Global and european frames: samenvatting
PART I — FOUNDATIONS OF HERITAGE: CONCEPTS, SCOPE, AND GOVERNANCE
LOGIC
1. THE EXPANSION OF THE HERITAGE CONCEPT
Over the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concept of cultural heritage has
expanded significantly. Heritage is no longer limited to monumental buildings or
exceptional artefacts, but encompasses a wide and diverse range of resources inherited
from the past.
This expansion follows several key trajectories:
• From immovable heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, cultural
landscapes)
• To movable heritage (museum objects, archival documents, library collections)
• To intangible cultural heritage, understood as living practices such as rituals,
skills, oral traditions, performing arts, and social practices
• To digital heritage, including both born-digital material and digitised cultural
resources
This broadening reflects a shift away from a narrow, object-centred understanding of
heritage toward a more inclusive and dynamic conception that recognises social
practices, knowledge systems, and human creativity.
2. HERITAGE AS A DYNAMIC AND SOCIAL PROCESS
Cultural heritage is not a static inheritance passively received from the past. It emerges
through ongoing interactions between people, places, and time. What is recognised as
heritage depends on selection, interpretation, and attribution of value in the present.
As a result:
• Heritage is constantly redefined
• Heritage is not a fixed legal category.
• DiNerent social groups may attribute diNerent meanings to the same heritage
• Heritage can become contested, negotiated, or politicised
• International cultural heritage law is conceptually unstable and uses multiple
overlapping terms
• Heritage and safeguarding practices is never neutral but shaped by institutional
and political power relations.
This understanding underpins contemporary heritage theory and explains why heritage
is increasingly linked to issues of identity, memory, participation, and power.
,3. THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF HERITAGE
As heritage expanded conceptually, it also became embedded in institutional and legal
frameworks. From the 1980s onward, heritage increasingly entered:
• National and international legislation
• Policy frameworks
• Public administration
• International conventions and recommendations
This institutionalisation led to the creation and recognition of a dense network of actors:
• Public authorities at diNerent levels
• Museums, archives, and libraries
• Scientific and advisory bodies
• Community organisations and civil society actors
• Cultural mediators and facilitators
• Digital and online platforms acting as new heritage brokers
Heritage thus became both a cultural field and a policy domain.
Heritage increasingly moved:
• from elite objects → social practices,
• from expert control → community involvement,
• from national focus → multi-level governance.
4. SUBSIDIARITY AND MULTI-LEVEL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE
Heritage governance operates across multiple interconnected levels, structured
according to the principle of subsidiarity. This means that responsibilities are
distributed across diNerent scales, with decisions ideally taken as close as possible to
the communities concerned.
The main levels include:
• Global level: international frameworks, particularly UNESCO conventions
• European level: European Union and Council of Europe heritage instruments
• National level (Belgium): federal or state heritage policies and scientific
institutions
• Regional level: protection of monuments, landscapes, archaeology, and cultural
heritage
• Provincial level: Traditionally: immovable heritage. Since 2018: broader cultural
heritage
• Local level: cities, municipalities, and intercommunal networks managing
heritage in close interaction with communities
This layered structure explains why heritage policy can appear fragmented yet is in fact
structured through overlapping competences.
,5. A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE Council of Europe /
European Commission (2014)
A widely used contemporary definition describes cultural heritage as comprising all
resources inherited from the past, in tangible, intangible, and digital forms. These
resources include monuments, sites, landscapes, skills, practices, knowledge, creative
expressions, and curated collections.
Key characteristics of this definition:
• Heritage includes both material and immaterial elements
• It recognises heritage as evolving rather than fixed
• It emphasises societal value beyond purely cultural significance
• It links heritage to sustainability and long-term responsibility
Heritage is thus understood not only as something to be preserved, but as a strategic
resource for society. This definition still privileges people–place interaction, and is
less inclusive of: people–object relations, spiritual entities, animals, nature, or digital-
only realities.
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR HERITAGE STUDIES
The expansion and politicisation of heritage have led to the emergence of critical
heritage studies, which focus on:
• Processes of heritage-making rather than heritage objects alone
• Power relations in defining and managing heritage
• Inclusion, exclusion, and participation
• Ethical, social, and political dimensions of heritage governance
This critical perspective forms the conceptual foundation for understanding global and
European heritage frameworks discussed in later parts of the course.
