1 The letter garnered media attention nationwide, e.g., Helsingin Sanomat, the largest newspaper in Finland, published the article ‘Kauppakeskus vai maailmanperintö? Suomi voi menettää yhden maailmanperintökohtaistaan’ (Shopping Centre or World Heritage? Finland May Lose One of Its World Heritage Sites), 15 August 2021, available at www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000008180765.html. In fact, the letter was the second of its kind. UNESCO had already sent one letter concerning the project in December 2016.

2 See the Committee Dec. 44 COM 7A.34 adopted during the extended 44th session WHC/21/44.COM/18 of the Committee (2021), at 56–7.

3 The Hohfeldian framework was presented in W. N. Hohfeld’s articles ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied Judicial Reasoning’, (1913) 23 Yale Law Journal 16; ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, (1917) 26 Yale Law Journal 710.

4 See, e.g., M. R. Marella, ‘The Commons as a Legal Concept’, (2016) 28 Law and Critique 61; M. R. Marella, ‘The Law of the Urban Common(s)’, (2019) 118 South Atlantic Quarterly 877; A. Vizek and M. Nielsen-Pincus, ‘Landowner Attitudes toward Conservation Easements: Balancing the Private and Public Interest in Land’, 2017 (30) Society & Natural Resources 1080. S. Harding touches Hohfeld’s theory in the context of cultural heritage in the article ‘Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage’, (1999) 31 Arizona State Law Journal 291. There is also some discussion about legal rights of rivers, arisen from indigenous rights and rights of nature, in which the theory can be utilized too to some extent. See further V. A. J. Kurki, A Theory of Legal Personhood (2019), 127–52; J. Talbot-Jones and J. Bennett, ‘Toward a Property Rights Theory of Legal Rights for Rivers’, (2019) 164 Ecological Economics 106352.

5 The nature of cultural heritage law as a special branch of law is broad. It contains elements from public law, private law, international law, and domestic law. This explains why many of the legal scholars in the field have a tendency towards traditional legal dogmatics to systematize the fragmented structure of cultural heritage regulation. See, e.g., F. Francioni, ‘Plurality and Interaction of Legal Orders in the Enforcement of Cultural Heritage Law’, in F. Francioni and J. Gordley (eds.), Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law (2013), 9.

6 K. Barker, ‘“Damages Without Loss”: Can Hohfeld Help?’, (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 631, at 634–5.

7 Cultural heritage’s selection process is usually motivated by legislation and authorized by the state. In critical cultural heritage studies, this is called as ‘official heritage’. In contrast, the term ‘unofficial heritage’ refers to the heritage not recognized by official forms of legislation. See R. Harrison, Heritage. Critical Approaches (2013), 14–15. The Operational Guidelines represents a soft law document updated regularly by the Committee. This article is based on the Operational Guidelines revised in 2021.

8 Hohfeld (1913), supra note 3, at 30.

9 On first-order and higher-order positions see Kurki, supra note 4, at 57–8; L. Weinar, ‘The Nature of Rights’, (2005) 33 Philosophy and Public Affairs 225, at 230–3.

10 See further, e.g., M. H. Kramer, ‘Refining the Interest Theory of Rights’, (2010) 55 American Journal of Jurisprudence 31; M. H. Kramer, ‘Rights without Trimmings’, in M. H. Kramer (ed.), A Debate over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries (2000), 7; M. H. Kramer, ‘Some Doubts about Alternatives to the Interest Theory of Rights’, (2012) 123 Ethics 245; V. A. J. Kurki, ‘Rights, Harming and Wronging: A Restatement of the Interest Theory’, (2018) 38 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 430; Kurki, ibid., at 55–87.

11 Old Rauma and the Fortress of Suomenlinna were included on the World Heritage List as the first sites nominated from Finland in the Committee Dec. CONF 002 XV (1991), 27. To be nominated on the List and acknowledged to have an outstanding universal value, a site must meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. Properties nominated under criteria I–VI must meet the conditions of authenticity, and all the properties nominated shall satisfy the conditions of integrity. See Operational Guidelines (2021), paras. 77–95.

12 1972 WHC, Arts. 1–2, 4.

13 On buffer zones see Operational Guidelines (2021), paras. 103–107.

14 Constitution of Finland (Act No. 731 of 1999), Section 20 on responsibility for the environment: ‘Nature and its biodiversity, the environment and the national heritage are the responsibility of everyone. The public authorities shall endeavour to guarantee for everyone the right to a healthy environment and for everyone the possibility to influence the decisions that concern their own living environment.’

