Cultural Heritage and Local Self-Government (Case Study of Svetlanovsky Municipality St. Petersburg)

V. A. Semenov, V. V. Ereshkin
{"title":"Cultural Heritage and Local Self-Government (Case Study of Svetlanovsky Municipality St. Petersburg)","authors":"V. A. Semenov, V. V. Ereshkin","doi":"10.22394/1726-1139-2023-4-48-71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because of the special history of the development of St. Petersburg, within the territory of the municipality there are both individual historical monuments and complex cultural heritage ensembles, which include many parts of the ensemble, which in turn, are individual historical monuments.At the same time, while there is a comprehensive approach to the preservation of the heritage of St. Petersburg at the level of state policy, in modern practice facts have been revealed which do not comply with the above policy, and in some cases are of an offence requiring a prosecutorial response. Existing in the current legislation the procedure for identifying objects of cultural heritage is not objective and requires changes.The authors believe that the vesting the powers of state control and supervision in a single executive body of state power, the lack of authority in terms of control by local self-government and regulated interaction between the federal and regional executive bodies of state power, the imperfection of existing legislation in St. Petersburg leads to the loss of effectiveness in the identification and preservation of cultural heritage of value both at the regional and federal level, which strains the efficiency of the identification and preservation of cultural heritage at both the regional and federal level.Considering the emerging negative trend, the representative body of local self-government of Svetlanovskoye Municipality of St. Petersburg took municipal response measures, the issues of cultural heritage preservation were considered at the municipal council, and appeals were sent to the authorized authorities and the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office.It became possible after the 2019 municipal elections, which resulted in the election of non-systemic municipal deputies to the representative bodies of local government, thereby forming open councils, to study in detail the specifics of state registration, identification and preservation of cultural heritage, and to find ways to solve existing problems at the level of the municipality. Exercising the powers in the representative body of local government, the actual representatives of the local community were able to study in practice the specifics of the functioning of local government, in the legal field of public authority to make public the issues of the problem field, to identify vulnerable places in the activities of executive power, to take response measures and make appropriate practical conclusions.The purpose of this article is to provide a scientific substantiation of the necessity of local self-government participation in detection and protection of cultural heritage objects by the example of some separate municipality of Svetlanovsky municipality of St. Petersburg; to search and offer possible variants of local self-government participation in the issue of efficient cultural heritage protection; to study reasons of necessity of local self-government in the new conditions of modern community of St. Petersburg.On the basis of the study the authors conclude that it is necessary to take specific response measures by the representative body of local government and the state bodies of St. Petersburg aimed at creating the necessary conditions for the effective identification and preservation of cultural heritage in the modern conditions of functioning of local government in the field of culture.","PeriodicalId":33085,"journal":{"name":"Upravlencheskoe konsul''tirovanie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Upravlencheskoe konsul''tirovanie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2023-4-48-71","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Because of the special history of the development of St. Petersburg, within the territory of the municipality there are both individual historical monuments and complex cultural heritage ensembles, which include many parts of the ensemble, which in turn, are individual historical monuments.At the same time, while there is a comprehensive approach to the preservation of the heritage of St. Petersburg at the level of state policy, in modern practice facts have been revealed which do not comply with the above policy, and in some cases are of an offence requiring a prosecutorial response. Existing in the current legislation the procedure for identifying objects of cultural heritage is not objective and requires changes.The authors believe that the vesting the powers of state control and supervision in a single executive body of state power, the lack of authority in terms of control by local self-government and regulated interaction between the federal and regional executive bodies of state power, the imperfection of existing legislation in St. Petersburg leads to the loss of effectiveness in the identification and preservation of cultural heritage of value both at the regional and federal level, which strains the efficiency of the identification and preservation of cultural heritage at both the regional and federal level.Considering the emerging negative trend, the representative body of local self-government of Svetlanovskoye Municipality of St. Petersburg took municipal response measures, the issues of cultural heritage preservation were considered at the municipal council, and appeals were sent to the authorized authorities and the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office.It became possible after the 2019 municipal elections, which resulted in the election of non-systemic municipal deputies to the representative bodies of local government, thereby forming open councils, to study in detail the specifics of state registration, identification and preservation of cultural heritage, and to find ways to solve existing problems at the level of the municipality. Exercising the powers in the representative body of local government, the actual representatives of the local community were able to study in practice the specifics of the functioning of local government, in the legal field of public authority to make public the issues of the problem field, to identify vulnerable places in the activities of executive power, to take response measures and make appropriate practical conclusions.The purpose of this article is to provide a scientific substantiation of the necessity of local self-government participation in detection and protection of cultural heritage objects by the example of some separate municipality of Svetlanovsky municipality of St. Petersburg; to search and offer possible variants of local self-government participation in the issue of efficient cultural heritage protection; to study reasons of necessity of local self-government in the new conditions of modern community of St. Petersburg.On the basis of the study the authors conclude that it is necessary to take specific response measures by the representative body of local government and the state bodies of St. Petersburg aimed at creating the necessary conditions for the effective identification and preservation of cultural heritage in the modern conditions of functioning of local government in the field of culture.
文化遗产与地方自治(圣彼得堡斯维特拉诺夫斯基市案例研究)
由于圣彼得堡发展的特殊历史,在该市境内既有单独的历史遗迹,也有复杂的文化遗产组合,其中包括组合的许多部分,而这些部分又是单独的历史古迹。与此同时,虽然在国家政策层面上对圣彼得堡遗产的保护采取了全面的方法,但在现代实践中,已经发现了不符合上述政策的事实,在某些情况下,这些事实属于犯罪行为,需要检方作出回应。现行立法中的文化遗产鉴定程序并不客观,需要加以修改。作者认为,将国家控制和监督权交给国家权力的单一执行机构,地方自治政府在控制方面缺乏权威,联邦和地区国家权力执行机构之间的互动受到规范,圣。Petersburg导致在地区和联邦层面上失去了识别和保护有价值的文化遗产的有效性,这使地区和联邦一级的文化遗产识别和保护效率变得紧张。考虑到正在出现的负面趋势,圣彼得堡斯维特拉诺夫斯科耶市地方自治代表机构采取了市政应对措施,市议会审议了文化遗产保护问题,并向授权当局和圣彼得堡市政府发出了呼吁。彼得堡检察官办公室。在2019年市政选举后,地方政府代表机构选举了非系统性的市政代表,从而成立了公开委员会,可以详细研究国家登记、文化遗产鉴定和保护的细节,设法解决市一级存在的问题。在行使地方政府代表机构的权力时,地方社区的实际代表能够在实践中研究地方政府运作的细节,在公共权力的法律领域公开问题领域的问题,识别行政权力活动中的薄弱环节,采取应对措施并得出适当的实际结论。本文的目的是以圣彼得堡斯维特拉诺夫斯基市的一些独立市为例,科学地证明地方自治政府参与文化遗产检测和保护的必要性;寻求并提供地方自治政府参与有效文化遗产保护问题的可能变体;研究圣彼得堡现代社会新形势下地方自治必要性的原因。在此基础上,作者得出结论,圣彼得堡地方政府代表机构和国家机构有必要采取具体的应对措施。彼得堡旨在创造必要条件,在地方政府在文化领域的现代运作条件下,有效识别和保护文化遗产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
131
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信