Contribution short abstract:

The aim of this paper is to reflect on the opportunities of the application of Elinor Ostrom’s methodology (Institutional Analysis and Development - IAD) to the complex, conflict-ridden and divisive international field of heritage diplomacy and international cultural relations.

Contribution long abstract:

Heritage diplomacy is definitely a complex, conflict-ridden and divisive international field, although the official international UNESCO discourse endeavours to focus on the performed mutual respect between divers actors, promotion of peace and understanding as well as intercultural and interreligious dialogue (UN GA 2015). In fact, heritage regimes are characterised by their inherent contradiction due to divergent, competing philosophies regarding the importance of (inter)national versus community-based control over heritage, embraced by the terms ‘protection’ (UNESCO 1972) and ‘safeguarding’ (UNESCO 2003). Moreover, internal complexity and tensions among regime actors, altogether threaten effective and ethical heritage management and lead to many disagreements, also among developed and developing nations. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the opportunities of the application of Elinor Ostrom’s methodology (Institutional Analysis and Development - IAD) to the field of heritage diplomacy and international cultural relations. The author would seek answers to the questions: a) What are the values and preferences of heritage regime actors with respect to the strategies for achieving particular outcomes and what are those outcomes?; What are the beliefs of heritage regime organs about other actors’ strategic preference and outcomes?; c) How do heritage regime actors define threats to the regime and how they respond to those threats? The challenges are presented on the chosen case studies concerning the functioning of the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.