• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.35-50
• /
• 2022

The Korean cultural heritage protection act, enacted in 1962, is known to have been enacted in imitation of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act. The Japanese law differs from the current law dealing with intangible cultural heritage, folklore materials, and buried cultural properties. The Japanese law was enacted in consultation with the GHQ, and reflected the historical issues at the time of the enactment. Recently, in Japan, GHQ documents have been released and so research on the cultural heritage protection act is carried out. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning and achievements of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act before comparing it with the Korean law. GHQ stipulated the emperor as a symbolic entity in the Japanese constitution and prescribed the country as a liberal democracy. Influenced by this, the cultural heritage protection act was enacted to identify the people's cultural heritage. Accordingly, the cultural heritage protection committee is a private and independent organization in Japan. The committee designates cultural heritage assets, and it operates as the national museum and the cultural heritage research institute. This system was a part of policy changes shifting cultural heritage management to the private sector. Since many cultural heritages are associated with the imperial family, museums were managed by the imperial family. Meanwhile, the Japanese house of councillors persuaded GHQ, which was negative about including intangible cultural heritage in the cultural heritage protection act. The purpose of this idea was to provide the system of the government support for Japanese imperial court music and dance. In addition, folk materials were included with the consent of the GHQ in that they represent the cultural heritages and the academic achievements of the people at the time in Japan. According to the Korean Law, the subject of designation of cultural heritage is the government, and the cultural heritage committee acts as an advisory body with its limited functions. In the early days, the committee confused the concept of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials. This was because the concepts of cultural property was borrowed from Japanese law and applied to the Korean law without a full understanding. In response, the cultural heritage committee urged the ministry to investigate the current situation in Japan. The cultural heritage committee, mainly consisting of folklore scholars, was confused about the concepts of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials, but the concept became clear when the enforcement regulations of the cultural heritage protection Act was enacted in 1964.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.78-103
• /
• 2019

The Conservation Decree of the Chosun Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments (hereinafter referred to as the Conservation Decree), which was enacted during the Japanese colonial period, was preserved in accordance with the provisions of article No. 100 of the constitutional law. However, legislative attempts were made to replace the Conservation Decree during the US military administration and early Korean Government. The first attempt was about the National Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments which were brought in by the Legislative Assembly of South Chosun (1947) during the US military administration. The second was a bill by the government for preservation of historical interests (1950), which was submitted to the National Assembly on March 15, 1950 (the so-called Preservation Act (1950)). These two bills were amended and supplemented on the basis of the existing contents of the Conservation Decree. Afterwards, from 1952 to 1960, the legislation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1959) and the Cultural Heritage Bill (1960) were subsequently introduced and enacted. The government's attempt to enact such a cultural property bill was aimed at the legislature to replace the preservation order system that had been in effect since the Japanese colonial period. However, due to the political situation at the time, these laws did not reach final legislation. In October 1960, the government enacted the Regulations for the Preservation of Cultural Property, which was an administrative edict that was promulgated and enacted in November. This was the first official cultural property decree introduced by the Korean government. With the enactment and promulgation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in January 1962, Korea's judicial cultural property legislation was established, based on the Korean government's unremitting efforts and experience in legislation of cultural property. In that context, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a historical product. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was enacted in 1962, is known to emulate or transplant Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1950). It was not fully recognized that it was an extension of the Korean government's legislative process of cultural property during the period of 1945-1960. Therefore, it is important to examine the legislative process of cultural property from 1945 to 1960 to understand the background of enacting the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962 along with the establishment of the Korean Cultural Property Law.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.127-133
• /
• 2019

This study intends to discuss the system improvement of landscape architecture field in the cultural heritage protection system, which is changing continuously. The results are as follows. First, the status of landscape architecture in cultural heritage, including natural monuments and scenic sites, must be defined. If possible, careful consideration should be given to establish the natural monuments law and scenic sites law, respectively, related to landscape architecture. Second, natural heritage must be preserved by focusing on "space" to include cultural artifacts and landscapes that may be missing through the method of "object" focused protection. Institutionally, the scope of work should be clearly shared by reviewing the redundancy and interrelationship of related laws. Third, in order to protect and manage natural heritage, a department that is wholly responsible for landscape architecture should be established independently at the Cultural Heritage Administration. Fourth, the landscape architecture field should be specified as the requirements for the commissioner of commission at the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. In addition, it is necessary to improve the system such as expending the roles of the repairing technician for landscape architecture and plants in the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.35 no.2 s.121
• /
• pp.71-80
• /
• 2007

