Comparative Analysis of the Monument Protection Legislation of Poland and Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/uhj2022.03.205Keywords:
cultural heritage, monument protection area, cultural policy, cultural heritage monument, cultural heritage siteAbstract
The purpose of the study is to highlight and compare features of the monument protection legislation of Poland and Ukraine.
Methodology consists in application of methods of historicism, systematicity, general scientific methods of logic, comparative analysis, specialhistorical methods (historiographical analysis, retrospective analysis, chronology, historical-systemic, historical-genetic, comparative-historical).
Scientific novelty. The historical origins and factors of formation of the monument protection legislation of Poland and Ukraine, the issues of cultural policy and preservation of the national heritage are clarified.
Conclusions. Having analyzed the Polish monument protection experience, in our opinion, in Ukraine it is necessary to optimize the organizational and managerial structure: transformation of the State Service for Cultural Heritage Protection of Ukraine and the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage of Ukraine into a functional unit of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine, which will have a vertically integrated structure with structural units at regional and district administrations; further integration at the administrative level of government control in the field of cultural heritage protection; development of a system and methodology of training, retraining and advanced training of personnel for scientific, design and production activities in the field of monument protection; creation of the International Centre for Professional Development and exchange of experience in the field of cultural heritage protection; implementation of training and information programmes for this area. Thus, it can be stated that the monument protection experience of the Republic of Poland is interesting for Ukraine. This experience can be partially adopted by our state, but subject to its own national and mental characteristics. In the cultural heritage protection area of Ukraine there are enough unresolved issues and they need to be addressed. This requires the political will of the state leadership, the construction of a clear vertical of management bodies in the monument protection area, the competence of civil servants in this area and monument guards, as well as balancing the legal framework (settlement of all laws and regulations) in this area.
References
Denysenko, H., Denysenko, O. (2014). «Zvid pamiatok istorii ta kultury»: realizatsiia proektu v postradianskykh derzhavakh. Pratsi Naukovo-doslidnoho instytutu pamiatkookhoronnykh doslidzhen, 9, 372–382. [in Ukrainian].
Egorov, V. (1988). Razvitie i stanovlenie poniatia «pamiatnik istoii». Istoria SSSR, 1, 100–106. [in Russian].
Filatov, A. (2000). Zarubizhnyi dosvid derzhavnoho upravlinnia okhoronoiu kulturnoi spadshchyny. Visnyk UADU, 1, 39–45. [in Ukrainian].
Filatov, A. (2003). Zarubezhnyj opyt gosudarstvennogo upravlenia okhranoj kulturnoho nasledia. Istoricheskoe nasledie Kryma, 1, 16–23, 31–36. [in Russian].
Horbyk, V. (1996). Zarubizhnyi dosvid zberezhennia pamiatok istorii ta kultury i yoho vykorystannia v Ukraini. Kyivska starovyna, 4/5, 134–146. [in Ukrainian].
Horbyk, V., Denysenko, H. (2012). «Zvid pamiatok istorii ta kultury Ukrainy» u doslidzhenni i okhoroni kulturnoi spadshchyny: dosvid, problemy, perspektyvy. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Kosarevskij, A. (1987). Okhrane pamiatnikov – sistemnyj podkhod. Stroitelstvo i arkhitektura, 11, 20–21. [in Russian]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3479(87)90004-4
Kot, S. (2018). Pro stan zberezhennia kulturnoi spadshchyny Ukrainy (Informatsiino-analitychni materialy do parlamentskykh slukhan «Stan, problemy ta perspektyvy okhorony kulturnoi spadshchyny v Ukraini», 18 kvitnia 2018 r.). Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Lytovchenko, V. (2014). Rol YuNESKO v okhoroni ta zberezhenni kulturnoi spadshchyny v Ukraini (1954–2010 rr.) (Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis). Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Melnychuk, O. (2003). Vsesvitnia kulturna ta pryrodna spadshchyna yak skladova kontseptsii zahalnoi spadshchyny liudstva. Pravo Ukrainy, 12, 93–97. [in Ukrainian].
Melnychuk, O. (2008). Mizhnarodno-pravovyi status vsesvitnoi kulturnoi i pryrodnoi spadshchyny. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Nadyrova, O. (2009). Diialnist derzhavnykh i hromadskykh orhanizatsii Frantsii po zberezhenniu kulturnoi spadshchyny (1991–2004 rr.). (Extended abstract of Candidate’s thesis). Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Prokopenko, L., Hevel, K. (2012). Dosvid derzhavnoho upravlinnia u sferi zberezhennia kulturnoi spadshchyny v krainakh YeS. Derzhavne upravlinnia ta mistseve samovriaduvannia, 1 (12), 57–65. [in Ukrainian].
Tronko, P., Vermenych, Ya. (2000). Istorychni mista v systemi pamiatkookhoronnoi diialnosti ta rehionalno-istorychnykh doslidzhen. Spetsialni istorychni dystsypliny, 4, 355–369. [in Ukrainian].
Tronko, P., Vermenych. Ya. (2009). Istorychne misto yak kulturna tsinnist i obiekt pamiatkookhorony. Ukraina XX st.: kultura, ideolohiia, polityka, 15, 171–183. [in Ukrainian].
Tytova, O. (2007). Zvitno-vyborchi zbory ukrainskoho komitetu ICOMOS. Visnyk Ukrainskoho komitetu ICOMOS, 1, 6–11. [in Ukrainian].
