The Principle of Sustainable Development as the Basis for Weighing the Public Interest and Individual Interest in the Scope of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law in the European Union
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the abstract, the hypothesis or purpose of the research should be formulated more clearly, as has been done in lines 74, 75 and 76. - Further justification of the problem is needed - There is no theoretical framework, so it is very difficult to make a comparison of the results. This section is fundamental. - In the methodology section, the author indicates which method he/she is going to use to review a certain literature, but does not explain the methodology. It is not known what planning and process will be followed, nor is it known what type of studies will be analysed and why, and without a theoretical framework it is also very difficult to understand the parameters on which the documentary review is based. Therefore, the methodology right now is a list of types of methods without being connected and without knowing the reasons for them. - The sentence "with the protection of cultural heritage" is repeated twice in line 451 - The relationship between heritage and sustainable development is not very clearly explained in section 3.3. - The World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987), composed of three fundamental pillars: social, ecological and economic. Although the balance between the three pillars seems to remain theoretical. This point is fundamental to understanding the origin of the concept, and is not even mentioned. - For a better understanding of the discussion, reference should be made more clearly to the different studies addressed in the methodological process. - The conclusion has no input, it merely refers to the starting hypothesis - A number in red appears on line 680 - A bold text appears on line 690Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for Your remarks and suggestion. The following changes according to Your review have been done:
- the hypothesis and purpose of the research was reformulated and expanded,
- the justification of the problem has been added,
- the methodology has been detailed explained; especially the three legal methods have been described,
- relationship between cultural heritage and sustainable development has been expanded,
- the edition remarks has been included.
All changes in the article according to remarks of all Reviewers You may find in the updated text using the „Track Changes” function.
Sincerely Yours,
Adam Kozien
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a generally well written and researched article that promotes several valuable ideas on cultural heritage protection, sustainability and the weighing exercise between public and private interests in the field.
The article could be improved by re-writing the introduction to clarify what the article is about more concretely. In particular for the reader not versed in the application of the sustainability concept on legal issues, examples could be provided to promote understanding of the issue area. It is also not clear what the overarching aim of the article is and what the author would like to achieve beyond the application of the sustainability concept to cultural property law.
The methodology lists methods, but it is unclear why these methods are employed and what they promise to achieve. More detail and explanation is needed here.
While the results of the study are mentioned early on, it is not clear what the main achievement of this article is and what the author wanted it to be.
As far as it can be understood, the author argues that the concept of sustainable development is contained in EU law and refers to economic, social and environmental dimensions. Cultural heritage should be included within the social dimension. This is inferred from the position of cultural heritage in the Polish Constitution. Some more arguments to link cultural heritage to sustainable development apart from the Polish Constitution are needed here to make the argument convincing.
Cultural heritage protection is here referred to as a kind of case study with sustainable development becoming relevant in the weighing up of interests relating to conflicts in cultural heritage protection (eg import/export legislation interpretation). However, cultural heritage is later narrowly defined as architecture, palaces and parks. It is unclear why all concepts are defined in depth but cultural heritage is not. The author needs to spend more time here on explaining what cultural heritage (and its protection) is and how interests can be weighed in relation to it. Then it can be argued how this is impacted by sustainable development.
In the end it remains unclear what the consequences of applying sustainable development to cultural heritage protection are while the author stresses only the relevance of this article in the value/principle debate. Less theory and more contents would improve the article.
The article should also be revised in relation to language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for Your remarks and suggestion. The following changes according to Your review have been done:
- the introduction has been expanded and the goal of research has been much more detailed explained,
- the methodology has been detailed explained; especially the three legal methods have been described,
- according to the remark about Polish Constitution – the research concern about European Union law and the Polish Constitution is only an example,
- the term of cultural heritage and its protection has been explained,
- the consequences of applying sustainable development to cultural heritage protection have been explained.
All changes in the article according to remarks of all Reviewers You may find in the updated text using the „Track Changes” function.
Sincerely Yours,
Adam Kozien
Reviewer 3 Report
Sustainability is an international, cross-disciplinary, scholarly, peer-reviewed and open access journal of environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability of human beings. My own background is social science, with special attention for culture. This implies that I am unable to assess this manuscript on all aspects as it incorporates elements from various disciplines, including “scientific methods that are used in legal sciences” (p.2). In my feedback, I have mainly focused on the cultural heritage angle, and I have read the paper taking the cross-disciplinary nature of the journal as a central point.
I have three main points of feedback.
For me the central goal of the paper remains somewhat opaque. It currently reads:
“The goal of this paper is an analysis with a view to a possibility of using the principle of sustainable development derived from the concept of sustainable development as the basis of weighing public interest and individual interest in the scope of protection of cultural heritage in the European Union, as well as formulation of appropriate remarks de lege ferenda. As a research hypothesis it was assumed that the principle of sustainable development may become the basis of weighing public interests and individual interest in reference to the cultural heritage protection.” (p.2)
For readers who are less familiar with legal sciences, but have an interest in cultural heritage studies, it would be helpful if the nature of the analysis would become clearer. It appears that the paper wants to come to a new conceptualization of cultural heritage protection that incorporates the principle of sustainable development, but I am not fully sure.
Second, and this related to the first point, the author could clarify the methods of research. The author presents an analysis of “legal acts”. Since Sustainability is a cross-disciplinary journal, it would be helpful if it is explained what this analysis entails. I understand that texts from the European Union law will be analyzed, but how this is done – what is a “formal and dogmatic method”? – and why this approach is chosen, could be further explained. Will texts be scrutinized on how references to sustainability are used? Or references to public interest versus individual interest? It is also not clear how many sources are analyzed and how these were selected. Yet, the results section also presents analyses of secondary literature, suggesting that this is partly a literature review. Perhaps my lack of understanding the methodology is due to disciplinary differences, but, like I wrote, Sustainability is a cross-disciplinary journal.
Third, the discussion and conclusions are disappointing for readers interested in cultural heritage and how the European Union should shape new cultural policy that (a) takes into consideration both individual and public interests, and (b) sustainability. I would like to hear more than “[…] one can state then that the principle of sustainable development may be used in reference to the cultural heritage protection at the level of the European Union law, because it becomes an inherent part of the social aspect of the concept of sustainable development, which the principle of sustainable development is based on.” (p.12). A sentence like this does not really tell me much on what we have concretely learned from this study. It also seems somewhat circular (“[…] social aspect of the concept of sustainable development, which the principle of sustainable development is based on”).
Overall, language could be improved. Some phrases are hard to understand (e.g. “[…] on account of this fact that the cultural heritage protection requires taking into account on the legal level numerous branches of law […]” p.2 and what are “designates of cultural heritage”? p.2)
References are mainly to studies in law; more references to work on cultural heritage are possible and recommended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for Your remarks and suggestion. The following changes according to Your review have been done:
- the main goal of the research was reformulated and expanded,
- the methodology has been detailed explained; especially the three legal methods have been described,
- the discussion and conclusions has been much more detailed formulated and expanded,
- the edition remarks has been included and the „designates” has been explained,
- the literature connected with cultural heritage has been added.
All changes in the article according to remarks of all Reviewers You may find in the updated text using the „Track Changes” function.
Sincerely Yours,
Adam Kozien
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It has been found that all suggestions have been addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article's logical coherence has been significantly improved and it can be published in the current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for incorporating my feedback. All my points have been addressed. The contribution of the paper is much clearer in this new version.
