Globalization, Cultural Heritage, and Legal Protection: Challenges of Preservation
Keywords:
globalization, cultural heritage, legal protection, preservation, qualitative research, Tehran, intangible heritage, heritage lawAbstract
This study aimed to explore how globalization reshapes the legal protection of cultural heritage and to identify the main preservation challenges perceived by heritage experts, legal professionals, cultural practitioners, and community stakeholders in Tehran. This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 24 participants in Tehran, Iran. Participants included cultural heritage specialists, legal professionals, museum and archive personnel, municipal cultural officers, academics, and community representatives involved in heritage-related activities. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants with direct experience of heritage preservation, legal regulation, cultural policy, or community-based cultural work. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached after 21 interviews, followed by three confirmatory interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, generate initial codes, compare patterns across participant groups, and develop final categories. Trustworthiness was strengthened through member checking, peer review of codes, prolonged engagement with the data, and maintenance of an analytic audit trail. Analysis generated four main categories: legal fragmentation and weak enforcement; commercialization and tourist-oriented transformation of heritage; digital globalization and contested ownership of cultural knowledge; and community exclusion from preservation governance. Participants emphasized that globalization has increased international visibility and documentation opportunities, yet it has also intensified pressures from urban development, marketization, cultural commodification, illicit circulation of cultural objects, and unequal access to legal decision-making. The findings show that legal protection is strongest when it combines formal regulation, institutional coordination, digital documentation, community participation, and culturally sensitive enforcement. Globalization creates both opportunities and risks for cultural heritage preservation. While international legal instruments and digital technologies can strengthen protection, preservation remains fragile when legal frameworks are fragmented, communities are marginalized, and heritage is treated primarily as an economic resource. Effective legal protection requires integrated governance, community-based safeguarding, and stronger coordination between national law, international standards, and local cultural meanings.
Downloads
References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
Bendix, R. F., Eggert, A., & Peselmann, A. (Eds.). (2012). Heritage regimes and the state. Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Blake, J. (2015). International cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Francioni, F., & Vrdoljak, A. F. (Eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A geography of heritage: Power, culture and economy. Arnold.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical approaches. Routledge.
Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319–338.
ICCROM. (2026). Leveraging cultural heritage conservation for inclusive growth with communities. International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property.
ICOMOS. (2022). International cultural heritage tourism charter: Reinforcing cultural heritage protection and community resilience through responsible and sustainable tourism management. International Council on Monuments and Sites.
Labadi, S. (2013). UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: Value-based analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. AltaMira Press.
Labadi, S., & Logan, W. (Eds.). (2015). Urban heritage, development and sustainability: International frameworks, national and local governance. Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Logan, W., Craith, M. N., & Kockel, U. (Eds.). (2016). A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge University Press.
Merryman, J. H. (1986). Two ways of thinking about cultural property. American Journal of International Law, 80(4), 831–853.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.
UNESCO. (1970). Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2015). Recommendation concerning the protection and promotion of museums and collections, their diversity and their role in society. UNESCO.
UNIDROIT. (1995). UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. International Institute for the Unification of Private Law.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
