Мировая и отечественная культура. Памятники истории и культуры. Сравнительный анализ национальных законодательных актов России и Италии в сфере сохранения недвижимого культурного наследия
World and domestic culture. Monuments of history and culture. Comparative analysis of national legislative acts of Russia and Italy in the sphere of preservation of immovable cultural heritage

Summary/Abstract: In 1989 the Soviet Union became a party to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted in Paris on November 16, 1972 at the 17th session of the UN General Conference on Education, Science and Culture. Accession to this international treaty has opened new opportunities for Russia to present to the world its outstanding and unique historical monuments and natural reserves, to get additional guarantees of their preservation and access to the world experience in their management. Today 193 states are participants of the UNESCO Convention, and the List of World Cultural and Natural Heritage numbers 1121 sites located in 167 countries. Russia occupies the ninth place with 11 natural and 19 cultural sites, which reflects a relatively small part of Russian potential, though very significant — including the first “Historic Center of St. Petersburg”, “Kizhi Pogost”, “Moscow Kremlin and Red Square” inscribed in 1990, as well as the opening natural part of our nominations “The Virgin Komi Forests” (1995), “Volcanoes of Kamchatka” and “Lake Baikal” (1996). However, Russia’s accession to the international convention, in my opinion, has not contributed to a significant improvement in the area of cultural heritage preservation. The current legal mechanisms of state protection of objects of cultural heritage in Russia do not bring the expected effect: there is no properly formed system of state registration; the system of professional training of restorers and the objective system of confirmation of their qualification are lost; scientific approaches and restoration tools are distorted, being replaced in practice by repair works without scientific substantiation and contrary to the authenticity of materials and forms; there are no mechanisms of real financial support for the restoration of cultural heritage. I justify my assertion by the results of the analysis of the norms of Russian law in terms of the attitude of the state to the topic of identification and registration of immovable heritage, subsidies and preferences for owners, federal target programs. The analysis is based on a comparison of the current Russian legislation and one of the fundamental legislative acts of Italy — the Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage. The choice of the country is based on the fact that Italy is one of the leading member countries of the International Convention, a country with an ideal form of heritage management.

• Details
• Contents