15 In Art. 1 of the 1972 WHC, cultural heritage is defined under the categories of monuments, groups of buildings, and sites.

16 On an interaction between tangible and intangible heritage of Old Rauma see further R. Haanpää, L. Puolamäki and E. Karhunen, ‘Local Conservation and Perceptions of Heritage in Old Rauma World Heritage Site’, (2018) 25 International Journal of Heritage Studies 837.

17 Concept of cultural property was used for the first time in a legal context in the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter the Hague Convention). Since then, many scholars have pointed out the complexity of defining culture heritage as property. See, e.g., J. Blake, ‘On Defining the Cultural Heritage’, (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 61, at 65–7; M. Frigo, ‘Cultural Property v. Cultural Heritage: A “Battle of Concepts” in International Law?’, (2004) 86 International Review of the Red Cross 367; L. Prott and P. J. O’Keefe, ‘“Cultural Heritage” or “Cultural Property”?’, (1992) 1 International Journal of Cultural Property 307.

18 KHO 2006:2, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland; KHO 2018:144, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland.

19 The model is displayed, e.g., in the article in which a representative of the construction project comments to YLE, Finland’s national public broadcasting company, 20 September 2021, available at yle.fi/uutiset/3-12103368, that they see no reason to change the construction plans.

20 See, e.g., Kurki, supra note 4, at 57; Weinar, supra note 9, at 236–7.

21 Hohfeld used the word ‘privilege’, but he also saw the words ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ as closest synonyms to it. See Hohfeld (1913), supra note 3, at 41. Through the decades, ‘a liberty’ has become a more well-established word to use in this context by scholars whose example this article follows. See, e.g., G. Williams, ‘The Concept of Legal Liberty’, (1956) 56 Columbia Law Review 1129; Kramer (2000), supra note 10; Kurki, supra note 4. Of course, many writers still use the original Hohfeldian word ‘privilege’ just as some prefer using both ‘privilege’ and ‘liberty’ in parallel. See, e.g., Barker, supra note 6; V. Brown, ‘Rights, Liberties and Duties: Reformulating Hohfeld’s Scheme of Legal Relations?’, (2005) 58 Current Legal Problems 343.

22 Hohfeld (1913), supra note 3, at 32–3.

23 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 12(1) on the freedom of movement.

24 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Art. 15(a) on the right to take part in cultural life. In this context, it should be mentioned that the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ignores cultural rights even though it guarantees some rights having importance for practicing culture, such as Art. 9 on the right to freedom of thought and Art. 10 on the right to freedom of expression, which have been applied in the case law of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning artistic expression and access to culture. See, e.g., Alves Da Silva v. Portugal, Decision of 20 October 2009, ECtHR (App. No. 41665/07); Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, Decision of 18 December 2012, ECtHR (Appl. No. 3111/10); Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, Decision of 1 March 2016, ECtHR (App. Nos. 48226//10, 14027/11); Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden, Decision of 16 March 2009, ECtHR (App. No. 23883/06).

25 On 16 March 2020 the Finnish government declared a state of emergency in Finland under the Emergency Powers Act and decided on various measures, such as restrictions on gatherings and public meetings, to slow down the spreading of COVID-19 based on the Communicable Diseases Act. See further the press release by the Finnish Government Communications Department at valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/10616/hallitus-totesi-suomen-olevan-poikkeusoloissa-koronavirustilanteen-vuoksi.

26 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Art. 17; Protocol No. 1 to the 1953 ECHR, Art. 1.

27 1976 ICESCR, Art. 6(1).

28 Hohfeld presents an example given by J. C. Gray in The Nature and Sources of Law (1909): ‘The eating of shrimp salad is an interest of mine, and, if I can pay for it, the law will protect that interest, and it is therefore a right of mine to eat shrimp salad which I have paid for, although I know that shrimp salad always gives me a colic.’ Hohfeld (1913), supra note 3, at 345.

29 A. Clarke and P. Kohler, Property Law: Commentary and Materials (2005), 21.

30 KHO 2018:144, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland.

31 In Art. 4 of the 1972 WHC a duty to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation, and transmission of the cultural and natural heritage to future generations is addressed to states.

32 See, e.g., Kramer (2010), supra note 10, at 34–5; Kurki, supra note 4, at 62.

33 E.g., in Section 20 of the Constitution of Finland (Act No. 731 of 1999) the responsibility of cultural heritage is addressed to all, including individuals. See supra note 14.

