功利主义:融合民族主义与国际主义文化财产观念的二分法

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Afolasade Abidemi Adewumi
{"title":"功利主义:融合民族主义与国际主义文化财产观念的二分法","authors":"Afolasade Abidemi Adewumi","doi":"10.1163/17087384-bja10067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.","PeriodicalId":41565,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilitarianism: Merging the Dichotomy between Nationalist and Internationalist Conception of Cultural Property\",\"authors\":\"Afolasade Abidemi Adewumi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/17087384-bja10067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-bja10067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-bja10067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

寻求归还文化财产并非易事。尽管有多种法律制度确保了各种归还文化财产的渠道,但进展相当缓慢。本文认为,归还过程的失败在于两种截然相反的文化财产概念——民族主义和国际主义思想流派——同时运作。1954年的《海牙公约》将文化财产视为全人类的文化遗产,而1970年的《公约》则认为文化财产是各国指定的文化遗产。这两种方法被用来在理论上将国际舞台上的国家划分为具有民族主义利益的来源国和具有国际关切的市场国家。在民族主义者试图采用法律和法外手段保护其文化遗产并促进其返回和归还时,两种文化财产概念之间的冲突变得明显;然而,国际主义者破坏这些努力的理由是,文化遗产是人类的共同遗产,因此与回归的概念相矛盾。本文发现,虽然两派思想的主张不同,但它们都有一个共同的理论基础——功利主义,这证明了它们各自的思想是正确的。由于功利主义支持集体整体幸福的最大化,民族主义者可以像国际主义者一样,以确保这种幸福的需要为前提来保护他们的文化遗产。因此,本文试图研究这两种思想流派所共有的共同理论基础是否可以作为一种和解工具,弥合它们之间的差距,促进国际社会保护文化遗产的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Utilitarianism: Merging the Dichotomy between Nationalist and Internationalist Conception of Cultural Property
The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The African Journal of Legal Studies (AJLS) is a peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary academic journal focusing on human rights and rule of law issues in Africa as analyzed by lawyers, economists, political scientists and others drawn from throughout the continent and the world. The journal, which was established by the Africa Law Institute and is now co-published in collaboration with Brill | Nijhoff, aims to serve as the leading forum for the thoughtful and scholarly engagement of a broad range of complex issues at the intersection of law, public policy and social change in Africa. AJLS places emphasis on presenting a diversity of perspectives on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems of human rights and governance, as well as emerging issues, and possible solutions to them. Towards this end, AJLS encourages critical reflections that are based on empirical observations and experience as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.
×
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