7. MUSEUMS
The definition of the museum has never been fixed, but has continuously evolved in
response to changing social, political, and professional contexts. Historically,
museums were primarily understood as collection-centred institutions, focused on
preservation and classification. Over time, this understanding has shifted toward seeing
museums as institutions in the service of society, with broader cultural and social
responsibilities.
Debates surrounding the ICOM museum definition reveal persistent tensions between:
• Technical and institutional criteria, such as permanence, non-profit status, and
core museum functions, and
• Normative and societal expectations, including participation, inclusion,
accessibility, and social responsibility.
, PART II — WHY HERITAGE BECAME A GLOBAL CONCERN: POST-1945 CONTEXT,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1. THE POST-1945 TURN: FROM NATIONAL CONCERN TO INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
The modern system of heritage protection emerges in the aftermath of the Second World
War. The scale of destruction, looting, and displacement revealed that cultural heritage
could no longer be protected solely within national borders. Damage to cultural heritage
was increasingly understood as a loss not only for a single nation, but for humanity as a
whole.
This shift marks the beginning of international cultural heritage governance, grounded
in cooperation between states and supported by newly created international
institutions.
2. THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE MORAL FRAMEWORK FOR HERITAGE
The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 created a global political and legal
framework for peace, security, and cooperation. It was in the direct aftermath of Worl
war II. Within this framework, culture became linked to broader human values rather
than treated as a secondary concern.
Core aims of the UN
The UN can take action on the major issues confronting humanity in the 21st century. Its
main objectives are to:
• maintain international peace and security,
• protect human rights,
• deliver humanitarian aid,
• promote sustainable development,
• uphold international law.
The UN coordinates its work with a wide range of funds, programmes and specialised
agencies, including UNESCO.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) plays a crucial role in this shift. In
particular:
• Human dignity and equality are recognised as universal principles
• Individuals are granted the right to participate freely in the cultural life of their
community
• Cultural production is acknowledged as deserving protection, both morally and
materially
Heritage protection is thus embedded in a broader human-rights logic, framing culture
as a fundamental dimension of human well-being.
PART I — FOUNDATIONS OF HERITAGE: CONCEPTS, SCOPE, AND GOVERNANCE
LOGIC
1. THE EXPANSION OF THE HERITAGE CONCEPT
Over the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concept of cultural heritage has
expanded significantly. Heritage is no longer limited to monumental buildings or
exceptional artefacts, but encompasses a wide and diverse range of resources inherited
from the past.
This expansion follows several key trajectories:
• From immovable heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, cultural
landscapes)
• To movable heritage (museum objects, archival documents, library collections)
• To intangible cultural heritage, understood as living practices such as rituals,
skills, oral traditions, performing arts, and social practices
• To digital heritage, including both born-digital material and digitised cultural
resources
This broadening reflects a shift away from a narrow, object-centred understanding of
heritage toward a more inclusive and dynamic conception that recognises social
practices, knowledge systems, and human creativity.
2. HERITAGE AS A DYNAMIC AND SOCIAL PROCESS
Cultural heritage is not a static inheritance passively received from the past. It emerges
through ongoing interactions between people, places, and time. What is recognised as
heritage depends on selection, interpretation, and attribution of value in the present.
As a result:
• Heritage is constantly redefined
• Heritage is not a fixed legal category.
• DiNerent social groups may attribute diNerent meanings to the same heritage
• Heritage can become contested, negotiated, or politicised
• International cultural heritage law is conceptually unstable and uses multiple
overlapping terms
• Heritage and safeguarding practices is never neutral but shaped by institutional
and political power relations.
This understanding underpins contemporary heritage theory and explains why heritage
is increasingly linked to issues of identity, memory, participation, and power.
,3. THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF HERITAGE
As heritage expanded conceptually, it also became embedded in institutional and legal
frameworks. From the 1980s onward, heritage increasingly entered:
• National and international legislation
• Policy frameworks
• Public administration
• International conventions and recommendations
This institutionalisation led to the creation and recognition of a dense network of actors:
• Public authorities at diNerent levels
• Museums, archives, and libraries
• Scientific and advisory bodies
• Community organisations and civil society actors
• Cultural mediators and facilitators
• Digital and online platforms acting as new heritage brokers
Heritage thus became both a cultural field and a policy domain.
