少数民族非物质文化遗产的法律保护研究

【作者】 李依霖；

【导师】 徐中起；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 民族法， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 2011年6月1日,《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》开始施行,作为21世纪我国文化领域出台的第一部法律具有文化法制里程碑意义,也标志着中国非物质文化遗产保护从此进入有法可依的阶段。《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》与《保护非物质文化遗产公约》的精神一脉相承,是我国积极履行国际公约义务,促进国际非物质文化遗产保护,维护人类文化多样性的表现。但是,这部法律仅仅提供了行政法性质的法律保护,这显然不足以保护我国非物质文化遗产。特别是该法放弃对非物质文化遗产的民事保护问题做出直接规定,非物质文化遗产的权利主体归属问题依然是立法空白。目前,我国“非遗”普查基本结束,公布了两批共1028项国家级名录和4315项省级名录；评定公布了3批共1488名国家级“非遗”项目代表性传承人,5590名省级传承人；相继设立了闽南、徽州、热贡、羌族4个文化生态保护实验区,兴建了一批非物质文化遗产博物馆、传习所。这其中,少数民族非物质文化遗产占了极大的比重。鉴于非物质文化遗产原本就是岌岌可危的弱势文化,少数民族非物质文化遗产就处在更加艰难的境地。作者的研究目的有三,一是对《非物质文化遗产法》等一系列现有法律文件进行综合分析,发现立法存在的空白,初步分析产生这种情况的原因。二是通过田野调查进行客观观察,实际掌握少数民族非物质文化遗产的保护传承现状。三是为切实保护好少数民族非物质文化遗产,实现少数民族的文化自觉和文化自主,进而实现各族人民的文化平等和文化多样性,构建少数民族非物质文化遗产法律保护制度。这就首先需要界定诸多法律文件以及学界对非物质文化遗产的定义,从概念分析入手,运用法律解释的方法,对国际国内保护少数民族非物质文化遗产的立法实践进行归纳,初步总结出存在的问题和完善的空间,带着这些问题,从实践中寻找答案。其次,作为民族法学的理论研究类论文,充分运用人类学分析方法,通过田野调查获得第一手资料。通过案例分析非物质文化遗产的法律关系,构建出少数民族非物质文化遗产的法律保护制度。全文分为六章,第一章为“非物质文化遗产概述”。本章首先从非物质文化遗产的整体概念入手,通过国内外法律文件中不同时期的定义比较,以及与之相关概念的辨析,归纳出非物质文化遗产的基本特征。第二章为“少数民族非物质文化遗产概述”。进而对少数民族非物质文化遗产的概念有了明确的回答。本章对国内外相关法律文件进行梳理,寻找少数民族非物质文化遗产保护的法理依据,并对国内保护少数民族非物质文化遗产进行的立法和司法实践进行整理和分析,掌握我国现有法律对其保护状况,进而发现目前法律保护存在的问题。诸如对《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》保护原则的质疑,以及非物质文化遗产权利性质的探讨。带着这些从理论和法律文件中发现的问题,进入下一章的实证研究。第三章为“少数民族非物质文化遗产的实证研究”。本章的内容基于笔者对我国贵州省黔东南苗族侗族自治州雷山县进行的调研,结合该县申报文本等材料,对雷山县苗族非物质文化遗产的保护情况进行整理和分析,重点对雷山苗族非物质文化遗产集大成者之鼓藏节和雷山苗族芦笙制作工艺国家级代表传承人莫厌学专利侵权纠纷进行研究,发现实际工作中暴露的运用法律手段保护少数民族非物质文化遗产不足,以及《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》与其他法律的衔接制度的缺失,将之与第二章发现的问题相印证。第四章是“保护少数民族非物质文化遗产的法律模式”。本章通过传统公法保护模式和私法保护模式的效果分析,并对非物质文化遗产与专利权发生冲突的案例进行简单分析,结合我国少数民族地方实际情况,认为非物质文化遗产应摆脱对现有知识产权法的路径依赖,构建少数民族非物质文化遗产特殊保护制度保护少数民族非物质文化遗产。第五章为“我国少数民族非物质文化遗产法律保护制度”。本章将从主体、客体、权利内容三方面论述少数民族非物质文化遗产法律关系。第六章为“研究结果”。这一章将总结本文研究结果,并提出对《非物质文化遗产法》完善建议。作者主要对以下问题进行了分析和思考：首先,非物质文化遗产权利的本质属性。公法旨在限制国家权力,私法以保护个人排他性权为宗旨,作者突破了二者择其一的传统,以全新的角度论证了非物质文化的权利性质。第二,分析论证了非物质文化遗产无法顺利纳入现有的法律体系当中,特别是知识产权法体系不足以对少数民族非物质文化遗产进行全面保护。因此,认为应该在明确非物质文化遗产的权利主体基础上,设立特殊保护机制。第三,明确社群作为非物质文化遗产的所有者的前提下,承认非物质文化遗产传承人、外来改编者、搜集者等在传承、利用、搜集、整理非物质文化遗产过程中,进行的创造性活动而产生的智慧成果依然属于知识产权的范畴。换句话说,即承认、记录非物质文化遗产的“源”,保护、规范其传承发展的“流”,并试图使这个制度能与现有的知识产权制度互相配合,来保护从这条河流上汲取营养而诞生的其他成果。第四,作者对目前保护工作中出现的一些倾向进行了批判。首先针对一概而论的“生产性保护”或“传统文化产业化发展”,其次是对于非物质文化遗产“活态性”和“传承性”这两个重要特征进行了与之前学者不同的解读。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation is about the legal safeguarding of Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) of national minority. Intangible cultural heritage epitomizes a nation’s culture and wisdom. China has56ethnic groups, each with its own rich and colorful intangible cultural heritage created during its long history. As a result of the rapid pace of industrialization and urbanization, great changes have taken place in people’s lifestyle and modes of production. This has, to a greater or lesser extent, disrupted the environment on which intangible cultural heritage relies for existence. Thus, the international community and the states have paid considerable attention to the safeguarding of ICH. However, a lot of the theoretical problems were born alongside the safeguarding programs relating to the ICH going on. China has established a number of cultural and ecological preservation zones to save and protect parts of our intangible cultural heritage that are on the brink of extinction or having difficulty surviving. In June1,2011,"Law of the People’s Republic of China on Intangible Cultural Heritage" came into force. This is the first law in China in twenty-first Century promulgated the culture field, which has milepost significance in the construction of legal system culture. The introduction of this law, marks the safeguarding of ICH in China has entered a stage of the legal framework."Law of the People’s Republic of China on Intangible Cultural Heritage" and "Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage" spirit come down in one continuous line, China actively fulfill its international obligations under the Convention, to promote the international protection of ICH, maintaining cultural diversity in human performance. However, the law is far not enough to the ICH of our country to provide adequate protection. Especially the method has no problem of civil protection of the intangible cultural heritage to make direct regulation, subject of right belongs to the intangible cultural heritage is still blank. At present, China’s safeguarding of ICH census basic end, announced the two batch of1028state-level list and the4315provincial-level directory; assessment announced the3batch of1488state-level project representative successors,5590provincial heritage; four cultural and ecological protection of the experimentation area were successively established in Southern Fujian, Huizhou, Regong and Qiang, where build a batch of ICH Museums and schools. Among these, ICH of ethnic minorities accounted for a great proportion. The research has three purposes:the first, to make a comprehensive analysis of the "Law of the People’s Republic of China on Intangible Cultural Heritage "and a series of existing legal documents, the gaps found in existing legislation, a preliminary analysis of the causes of this