Korea began preserving and managing natural monuments in 1933 under Japanese Colonization, but North Korea and South Korea were forced to establish separate natural monument management policies because of the division after the Korean Independence. The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the natural monument management policies of both south and North Korea between 1933 and 2005 to introduce new policies for Korea unification. The following are the results: First, South Korea manages every type of cultural asset, including natural monuments, through the 'Cultural Heritage Protection Act,' whereas North Korea managing its cultural assets through the 'Cultural Relics Protection Act' and the 'Landmark/Natural Monument Protection Act.' Second, South Korea preserves and utilizes natural monuments for the purpose of promoting the cultural experience of Korean people and contributing to the development of world culture, whereas North Korea uses its natural monuments to promote the superiority of socialism and protect its ruling power. Third, North and South Korea have similar classification systems for animals, plants, and geology, but North Korea classifies geography as one of its natural monuments. Unlike South Korea, North Korea also designates imported animals and plants not only for the preservation and research of genetic resources, but also for their value as economic resources. Fourth, North Korea authorizes the Cabinet to designate and cancel natural monuments, whereas South Korea designates and cancels natural monuments by the Cultural Heritage Administration through the deliberation of a Cultural Heritage Committee. Both Koreas' central administrations establish policies and their local governments carry them out, while their management systems are quite different. In conclusion, it is important to establish specified laws for the conservation of natural heritages and clarified standards of designation in order to improve the preservation and management system and to sustain the diversity of natural preservation. Moreover it is also necessary to discover resources in various fields, designate protection zones, and preserve imported trees. By doing so, we shall improve South Korea's natural monument management policies and ultimately enhance national homogeneity in preparation for the reunification of the Koreas in the future.

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.288-318
• /
• 2023

This work began with the aim of examining the history of the concept "cultural property" that is expected to disappear, and the main subject of research was the history that preceded the spread of this notion throughout society. The phrase "cultural property" first appeared in the 1920s, and was used in various fields such as literature, history, music, and philosophy in the context of cultural resources. Until immediately following liberation from the Japanese colonial era, the meaning of cultural assets was widely applied in the range of "cultural resources," and during this period, it was often used to help supplant the reality and history of Japanese occupation. Immediately after the Korean War, it was also employed for the purpose of 'restoration of cultural resources through war'. Recognition of cultural property directly influenced by Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act has occurred since 1950s. In the early 1960s, the enactment of various laws related to cultural properties and the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Administration caused the meaning of cultural property to be limited to 'cultural heritage'. In this way, the definition of state-led cultural property has continued to apply to this day. It has not been clearly confirmed whether the concept of cultural properties was imported from Japan through means such as the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Cases in which several Japanese students endorsed the concept of cultural property within Korea serve to increase the likelihood that the concept was indeed imported from Japan. However, "coined language using multiple Chinese characters," "the phenomenon of cultural complex words in the 1920s,", and "cases of non-Japanese international students using the concept of cultural property" also open up the possibility of their own occurrence. Apart from the general importance of the concept of cultural property, intellectuals at the time used this concept to promote internal development and the overcoming of colonial Joseon. In this research, it was confirmed that the conceptual word cultural property was older and had a wider history than the general perception had indicated previously. The history of the conceptual term "cultural property" may appear to be more than 60 years old based on the enactment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, but in fact it is nearly 100 years old when traced back to on 1925, as established here. In general, the creation and disappearance of terms may proceed naturally with social change, but such terms may alternatively be created or erased through national policy. Identifying the origins of a phrase that is about to disappear represents a significant task for purposes of establishing its historical meaning.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.3
• /
• pp.178-188
• /
• 2022

