Hand in hand against climate change: cultural human rights and the protection of cultural heritage
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractWithin the debate on climate change and human rights, the field of culture, or cultural heritage in particular, plays a marginal role. At first glance, this seems reasonable, given the range of more concrete challenges people face in the context of climate change. However, the protection of cultural heritage is an important goal in its own right, even against the backdrop of other seemingly more pressing tasks. A human-rights-based approach to the debate on cultural heritage and climate change, it is argued, reinforces the international community's obligations to take necessary mitigation activities. Cultural rights and the corresponding duties, especially those under Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have the potential to provide an effective additional normative basis for the protection of cultural heritage from the adverse consequences of climate change. Notes1 The petitions concerned the Belize Barrier Reef, Huascaran National Park and Sagarmatha National Park and were filed together with a report on Australia's Great Barrier Reef; see petitions and press release at < http://www.climatelaw.org>.2CitationThe Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention are developed and regularly updated by the World Heritage Committee. They contain precise criteria for the implementation of the Convention, including for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger; see < http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/>.3 Mitigation is defined as 'an anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases'. For further elaboration, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III (Citation2001).4 See, for example, Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Article 3 (3) of the 1992 UNFCCC, Article 3 (3).5 Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention at its fourth session, 8 June 2012, < http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/ICH-Operational_Directives-4.GA-EN.doc>.6 For elaboration on this relationship, refer, for example, to Francioni (2011, 14f).7 An often-cited case is Ominayak, Chief of the Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, in which the HRC held that the destruction of the environment caused by oil and gas exploitation constitutes a violation of Article 27; see HRC, Communication No 167/1984, UN Doc CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (10 May 1990).8 For a general discussion of the issue of obligations under the ICESCR see, among others, van Hoof (Citation1984), Alston and Quinn (Citation1987) and Scheinin (Citation2001).9 < http://treaties.un.org/>, accessed 30 July 2013.The author wishes to thank the participants of the Panel Climate Change and Human Rights: A Common Research Agenda? at the 54th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.Additional informationNotes on contributorsSylvia MausSylvia Maus, LL.M., is the Scientific Coordinator and Researcher at the UNESCO Chair in International Relations at Technische Universität Dresden. Email: sylvia.maus@tu-dresden.de
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».