National Reports 2005-2010

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

National Reports 2005-2010 REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ITS TWO (1954 AND 1999) PROTOCOLS 2005 – 2010 2 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 I. Historical Background 4 II. Secretariat’s Activities with respect to the implementation of the Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols (2005 – 2010) 5 III. Cooperation with International Institutions 13 III. (i) Cooperation with the United Nations and NATO 13 III. (ii) Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 14 IV. Specific Country Activities 19 V. Customary Humanitarian International Law (ICRC Study) 23 VI. List of Issues used for the Preparation of National Reports 24 VII. Summary of National Reports 26 VII. (i) National Reports on the Implementation of the Convention, the 1954 (First) Protocol and Resolution II of the Hague Conference 26 VII. (ii) National Reports on the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol 98 Annex I: The Danish National Report on the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention 122 Annex II: Reports on the Implementation of the Second Protocol submitted by States not party to the Second Protocol 124 3 INTRODUCTION Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted at The Hague in 1954 (hereafter “Convention”), stipulates that at least every four years the High Contracting Parties “shall forward to the Director-General a report giving whatever information they think suitable concerning any measures being taken, prepared or contemplated by their respective administrations in fulfilment of the present Convention and of the Regulations for its execution”. The Director-General received reports in 1962, 1965-1966, 1969-1970, 1977-1978, 1984, 1989, 1995 and, following his request, in October 1998. The Director-General then published these reports in the documents: UNESCO/CA/RBC/1/3 and Add. 1-6, SHC/MD/1 dated 19 May 1967; SHC/MD/6 dated 30 April 1970; CC/MD/41 of July 1979; CLT/MD/3 of December 1984; CC/MD/11 of December 1989; CLT-95/WS/13 of December 1995; and CLT- 2005/WS/6 of 2005. In October 2007, the Director-General again invited the High Contracting Parties to forward to him the reports referred to in Article 26 of the Convention. The Director-General also called upon those High Contracting Parties that are also Parties to the Second Protocol to forward a national report on the implementation of the Second Protocol to the Secretariat. A reminder was sent in October 2008. By 31 December 2010, the Director-General had received national reports from Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,1 Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey.2 The reports from Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland contain information on their national implementation of the Second Protocol.3 The summary of these reports is published in the present document, together with an overview of the Secretariat's activities on the implementation up to 31 December 2010, the date on which this report was finalized. I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Adoption of the Convention 1 A letter from the Liechtenstein Minister of Foreign Affairs dated 21 April 2010 reports that since the submission of Liechtenstein’s last National Report on the Protection of Cultural Property in August 2000, there have been no major changes in the relevant legislation. Liechtenstein is, however, preparing new legislation to implement the Hague Convention and its two Protocols as part of a revision of legislation on the protection of cultural property and will submit a more substantial report reflecting legislative changes as soon as the revision of legislation on the protection of cultural property will have been put into place. This periodic report therefore refers the reader to the Report on the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Two 1954 and 1999 Protocols: Report on the Activities from 1995 to 2004 (CLT-2005/WS/6) concerning the reporting of Liechtenstein. 2 The Danish national report on the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention was received on February 10, 2011. This report has been appended in its entirety in Annex I of this document. 3 Reports containing information on the implementation of the provisions of the Second Protocol were also submitted by four countries not party to the Second Protocol: Latvia, Norway, Poland and Syria. As such, information regarding their reports is included in Annex II: Reports on the implementation of the provisions of the Second Protocol by countries not party to the Second Protocol. As of the date of reporting, Belgium was not party to the Second Protocol; the Second Protocol entered into force three months after Belgium’s deposit of its instrument of ratification on 13 October 2010. As such, information related to Belgium’s implementation of the Second Protocol is also included in Annex II. 4 The Convention and the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereafter “1954 Protocol”) were adopted at an intergovernmental conference convened by the Executive Board of UNESCO in pursuant of a resolution of the General Conference. At the invitation of the Netherlands Government, this Conference was held at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954. All Member States of UNESCO, together with a number of non-Member States, as decided by the Executive Board (33 EX/Decision 8.3.1), were invited to send delegations empowered to sign international agreements. Of the 86 States thus invited, 56 were represented at the Conference. Signature The Convention and Protocol were open for signature (from 14 May to 31 December 1954) to all States invited to the Conference. As