situation. The second, in order to effectively protect ICH, achieve the cultural awareness and cultural autonomy of minorities, so as to realize the equality of cultures and cultural diversity of the people of all ethnic groups, and build the system of legal safeguarding of ICH. With objective observation by the method of field work, the actual control inheritance of safeguarding of ICH belongs to ethnic minorities. The third, for realizing the national minority’s cultural consciousness and cultural independence, and making sure that people of all ethnic groups and cultural equality, cultural diversity. Therefore, it requires to define various legal documents and the definition of the intangible cultural heritage, based on the analysis of concept, using the method of legal interpretation, the legislative practice of international and domestic protection of ICH of ethnic minorities in the induction, summarizes the existing problems and improve the space, with these questions, look for the answer from the practice. Secondly, as the theoretical research papers in national law, make full use of anthropological analysis method, to obtain first-hand information by the method of field work. Last but not least, analyze the legal relationship of the ICH in that case, to construct the legal safeguarding system of ICH of ethnic minorities. The author’s point of view, that the right of the ICH is a kind of social law type of rights, it is different from the public law which aimed at restricting state power, unlike the traditional private law to protect individual exclusive rights for the purpose, but to the collective rights and relative exclusive features such as social law rights. The point two, according to the nature of the right, that the rights of minority’s ICH belong to the origin of community and population whose ancestors created it. The point three,"Law of the People’s Republic of China on Intangible Cultural Heritage" and the act being developed in the folk literature and art, as well as the scope of protection of the relevant laws of the current intellectual property law system convergence with each other. Point four, although the ICH attributable to source and ethnic groups. One ICH may belong to more than one nation. These common holder may cross-administrative regions, cross-national and transnational even exist. In other words, the rights vested in the first generation of modern and outside a particular community is the owner of Total ICH is actively moving from a time cross-section view, the number of people of a particular community is specific, clear, and in the interests of private rights on the border closed the main requirements. They constitute the main body of the ICH have the right to use and benefit of all of it. But the contemporary community group is the preservation, inheritance, is not really complete the owner. Therefore, against those who use modern spread down the cultural heritage of benefit and be in the right and self-confident, put all the income attributable to the small family, but not into a certain proportion to the community and future generations to use. Point five, the state is the most important responsibility of subject protection of intangible cultural heritage. Five point of view, the state is the most important responsibility of subject protection of intangible cultural heritage. In essence, is provided by the government administrative guarantee, administrative department provides protection to the work of the finance, policy and other security. Point six, in the protection of private rights, intangible cultural heritage cannot be successfully incorporated into the existing legal system. The legislation should be to acknowledge the value and promote respect, to prevent abuse and empowerment, encouraging cultural innovation and promote cultural fair exchange as the goal, in order to balance the interests of protection, flexible, comprehensive protection, respect the common principle, the main content of right object, subject of rights, the right content, right management, limitation, the term of protection the responsibility system, to make regulations. Point seven, as the premise of community intangible cultural heritage owners, recognition of intangible cultural heritage of people, external adapter, collectors in inheritance, use, collection, collation of intangible cultural heritage process, and the creative wisdom achievement still belongs to the scope of intellectual property rights. Point eight, the current protection work in some inclination to criticize. The first is to lump together "productive safeguarding" or "industry development of traditional culture."The second is the intangible cultural heritage is " living " and " inheritance " of the two important characteristics of the different interpretations and scholars. Finally, the traditional community specific as owners, they will want to first get respect, at least not to use force to violate its intention. There are two reasons, first, although the cultural heritage is heritable, but we should recognize that as a community cultural rights, including of course choose to continue to develop or let it die free. Second, respecting the subject’s intention, it will be impossible to achieve the purpose of safeguarding.更多还原