This article cites examples of cultural heritages that urgently require protection measures, and the reinterpretation of beacons, fortresses, and extremities identified in the process of conducting a cultural heritage investigation of the DMZ and bordering areas. It is true that there are various difficulties involved in implementing thorough protection measures considering the reality of the two Koreas' division. Despite this, the "Ordinance for the Protection of Military Cultural Properties" and the "Act on the Protection and Investigation of Buried Cultural Heritage" have been enacted and are in effect. In particular, in the "Ordinance for the Protection of Military Cultural Properties," the value of protecting "military assets" is emphasized. The identification and investigation of cultural heritages in the DMZ and border areas must continue. Although field research is currently difficult, the primary investigation conducted by high-altitude terrain analysis and literature research is considered effective. Furthermore, there are parts that require correction and supplementation with future field investigations. Although some trial and error is expected during these various cultural heritage investigations, they need to continue.

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.193-203
• /
• 2014

Natural Monument is a designated cultural property as part of the country. According to Article 2 of the Cultural Properties Protection Act, a national, ethnic and global heritage artificially or naturally formed, with a great historical, artistic, scientific and landscape significance is defined as a cultural heritage. Animals, plants, topography, geology, minerals, caves, biological products and special natural phenomena, having a great of historic, scenic and scientific value, are defined as the monument. According to Article 3 of Cultural Properties Protection Act, the conservation, management and utilization of National Heritage should be kept intact in its original form. So, Natural monuments are managing as retained its original form under the Basic Principles of current law. The highest population of coniferous tree in natural monument plant is ginkgo tree including 22 objects, followed by pines, junipers that order. And in case of broadleaf tree, there are zelkova trees, retusa fringe trees, pagoda trees, cork oaks, silver magnolias and etc. There are many of reported efficacy in available natural monument plants. The efficacy of plant species on pharmaceutical like anti-cancer, anti-diabetic, anti-obesity, antioxidant activity, neuroprotective, improves cholesterol, anti-inflammatory, liver protection and anti-bacterial efficacy, on cosmetics and beauty like the inhibiting formation of skin wrinkles, whitening effect, variety of materials and the efficacy of the proposed utilization of its various papers and etc have been widely reported. Before the Nagoya Protocol enters into force, the future role of the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties Administration of Cultural Heritage should be obtain a legal right to manage the social, cultural and national natural monument with emotional value to the plant genetic resource as a natural monument efficient ways to study and preserve traditional knowledge biological resources by securing a claim to the sovereignty of the material will be ready.

• 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.44 no.4
• /
• pp.18-41
• /
• 2011

The Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Korea has begun since1962 when the Cultural Properties Protection Act was established. Korean ICH Safeguarding system is initially derived from Cultural Properties Protection Act in Japan. Japan has started Important ICH Designation System in 1954 to concede the skills and artistic talents holders, thus it could implement the multilateral system management for adopting different ICH protection systems such as Important Intangible Folklore Properties, Selection and Preservation Techniques, and Documenting Records. However, Korea has solely adopted Important ICH Designation System since Cultural Properties Protection Act was introduced. Korean ICH Safeguarding System represented by the Certification System of ICH Skill Holders is to ensure skills and artistic holders who perform the elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and manage the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in order to let the skills and artistic holders instruct inheritors. As a result, it could build up the internal foundation for the diffusion of inheritors and established the related organizations. However, the inheritor-centered protection system has caused many problems as it is being lasted for more than fifty years. Fragmented designation measures, the cultural power of skill holders, and the research and evaluation methods have pointed out the difficulties of safeguarding and preservation measures of ICH. Moreover,the legitimacy of safeguarding system related in the authenticity of transmission in ICH has emerged to review the safeguarding system of ICH with diverse viewpoints. Therefore, this paper will review the implementation process and achievement of ICH safeguarding system to examine the problem and causes of the safeguarding system. The conference records of Cultural Property Association and articles of cultural properties policies directors, Cultural Property Association members, and professional experts are being used for the initial materials of this paper, and it is examined for the contents of designation system of Important Cultural Heritage, rather than overall cases. Thus such problems the limitation of expansion in ICH lists as inheritor-centered designation system, hierarchical and exclusive transmission system, inappropriate concept of archetype as the principle of ICH transmission are derived from the root of Important ICH designation system. Thus this paper demonstrates that this system must be revised for the expansion of ICH safeguarding system in Korea and points out multilateral protection system should be established as well as Certification System of Important ICH skill holders.