Heritage increasingly moved:
• from elite objects → social practices,
• from expert control → community involvement,
• from national focus → multi-level governance.
4. SUBSIDIARITY AND MULTI-LEVEL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE
Heritage governance operates across multiple interconnected levels, structured
according to the principle of subsidiarity. This means that responsibilities are
distributed across diNerent scales, with decisions ideally taken as close as possible to
the communities concerned.
The main levels include:
• Global level: international frameworks, particularly UNESCO conventions
• European level: European Union and Council of Europe heritage instruments
• National level (Belgium): federal or state heritage policies and scientific
institutions
• Regional level: protection of monuments, landscapes, archaeology, and cultural
heritage
• Provincial level: Traditionally: immovable heritage. Since 2018: broader cultural
heritage
• Local level: cities, municipalities, and intercommunal networks managing
heritage in close interaction with communities
This layered structure explains why heritage policy can appear fragmented yet is in fact
structured through overlapping competences.
,5. A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE Council of Europe /
European Commission (2014)
A widely used contemporary definition describes cultural heritage as comprising all
resources inherited from the past, in tangible, intangible, and digital forms. These
resources include monuments, sites, landscapes, skills, practices, knowledge, creative
expressions, and curated collections.
Key characteristics of this definition:
• Heritage includes both material and immaterial elements
• It recognises heritage as evolving rather than fixed
• It emphasises societal value beyond purely cultural significance
• It links heritage to sustainability and long-term responsibility
Heritage is thus understood not only as something to be preserved, but as a strategic
resource for society. This definition still privileges people–place interaction, and is
less inclusive of: people–object relations, spiritual entities, animals, nature, or digital-
only realities.
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR HERITAGE STUDIES
The expansion and politicisation of heritage have led to the emergence of critical
heritage studies, which focus on:
• Processes of heritage-making rather than heritage objects alone
• Power relations in defining and managing heritage
• Inclusion, exclusion, and participation
• Ethical, social, and political dimensions of heritage governance
This critical perspective forms the conceptual foundation for understanding global and
European heritage frameworks discussed in later parts of the course.
7. MUSEUMS
The definition of the museum has never been fixed, but has continuously evolved in
response to changing social, political, and professional contexts. Historically,
museums were primarily understood as collection-centred institutions, focused on
preservation and classification. Over time, this understanding has shifted toward seeing
museums as institutions in the service of society, with broader cultural and social
responsibilities.
Debates surrounding the ICOM museum definition reveal persistent tensions between:
• Technical and institutional criteria, such as permanence, non-profit status, and
core museum functions, and
• Normative and societal expectations, including participation, inclusion,
accessibility, and social responsibility.
, PART II — WHY HERITAGE BECAME A GLOBAL CONCERN: POST-1945 CONTEXT,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1. THE POST-1945 TURN: FROM NATIONAL CONCERN TO INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
The modern system of heritage protection emerges in the aftermath of the Second World
War. The scale of destruction, looting, and displacement revealed that cultural heritage
could no longer be protected solely within national borders. Damage to cultural heritage
was increasingly understood as a loss not only for a single nation, but for humanity as a
whole.
This shift marks the beginning of international cultural heritage governance, grounded
in cooperation between states and supported by newly created international
institutions.
2. THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE MORAL FRAMEWORK FOR HERITAGE
The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 created a global political and legal
framework for peace, security, and cooperation. It was in the direct aftermath of Worl
war II. Within this framework, culture became linked to broader human values rather
than treated as a secondary concern.
Core aims of the UN
The UN can take action on the major issues confronting humanity in the 21st century. Its
main objectives are to:
• maintain international peace and security,
• protect human rights,
• deliver humanitarian aid,
• promote sustainable development,
• uphold international law.
The UN coordinates its work with a wide range of funds, programmes and specialised
agencies, including UNESCO.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) plays a crucial role in this shift. In
particular:
• Human dignity and equality are recognised as universal principles
• Individuals are granted the right to participate freely in the cultural life of their
community
• Cultural production is acknowledged as deserving protection, both morally and
materially
Heritage protection is thus embedded in a broader human-rights logic, framing culture
as a fundamental dimension of human well-being.
