Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 13 - 16
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.017.8418Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 17 - 20
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.018.8419Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 21 - 32
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.019.8420Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 33 - 40
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.020.8421Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 41 - 60
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.021.8422Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 61 - 76
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.022.8423Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 77 - 90
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.023.8424National Laws Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage: Determining the Object of a Comparative Study
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 91 - 108
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.024.8425Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 109 - 134
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.025.8426Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 135 - 156
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.026.8427Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 157 - 182
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.027.8428Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 183 - 214
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.028.8429Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 215 - 236
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.029.8430Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 237 - 254
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.030.8431Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 255 - 274
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.031.8432Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 275 - 296
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.032.8433Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 297 - 318
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.033.8434Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 319 - 342
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.17.034.8435Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 343 - 345
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 346 - 348
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 349 - 351
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 352 - 354
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 355 - 356
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 357 - 358
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 359 - 363
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 364 - 365
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 366 - 369
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 370 - 372
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 373 - 375
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 376 - 379
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 380 - 384
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 385 - 391
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2017 (3), 2017, s. 392 - 393
Słowa kluczowe: intangible cultural heritage, traditional culture, folklore, UNESCO 2003 Convention, intellectual property rights, world heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage System, the 2003 Convention, UNESCO, universality, safeguarding, communities, governance, intangible heritage, World Heritage List, UNESCO Conventions, community participation, intangible cultural heritage, cultural heritage law, national law, legal history, comparative analysis, intangible cultural heritage, armed conflict, cultural rights, law of armed conflict, safeguarding, museum, intangible cultural heritage, cultural politics, dance traditions, intangible cultural heritage, safeguarding, cockfighting, animal rights, human rights, safeguarding, intangible heritage, UNESCO, Vietnam, participatory heritage discourse, Representative List, United Kingdom, Cultural Property Act, non-state organized armed groups, criminal responsibility, protection, 1954 Hague Convention, non-international armed conflicts, Syria, cultural heritage, civil law, contracts, ownership, private property rights, cultural heritage, cultural property, art law, illicit trade of cultural objects, cultural vandalism, Nicosia Convention, World Heritage, indigenous, human rights, cultural heritage, Indigenous heritage, China, UNESCO, intangible cultural heritage, cultural policy, ICH social movement, ICH revolution, soft power, crime statistics, cultural heritage, robbery, destruction, Poland, police