Korea does not have any concrete laws or regulations for the protection of underwater cultural heritages. Thus, these heritages iu, somewhat temporary and inappropriately subjected to laws and regulations relating to provisions of individual Laws concerning protection of cultural properties act, and statute of excavation of material fir buried national property, lost articles act etc.. Internationally, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted but not yet entered into force. Therefore, the protection of underwater cultural heritage has become an urgent matter. In this regard, this article's main purpose is to provide recommendations for improving direction of legal regime and policy for protecting our underwater cultural heritages. These legal regimes need provisions for definition of the underwater cultural heritage, scope of application, ownerships, jurisdictions and protection measures. And suggestions are provided in regard to policies for the protection of underwater cultural heritages that may improve organization and cooperation among concerned ministries and agencies, compensation system, restrictions for excavation of underwater relics, efficiency of survey of underwater surface and information system.