34 Much has been written on future generations’ moral and legal rights in the context of human rights regime. See, e.g., D. Bell, ‘Does Anthropogenic Climate Change Violate Human Rights?’, (2011) 14 Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 99, at 104–10; J. Brännmark, ‘Future Generations as Rightholders’, (2016) 19 Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 680; M. Düwell and G. Bos, ‘Why “Rights” of Future People?’, in M. Düwell, G. Bos and N. von Steenbergen (eds.), Towards the Ethics of a Green Future. The Theory and Practice of Human Rights for Future People (2018), 9; A. Gosseries, ‘On Future Generations’ Future Rights’, (2008) 16 Journal of Political Philosophy 446; P. Lawrence, Justice for Future Generations (2015), 41–63; B. Lewis, ‘The Rights of Future Generations within the Post-Paris Climate Regime’, (2018) 7 Transnational Environmental Law 69, at 78–85.

35 1948 UDHR, Art. 1.

36 Gosseries, supra note 34, at 450–3.

37 Harding, supra note 4, at 324–5.

38 See 1972 WHC, Art. 4; 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention, Art. 2(1). Both conventions consider cultural heritage as something that is transferred between generations, moved in time from past to future. In para. 2 of the 2002 Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (WHC-02/CONF.202/25), the Committee states, that ‘the properties on the World Heritage List are assets held in trust to pass on to generations of the future as their rightful inheritance’. Also, the Operational Guidelines refers to future generations as an object of transmission of cultural heritage. See Operational Guidelines (2021), paras. 15(a), 49, 109.

39 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Art. 4: ‘The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous people. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.’

40 Ibid., Art. 1: ‘Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is a necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.’

41 See Harrison, supra note 7, at 159–60.

42 F. Francioni, ‘Public and private in the International Protection of Global Cultural Goods’, 2012 (23) European Journal of International Law 719, at 726.

43 The case was the first international criminal case in which war crimes for the destruction of cultural heritage, including World Heritage, have been the principal charge in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court underlined cultural heritage to be understood as encompassing the resources enabling cultural identification and development processes of individuals and groups which they wish to transmit to future generations. See Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15-171, 27 September 2016. See also, e.g., E. Polymenopoulou, ‘Cultural Rights in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice’, (2014) 27 Leiden Journal of International Law 447.

44 Under the 1972 WHC some of the world’s most unique ecosystems are obliged to become protected as World Heritage sites. Still, must be noted that the number of World Heritage Sites including, for instance, coral reef or rainforest ecosystems is overall low. See, e.g., E. J. Goodwin, International Environmental Law and the Conservation of Coral Reefs (2015), 169–205. See further on similarities between international environmental law and cultural heritage law, e.g., M. Lostal, ‘The role of Specific Discipline Principles in International Law: A Parallel Analysis between Environmental Law and Cultural Heritage Law’, (2013) 82 Nordic Journal of International Law 391, at 393–5.

45 E.g., Juliana et al. v. United States [2015] 18-36082 (9^th Circuit Court); Sinnok et al. v. State of Alaska [2017] S-17297 (The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska); Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minanbiente [2018] 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01 (Corte Suprema de Justicia, República de Colombia); Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands [2020] ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (The Supreme Court of the Netherlands). To this must be also added a climate complaint that young people from Portugal have filed against 33 European countries, including Finland, in the ECtHR. See Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others (App. No. 39371/20).

46 The original roof of Notre-Dame contained so much wood that it is known by the name La Forêt (forest). On the logging and reconstruction project see further, e.g., ‘France Fells Oaks to Rebuild the Notre-Dame Spire’, Reuters, 8 March 2021, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-france-notredame-oaks-idUSKBN2B029O.

47 See Operational Guidelines (2019) paras. 6, 14bis, 15(o), 112.

48 See the Committee Dec. 44 COM 7A.34 adopted during the extended 44th session WHC/21/44.COM/18 of the Committee (2021), at 56–7.

49 See a statement published on Twitter by Steve Rotheram, a metro mayor of the Liverpool region, at twitter.com/LCRMayor/status/1417786191974391808.

50 Gosseries, supra note 34, at 452–3.

51 UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/2347 (2017).

52 UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution A/HR/37/L.30 (2018).

53 See Haanpää, Puolamäki and Karhunen, supra note 16, at 846.

54 See further Hohfeld (1913), supra note 3, at 44–9.

55 See note 14, supra.

56 See further the announcement of the City of Venice at live.comune.venezia.it/it/contributo-accesso-venezia-informazioni-utili.

