유럽헌법학회

Present paper aims to examine various aspects of legislative tasks relating to the cultural property. The French approach or model is frequently borrowed and discussed in many parts of the world, as done here too on the matter. The first thing that brings our attention to is the unique term "patriemoine culturel" and its implications. With the advent of modern statehood in France saw many articles or objects vandalized, thus causing arousing of awareness on the part of citizenry for remedial meassures. The environment of these kinds led calling for state intervention to curtail further deterioration. Outcries for movements of this nature gave rise to enactment for protection of cultural heritage. Backgrounds being as such motives of legislation in the field of cultural property protection differ a good deal from the case of Korea. Furthermore, the area of protecting cultural heritage poses conflicts, competition let alone coordination and adjustment with other national agendas. These are done in panoramic ways. Among the many competing national agendas, as indicated in the above, one might pose the case of ‘generation conflict’as it relates to the cultural heritage. The cultural heritages, concededly not belonging to the current generation, ought to be shared with future generation in whatever context they suit the nature of legacy. The debate over the issue poses in heated ways in Korea as well. The basic tenet, coming from sustainable development should also be applied to the cultural assets, in the sense they should be handed down eventually to future generations. Another principle governing protection of cultural heritage within the context of public law may be the law of tribute. France's tribute law, which represents "non-transferability" and "no effect on the extinctive prescription" is a principle frequently relied on by the French government whenever it is faced with the issue of return of its stolen cultural assets form foreign governments. The cardinal principle of private property rights should also be noted in terms of its application to the cultural property. The two propositions - the guarantee of individual property rights on one hand and the protection of cultural heritage on the other - guaranteed by constitution in both France and Korea, frequently face the delicate quagmire of compromising or harmonizing public and private interests. Another implication we might draw from the Cultural Heritage Law of France is in the area related to decentralization. This is especially true in the light of our system, somewhat similar in practice. The reason is law and its practice in this area seem heavily influenced by nations of federal structure such as Germany and the U. S.. In other words, the so-called "national and local interests" between the central government and non-federal regions, especially the legal provisions of the cultural and regional decentralization protocols, have significant similarities with Korea, with leaving in-depth comparative studies on the issue for future. The paper concludes with pinpointing three basic issues pertaining to the cultural heritage in terms of law and practice. First, adjustment and coordination between public and private interests. Second, adjustment and coordination between national interests and local interests in case of pblic corporations. Third, coordination among past, present and future generations. It is indeed safe to say that studies on issues of this kind needs to be conducted in these perspectives