of the latter date, the Convention had been signed by 50 States and the Protocol by 40 States. Entry into force In accordance with the ratification requirements of Article 33, the Convention entered into force on 7 August 1956. This is subject, however, to the provisions of Article 33, paragraph 3, which stipulates that ratifications and accessions shall take effect immediately when the States ratifying or acceding are Parties to a conflict as defined in the Convention. States invited to accede Article 32 of the Convention stipulates that, from the date of its entry into force, it shall be open for accession by States that were invited to the Hague Conference, as well as by any other State invited to accede to it by the Executive Board. Availing itself of this clause, the Board adopted at its fifty-third session a resolution inviting all States that were becoming members of UNESCO and had not been invited to the Hague Conference in 1954 to accede to the Convention. As of 31 December 2010, 123 States were party to the Convention, 100 of which were bound by the Protocol and 59 of which were party to the Second Protocol, or had deposited instruments to become party to the Second Protocol. Since the last periodic report (1995 - 2004) on the implementation of the Convention, the following ten States have become party to the Convention: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chad, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Montenegro, New Zealand, Paraguay, the United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivian Republic of). New instruments of acceptance, accession, ratification, or notification of succession of the 1954 (First) Protocol were deposited by: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Japan, Montenegro, Paraguay, Portugal and Saudi Arabia. Finally, the following countries have become party to, or have deposited instruments of acceptance, accession, ratification, or notification of succession o the Second Protocol were deposited by: Armenia, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium,4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,5 Croatia, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia,6, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Jordan, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay,7 Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Uruguay. 4 Belgium deposited its instrument of ratification on 13/10/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 5 Columbia deposited its instrument of accession on 24/11/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 6 Georgia deposited its instrument of accession on 13/09/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 7 Paraguay deposited its instrument of accession 9/11/2004, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 5 II. SECRETARIAT’S ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION (2005 – 2010) International List of Persons Article 1 of the Regulations for the Execution of the Convention (hereafter “Regulations”) provides that on the entry into force of the Convention, the Director-General “shall compile an international list consisting of all persons nominated by the High Contracting Parties as qualified to carry out the functions of Commissioner-General for Cultural Property”. In accordance with this article, the list must also be periodically revised pursuant to requests submitted by the High Contracting Parties. Revised lists were published on 24 May 1984, 9 October 1984 and 14 October 1985. The last list was published on 12 September 1986. The review of the Convention which led to the adoption of the Second Protocol has proved the limited efficiency of the system of Commissioners-General, particularly in conflicts that are not of an international character.
Recommended publications
  • EAA Meeting 2016 Vilnius
    www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME Organisers CONTENTS President Words .................................................................................... 5 Welcome Message ................................................................................ 9 Symbol of the Annual Meeting .............................................................. 13 Commitees of EAA Vilnius 2016 ............................................................ 14 Sponsors and Partners European Association of Archaeologists................................................ 15 GENERAL PROGRAMME Opening Ceremony and Welcome Reception ................................. 27 General Programme for the EAA Vilnius 2016 Meeting.................... 30 Annual Membership Business Meeting Agenda ............................. 33 Opening Ceremony of the Archaelogical Exhibition ....................... 35 Special Offers ............................................................................... 36 Excursions Programme ................................................................. 43 Visiting Vilnius ............................................................................... 57 Venue Maps .................................................................................. 64 Exhibition ...................................................................................... 80 Exhibitors ...................................................................................... 82 Poster Presentations and Programme ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in the Lithuanian Heritage Conservation of Masonry Architecture During the Soviet Period
    VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE Jolita Butkevi čien ÷ TRENDS IN THE LITHUANIAN HERITAGE CONSERVATION OF MASONRY ARCHITECTURE DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Art Studies ( 03 H ) Kaunas, 2009 The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with the Architecture and Construction Institute on July 15, 2003, by decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The doctoral dissertation worked out trough 2003 – 2009 at Vytautas Magnus University Scientific supervisor: Prof. habil dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Council of defence of the doctoral dissertation: Chairman: Prof. dr. Nijol÷ Lukšionyt÷ (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Members: Prof. dr. Laima Šinkūnait÷ (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Stauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Vytautas Petrušonis (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Rasa Čepaitien÷ (The Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History 05 H) Opponents: Doc. dr. Mindaugas Bertašius (Kaunas University of Technology, Humanities, History 05 H) Dr. Marija Dr÷mait÷ (Vilnius University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) The official defence of the dissertation will be held at public meeting of the Council of scientific Field of Art Studies in the Art Institute of Vytautas Magnus University in Laisv÷s av. 53, “Art Gallery 101”, at 2 p. m. on January 29, 2010. Address:K. Donelaičio 58, LT 44248, Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: (+370 37) 323599 fax: (+370 37) 203858 The summary of doctoral dissertation was distributed on December ,2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2012 Secretariat's Overall Report
    8 COM CLT-13/8.COM/CONF.203/9 Paris, 4 December 2013 Original: English/French SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT Eighth meeting UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 18 to 19 December 2013 Item 12 of the Provisional Agenda: Consideration of national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol 2012-2013 CLT-13/8.COM/CONF.203/9 – page 2 I. ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES COVERED 1. Article 27 (1)(d) of the Second Protocol provides for the Committee “to consider and comment on reports of the Parties, to seek clarifications as required, and prepare its own report on the implementation of this Protocol for the Meeting of the Parties”. As of 28 October 2013, the Secretariat had received twenty national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol (from Belgium, Canada, the Republic of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Japan, the Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Oman, Peru, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland). By way of comparison, as of that same date, sixty-four States in total were party to the Second Protocol.1 2. As the national implementation of the Second Protocol is closely linked to the national implementation of the Hague Convention and its 1954 Protocol, it is proposed that the Committee consider both the national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol and those on the implementation of the Hague Convention and the 1954 Protocol submitted by the Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • National Report on Implementation of the 1954
    NATIONAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ITS TWO 1954 AND 1999 PROTOCOLS REPORTING COUNTRY: The Republic of Lithuania REPORTING PERIOD: 2003-2007 National point of contact: Chief Specialist of Cultural Heritage Protection in the Lithuanian Armed Forces Auksė Ūsienė Šv. Ignoto str. 8/29, LT-01121 Vilnius, Lithuania Tel. +370 5 278 5057 Fax. +370 5 210 3872 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Specialist of Cultural Heritage Protection in the Lithuanian Armed Forces (at interim from 2008 to 2010) Vilda Čelnaitė Šv. Ignoto str. 8/29, LT-01121 Vilnius, Lithuania Tel. +370 5 278 5057 Fax. +370 5 210 3872 E-mail: [email protected] The 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter – the Convention) was ratified by the Lithuanian Seimas on 17 March 1998 by the Law No. VIII-664 on the Ratification of the 1954 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Protocol“ („Dėl 1954 metų UNESCO kultūros vertybių apsaugos ginkluoto konflikto metu konvencijos ir jos Protokolo ratifikavimo“)1 (entered into force on 27 October 1998). The 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter – the Second Protocol) was ratified by the Lithuanian Seimas on 13 November 2001 by the Law No. IX-594 on the Ratification of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict“ („Dėl 1954 metų Hagos konvencijos dėl kultūros vertybių apsaugos ginkluoto konflikto metu 1999 metų Antrojo protokolo ratifikavimo“)2 (entered into force on 9 March 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuanian Old Brick Size Variations Over Time 131
    Vytautas LevANDAUSKAS, Nijolė TALUNTYTĖ Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania LITHUANIAN OLD BRICK SIZE VARIATIONS OVER TIME 131 Keywords: brick sizes, architectural heritage, dating, chronology A III. rtifacts of Brick sizes are among the most important (if not the a dating system based on the entire evolution of THE main) indications of the ancient masonry, the com- architectural masonry, nor attempting to explain bination of which can be used for dating architec- the historical reasons for brick size variations. In L tural heritage. On the other hand, the examination addition, in their published writings or surviving ithuanian and comparison of brick sizes in different countries manuscripts, these architects-restorers focused on make it possible to reveal the ways building ceram- the brick formats of the medieval architectural heri- ics developed, show its specificity and even the attri- tage, often bypassing the early modern period and butes of the Lithuanian mentality. contemporary history. C Yet in the 6th decade of the 20th c., Lithuanian The aim of this paper is to determine the character- ultural architectural historians drew attention to the dif- istic brick formats and evolution of those formats ferent brick sizes in the medieval construction, in different periods. The research used a complex and soon after, followed the architects-restorers to method of comparing the measured brick sizes to M whom the brick size was important in identifying those specified in the historical documents. More emory the construction phases. In the research report1 on than 150 buildings of various epochs (as close to the Gothic house in Kaunas, Vilnius St., architect the known time of construction as possible) were Dalija Zareckienė has classified brick sizes of the selected for measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Vilnius Region
