The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was agreed upon with an overwhelming majority and after the swiftest ratification process in the history of the UNESCO entered into force on 18 March 2007. Now, five years later and with some 130 Members committed to implementing the convention, not only observers with a particular interest in the topic but also the broader public may be eager to know what has happened and in how far has the implementation progress advanced. This is the question that animates this article. It seeks to answer it by giving a brief background to the UNESCO Convention, clarifying its legal status and impact, as well as by looking at the current implementation activities in domestic and international contexts. The article sets this analysis in the frame of international regime complexity insights.

This article addresses the shortcomings of UNESCO’s intangible heritage program in developing effective mechanisms for community participation in heritage management. Contrary to its original intentions, by prioritizing national perspectives and interests on heritage, UNESCO’s program inadvertently allows for strengthening the control of the state over the heritage of minorities and other marginalized groups. This article explores the complexities of state-led intangible heritage management, using the Semah ritual of Turkey’s Alevi religious groups as a case in point. I first detail how Alevi voices were silenced during Semah’s intangible heritage nomination process, despite those documents submitted by Turkey to UNESCO that claim Alevis’ active engagement and full support. Then I discuss in what ways the heritage making of Semah plays into the ongoing efforts of the Turkish government to integrate Alevis into dominant Sunni majority. I conclude by arguing that UNESCO’s intangible heritage program, though unintentionally, assists nondemocratic countries in their efforts to force marginalized groups to adopt the mainstream culture.

The article examines the problematic politics of expertise in the formation of international legal rules in the field of heritage, looking specifically at international conventions made under the auspices of UNESCO. The article shows that, even within this seemingly small and cohesive universe, there is a lot of room for disagreement, and much of it can be traced back to what Laurajane Smith has called “the Authorized Heritage Discourse” (AHD). The AHD is responsible for the dichotomization of heritage between intangible and tangible, as heritage professionals strive to hold on to and expand their self-created professional legitimacy and importance. Heritage professionals, in striving to maintain their relevance, tend to create self-referential regimes that exclude heritage holders and communities. I argue that lawyers, because of their own professional tendencies, might be in a position to offer a counterpoint to rule by experts in international cultural heritage management.

Heritage preservation is distinctly political, often presenting a privileged elitist interpretation of historic sites, while denigrating or even destroying later significant built environments. Structures that are the emanation of subsequent cultures, but similarly tied to the place, are often undervalued, underinterpreted, and even purposely obliterated from the landscape. This article considers the politics of heritage related to privileging one type of historic structure to the complete detriment of the other. The example of Gurna, in Egypt, serves as a powerful case study for the loss of a living historic built environment solely for the simplified or “flattened” interpretation of a place. In highlighting the preferential protection and presentation of the World Heritage Site of the Theban Necropolis and ultimate demise of the historic hamlets of Gurna, the article builds on previous work in the field on interpretation, the impact of tourism, and the conflicting identities of historic sites.