57 1972 WHC, Arts. 3–4.

58 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Art. 1.

59 The Committee Dec. 33 COM 7B.11 (2007).

60 European Commission v. Republic of Poland [2017] C-441/17, The Court of Justice of Europe of the European Union.

61 See 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Arts. 4, 5, 12(1), 31.

62 See International Humanitarian Law, Rule 38: ‘Attacks Against Cultural Property’; 1954 Hague Convention, Art. 4.

63 1954 Hague Convention, Art 3.

64 1972 WHC, Art. 6(3).

65 A. Chechi, ‘State Immunity, Property Rights, and Cultural Objects on Loan’, (2015) 22 International Journal of Cultural Property 279, at 281–2.

66 See further S. Manacorda, ‘Criminal Law Protection of Cultural Heritage: An International Perspective’, in S. Manacorda and D. Chappell (eds.), Crime in the Art and Antiquities World. Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property (2011), 17.

67 See, e.g., T. Dietz, R. L. Shwom and C. T. Whitley, ‘Climate Change and Society’, (2020) 46 Annual Review of Sociology 135; A. D. King and L. J. Harrington, ‘The Inequality of Climate Change From 1.5 to 2°C of Global Warming’, (2018) 45 Geophysical Research Letters 5030; T. O’Donnell, ‘Vulnerability and the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters’, (2019) 68 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 573.

68 See, e.g., M. L. Martello, ‘Arctic Indigenous Peoples as Representations and Representatives of Climate Change’, (2008) 38 Social Studies of Science 351; E. Zentner et al., ‘Ignoring Indigenous Peoples – Climate Change, Oil Development, and Indigenous Rights Clash in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’, (2019) 155 Climatic Change 533.

69 Operational Guidelines (2021), paras. 40, 64, 117, 123, 215.

70 From a perspective of cultural rights of indigenous peoples, the essential instruments are the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention and the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, Art. 27 of the 1976 ICCPR addresses, vaguely though, cultural rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities.

71 In Finland the legal principle of the right to roam is called ‘jokamiehenoikeus’ and is mentioned in the Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 1096 of 1996), Section 36, and in the Criminal Code of Finland (Act No. 39 of 1889), Section 14. The same principle is also recognized in Norway as ‘allemannsrett’ and in Sweden as ‘allemansrätten’, in which all verbatim translation would be ‘every man’s right’, referring to everyone’s right to public access. See Outdoor Recreation Act (Act No. 16 of 1957) of Norway; Swedish Constitutional Law, Ch. 2, Art. 15.

72 See further, e.g., S. Harding, supra note 4, at 331–40; S. Harding, ‘Cultural Property and the Limitations of Preservation’, 2003 (25) Law & Policy 17.

73 Current legislation and practices are emphasizing the conservation of material dimensions, such as facades, over immaterial elements in Old Rauma. See Haanpää, Puolamäki and Karhunen, supra note 16, at 839–43.

74 On principles and history of right to roam in Nordic countries in general see further, e.g., M. La Mela, ‘Property Rights in Conflict: wild berry-picking and the Nordic tradition of allemansrätt’, (2014) 62 Scandinavian Economic History Review 266.

75 On landscapes as cultural commons see, e.g., M. Bruncevic, Law, Art and the Commons (2017), 180–7; Marella (2016), supra note 4.

76 The 1954 Hague Convention requires state parties to implement sanctions for violations of the convention. See 1954 Hague Convention, Art. 28.

77 See, e.g., N. Carboni and L. de Luca, ‘Towards Conceptual Foundation for Documenting Tangible and Intangible Elements of Cultural Objects’, (2016) 3 Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 108; F. Lenzerini, ‘Protecting the Tangible, Safeguarding the Intangible: A Same Conventional Model for Different Needs’, in S. von Schorlemer and S. Maus (eds.), Climate Change as a Threat to Peace. Impacts on Cultural Heritage and Cultural Diversity (2014), 141; D. F. Ruggles and H. Silverman, ‘From Tangible to Intangible Heritage’, in D. F. Ruggles and H. Silverman (eds.), Intangible Heritage Embodied (2009), 1; G. Swensen et al., ‘Capturing the Intangible and Tangible Aspects of Heritage: Personal versus Official Perspectives in Cultural Heritage Management’, (2012) 38 Landscape Research 203.

78 J. Blake, International Cultural Heritage Law (2015), 10.

79 Hohfeld (1917), supra note 3, at 719–20.

80 Ibid., at 715.