    CULTURAL TOURISM ROUTES VILNIUS REGION IN THE STEPS OF RING OF LITHUANIA’S VILNIJA CREATIVITY RULERS AND OF THE EAST NOBLES This publication presents three cultural tourism routes, which invite to tour the Vilnius region. These routes are intended for individual region exploration, where Vilnius is the start and finish point of a tour. It is recommended to travel by car, however some of the attractions can be reached by train or bus. The routes offered are intended for the two-day trip, their distance varies from 185 to 340 km. Attractions that are possible to visit in one day are marked with conventional signs, distance of the routes varies from 125 to 170 km. Travellers are also able to design their own route or to pick interesting attractions themselves. The publication also provides tourists with additional information about accommodation, entertainment and events. Before starting a tour it’s recommended to check the visiting places working hours in the given Internet sites or by phones. Get to know the routes through the virtual presentation on the website www.vilnius-tourism.lt. SYMBOLS AND THEIR MEANINGS Tourist Information Contacts Arrival by Car Centre One Day Route Object Education Arrival by Bus Additional Object Guided Tours Arrival by Train Paid Admission Bike Rental Accommodation Important Information Beach Catering Water Entertainment Tree climbing Fishery SPA services EXPRESIONS USED IN PUBLICATION g. (gatvė) – St. (street) kaimas – village pr. (prospektas) – Ave. (avenue) rajonas – district kelias – road seniūnija – eldership
    [Show full text]
  • Lietuviškos Kolekcinės Ir Proginės Monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins
    Lietuviškos kolekcinės ir proginės monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins 1993–2020 VILNIUS 2020 Lietuviškos kolekcinės ir proginės monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins Leidinio bibliografinė informacija pateikiama Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Nacionalinės bibliografijos duomenų banke (NBDB). Bibliographic information is available 1993–2020 in the National Bibliographic Data Bank (NBDB) of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. VILNIUS 2020 ISBN 978-609-8204-41-4 (online) © Lietuvos bankas, 2020 2020 5 eurų moneta, skirta žemės ūkio mokslams (iš serijos „Lietuvos mokslas“) Monetos briauna lygi Monetos dailininkas Rytas Jonas Belevičius 10 eurų moneta, skirta Vilniaus Gaono 5 euro coin dedicated to Agricultural Sciences (Elijo ben Saliamono Zalmano) 300-osioms gimimo metinėms (from the series “Lithuanian Science”) Monetos briaunoje užrašas „Jei norėsi, ir tu tapsi genijum“ lietuvių ir jidiš kalbomis Edge of the coin: plain Monetos dailininkai Viktorija Sideraitė Alon, Jūratė Juozėnienė, Albinas Šimanauskas Designed by Rytas Jonas Belevičius 10 euro coin dedicated to the 300th birth anniversary of the Vilna Gaon Metalas Kokybė Skersmuo mm Masė g Tiražas vnt. Išleista (Elijah ben Solomon Zalman) Auksas Au 999 „proof“ 13,92 1,244 2 500 2020 On the edge of the coin: JEI NORĖSI, IR TU TAPSI GENIJUM (IF YOU WILL IT, YOU TOO CAN BE A GENIUS) and the Yiddish translation of the phrase Metal Quality Diameter mm Weight g Mintage pcs Issued in Designed by Viktorija Sideraitė Alon, Jūratė
    [Show full text]
  • Gintautas Rackevicius
    FASCICULI ARCHAEOLOGIAE HISTORICAE FASC. XX, PL ISSN 0860-0007 GINTAUTAS RACKEVICIUS THE CROSSBOW — THE WEAPON OF THE INVADERS AND THE DEFENDERS OF VILNIUS CASTLE (THE LATE 14TH EARLY 15th CENTURIES) Missile weapons were despised by knights in Germany as well as in northern territories, the and widely deemed dishonourable. Therefore horn crossbow reflex bow, which appeared in the while recording the deeds of their clients, the 14th century, was subsequently replaced with a chroniclers, who directly described fights in steel one. However, steel bows would break in Lithuania, paid little attention to the virtues of winter time, whereas those made from birch bark shooters of humble origin. More comprehensive and horn plates glued together were substantially information about the crossbow used in wars more cold-proof. Like weapons with steel bows, against the Lithuanians can be derived from in- crossbows with strong horn (component) bows, ventories of Teutonic Knights' castles, which con- were windlass-driven (Fig. 1). Operation of the tain a number of peculiarities of the historical de- crossbow with a steel bow was slower. The re- velopment of Lithuania as well of other outlying placement of the crossbows with horn (compo- areas of this European cultural region. Here the nent) bows by devices with steel bows was due to data from written sources are complementary to the simplification of production. Finally, before the information obtained during archaeological the mid — 15th century, the steel crossbow "won" excavations. at the grand master's headquarters, as it started to 1 In the Western European wars of the 14th-15 th be used for awarding guests .
