• 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.36
• /
• pp.39-67
• /
• 2003

In this paper we examine cultural properties of the North Korea from 'the law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Protection of Cultural Property". This law was adopted the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly of DPR of Korea in 1994. For our study, some other laws or rules established after the end of Japanese colonial occupation (1910-1945) in North Korea were examined. The policy on protection and conservation of cultural property in North Korea seems to have taken place a relatively rapid. The purpose of this law is to carry out the policy with a view to contributing to establishment of strict system and order for protection and management of cultural property, to their preservation in original state, to their proper inheritance and development, and to enhancement of national pride and confidence among the people. This law consists of 6 chapters (52 articles): (1) Fundamentals of the law on protection of cultural property, (2) Archaeological excavation and collection of cultural relics, (3) Evaluation and registration of cultural property, (4) Preservation and management of cultural property, (5) Restoration of cultural property, and (6) Guidance and control of cultural property protection. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find the evidence of efforts to exploit the cultural properties from an academic point of view in North Korea since the late 1980s.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.50 no.2
• /
• pp.26-39
• /
• 2017

Natural monument system was originally developed as an environmental movement and introduced in Korea during Japanese Colonization. Korea, Japan and Germany are the countries that have the natural monument systems. They are controlled by the Cultural Properties Protection Law in Korea and Japan but by the law of the protection of natural environment in Germany. For that reason the progress of the law and policy directions are similar between Japan and Korea. The natural monument system of Korea has been in use since 1930s, but the values and conditions of natural monument systems have changed over time. In terms of contents, these days cultural identity involved are getting more important than the natural scenic and ecological values, or rarity of plants. Also it's a trend to expand the preserved area around cultural properties which have been preserved on individual basis before. Finally it is necessary to discover and manage the registered cultural properties as potential designated cultural properties by creating the registration standard for natural heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.56-85
• /
• 2010

UNESCO World Heritage Programme was introduced following the adoption of Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972 in order to protect cultural and natural heritage with superb value for all mankind. Despite its short history of less than 40 years, it has been evaluated as one of the most successful of the cultural area projects of UNESCO with 890 world heritage registered worldwide. For systematic protection management of World Heritage, UNESCO, through systemization of registration, emphasis on the importance of preservation management plan, institutionalization of monitoring, and operation of World Heritage Fund, has utilized World Heritage Programme not just as a means of listing excellent cultural properties, but as a preservation planning tool, and accordingly, such policies have had a significant influence on the cultural heritage protection legislations of numerous nations. Korea has ratified World Heritage Convention in 1988, and with the registration of the Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty in 2009, it has 9 World Heritage Sites. Twenty years have passed since Korea joined the World Heritage Programme. While World Heritage registration contributed to publicity of the uniqueness and excellence of Korean cultural properties and improvement of Korea's national culture status, it is now time to devise various legislative/systematic improvement means to reconsider the World Heritage registration strategy and establish a systematic preservation management system. While up until now, the Cultural Properties Protection Law has been amended to arrange for basic rules regarding registration and protection of World Heritage Sites, and some local governments have founded bodies exclusive for World Heritage Site management, a more fundamental and macroscopic plan for World Heritage policy improvement must be sought. Projects and programs in each area for reinforcement of World Heritage policy capacity such as: 1) Enactment of a special law for World Heritage Site preservation management; 2) enactment of ordinances for protection of World Heritage Sites per each local government; 3) reinforcement of policies and management functionality of Cultural Heritage Administration and local governments; 4) dramatic increase in the finances of World Heritage Site protection; 5) requirement to establish plan for World Heritage Site preservation protection; 6) increased support for utilization of World Heritage Sites; 7) substantiation and diversification of World Heritage registration; 8) sharing of information and experiences of World Heritage Sites management among local governments; 9) installation of World Heritage Sites integral archive; 10) revitalization of citizen cooperation and resident participation; 11) training specialized resources for World Heritage Sites protection; 12) revitalization of sustainable World Heritage Sites tourism, must be selected and promoted systematically. Regarding how World Heritage Programme should be domestically accepted and developed, the methods for systemization, scientific approach, and specialization of World Heritage policies were suggested per type. In the future, in-depth and specialized researches and studies should follow.

• 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.40 no.2
• /
• pp.34-43
• /
• 2022

This study compared the characteristics of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam, which have developed in the relationship of mutual geopolitical and cultural influence in history, and the following conclusions were made. First, the definition of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam has similar meanings in both countries. In the case of cultural heritage classification, both countries introduced the legal concept of intangible cultural heritage through UNESCO, and have similarities in terms of intangible cultural heritage. Second, while China has separate laws for managing tangible and intangible cultural heritages, Vietnam integrally manages the two types of cultural heritages under a single law. Vietnam has a slower introduction of the concept of cultural heritage than China, but it shows high integration in terms of system. Third, cultural heritages in both China and Vietnam are graded, which is applied differently depending on the type of heritage. The designation method has a similarity in which the two countries have a vertical structure and pass through steps. By restoring the value of heritage and complementing integrity through such a step-by-step review, balanced development across the country is being sought through tourism to enjoy heritage and create economic effects. Fourth, it was confirmed that the cultural heritage management organization has a central government management agency in both countries, but in China, the authority of local governments is higher than that of Vietnam. In addition, unlike Vietnam, where tangible and intangible cultural heritage are managed by an integrated institution, China had a separate institution in charge of intangible cultural heritage. Fifth, China is establishing a conservation management policy focusing on sustainability that harmonizes the protection and utilization of heritage. Vietnam is making efforts to integrate the contents and spirit of the agreement into laws, programs, and projects related to cultural heritage, especially intangible heritage and economic and social as a whole. However, it is still dependent on the influence of international organizations. Sixth, China and Vietnam are now paying attention to intangible heritage recently introduced, breaking away from the cultural heritage protection policy centered on tangible heritage. In addition, they aim to unite the people through cultural heritage and achieve the nation's unified policy goals. The two countries need to use intangible heritage as an efficient means of preserving local communities or regions. A cultural heritage preservation network should be established for each subject that can integrate the components of intangible heritage into one unit to lay the foundation for the enjoyment of the people. This study has limitations as a research stage comparing the cultural heritage system and preservation management status in China and Vietnam, and the characteristic comparison of cultural heritage policies by type remains a future research task.

• 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.