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Architectural Heritage: Challenges of Preservation and Adaptation Edita Riaubienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
    Architecture and Urban Planning 2012 / 6 Use of Architectural Heritage: Challenges of Preservation and Adaptation Edita Riaubienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ABSTRACT. The problem of the 21st century heritage preservation development”. In the current legislation [9], the aim of heritage is to raise the heritage to modern life. The study object is the protection is supplemented with aspiration of “public awareness adaptation of architectural heritage and ways of using it. The review of heritage and use of it”. There is indicated that “cultural and of international and Lithuanian legislation and scientists’ insights educational tourism is one of the public uses of heritage, but it formed a controversial equation: maximum preservation, minimum is necessary to maintain the authentic heritage form”. Therefore, changes, appropriate adaptation. The analysis of medieval castles detected prevailing adaptation conception in Lithuania (“ruins’ the provisions of heritage use in Lithuania developed from rather park”, “anemic”) and recent signs of technological interpretation. pragmatic to culturally adaptive, creating stronger links with the modern society. KEYWORDS: adaptation, architectural heritage, authenticity, Contemporary heritage management emphasizes active heritage legislation, heritage use, interpretation, medieval castles. and different use of heritage resources. Scientists state that heritage use can be diverse, depending on the users’ objectives The study focuses on the protection of architectural heritage and expectations. While heritage objects are usually applied to at the beginning of the 21st century, when the main objective museums, the modern society is already willing to build more of heritage preservation in post-modern consumer society is to innovation and stronger relationship with heritage. Public can no “raise heritage to contemporary life”.
    [Show full text]
  • ERDVĖS IR LAIKO REPREZENTACIJOS Mene
    VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS / VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY MENŲ FAKULTETAS / FACULTY OF ARTS ISSN 1822-4555 Meno istorija ir kritika Art History & Criticism 8 ERDVĖS IR LAIKO REPREZENTACIJOS MENE. PASAULĖVAIZDŽIAI, DISKURSAI, ARTEFAKTAI REPRESENTATIONS OF SPACE AND TIME IN THE ART. WORLDVIEWS, DISCOURSES, ARTIFACTS VYTAUTO DIDžiOJO UNIVERSITETO LEIDYKLA Kaunas, 2012 UDK 7(05) Mi 121 REDAKCINĖ KOLEGIJA / EDITORIAL BOARD Pirmininkas / Editor-in-chief: Prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania) Redakcijos taryba / Editorial Council Prof. Ph. D. Joakim Hansson (Gotlando universitetas, Švedija / University of Gotland, Sweden) Dr. Rūta Kaminska (Latvijos dailės akademija / Art Academy of Latvia) Prof. dr. Vojtěch Lahoda (Čekijos mokslų akademijos Meno istorijos institutas / Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) Prof. dr. Aliaksandr I. Lakotka (Baltarusijos nacionalinės mokslų akademijos K. Krapivos meno, etnografijos ir folkloro institutas / The K. Krapiva Institute of Study of Arts, Ethnography and Folklore of the National Academy of Sciences of the Belarus) Prof. dr. Małgorzata Sugera (Jogailaičių universitetas, Lenkija / Jagiellonian University, Poland) Prof. Ph. D. Bronius Vaškelis (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania) Prof. Ph. D. Kęstutis Paulius Žygas (Arizonos valstijos universitetas, JAV / Arizona State University, USA) Redakcijos valdyba / Publisher Board Dr. Linara Dovydaitytė
    [Show full text]