Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:26:15.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trialogical Subsidiarity in International and Comparative Law: Engagement with International Treaties by Sub-State Entities as Resistance or Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2018

LUCAS LIXINSKI
Get access

Abstract

This article proposes a new model for the engagement of sub-state units with the international legal order. “Trialogical subsidiarity” acknowledges that some areas are best regulated locally, but it also argues that international law has an increasing say in areas traditionally reserved for local law. The implementation of an international cultural heritage treaty by constituent units (CUs) in federal states, despite objections of the federal authorities, is a case study for the possibilities and implications of the use of international law by CUs without the filtering of the central state. This use enhances the legitimacy of international law and can lead to better outcomes for local populations, moving international law closer to its promise of being a law of peoples rather than of states.

Résumé

Cet article propose un nouveau modèle d’engagement par les unités infranationales dans l’ordre juridique international. La « subsidiarité trialogique » reconnaît que certains domaines sont mieux réglementés au niveau local, mais soutient également que le droit international a un droit de regard croissant dans les domaines traditionnellement réservés au droit local. La mise en œuvre d’un traité international sur le patrimoine culturel par les unités constituantes (UC) d’États fédéraux, malgré les objections des autorités fédérales, présente une étude de cas sur les possibilités et les enjeux du recours au droit international par les UC sans le filtre de l’État central. Ce recours renforce la légitimité du droit international et peut conduire à de meilleurs résultats pour les populations locales, rapprochant ainsi le droit international de son potentiel comme loi des peuples plutôt que des États.

Keywords

Subsidiarityfederalismforeign affairstreaty implementationcultural heritageUNESCOintangible cultural heritageCanadaAustraliaQuébecSubsidiaritéfédéralismeaffaires étrangèresmise en œuvre de traitéspatrimoine culturelUNESCOpatrimoine culturel immatérielCanadaAustralieQuébec
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 55 , October 2018 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ann Laquer Estin, “Families across Borders: The Hague Children’s Conventions and the Case for International Family Law in the United States” 62 (2010) Florida L Rev 47.Google Scholar

2 Rodger, Barry, “Taking the Community Interest Line: Decentralisation and Subsidiarity in Competition Law Enforcement with Stuart Wylie” (1997) 8 Eur Competition L Rev 485.Google Scholar

3 Bodansky, Daniel, “The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?” (1999) 93: 3 AJIL 596.Google Scholar

4 Antonio Estella de Noriega, The EU Principle of Subsidiarity and Its Critique (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002);Google Scholar Roger Van den Bergh, “Subsidiarity as an Economic Demarcation Principle and the Emergence of European Private Law” (1998) 5: 2 Maastricht J Eur & Comp L 129; W Gary Vause, “The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law: American Federalism Compared” (1995) 27 Case W Res J Intl L 61.

5 Paolo G Carozza, “Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law” (2003) 97: 1 AJIL 38; see also Bodansky, supra note 3.

6 See e.g. Enjolras, Bernard et al, “Between Subsidiarity and Social Assistance-the French Republican Route to Activation” in Lødemel, Ivar & Trickey, Heather, eds, “An Offer You Can’t Refuse”: Workfare in International Perspective (Bristol: Policy Press, 2001) 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See e.g. O’Keeffe, Darragh, “Clever Connections,” Australian Ageing Agenda (25 June 2014), online: <https://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2014/06/25/clever-connections/>..>Google Scholar

8 Because of the variation in terminology across different countries (provinces, states, and so on), I will use the term constituent units (CUs) to refer to these entities that form a federal state.

9 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) [VCLT]: “Article 27. Internal Law and Observance of Treaties. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty;” see also: “Article 29. Territorial Scope of Treaties. Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.” To be sure, one of the International Law Commission (ILC) drafts of the VCLT allowed sub-federal entities to enter into treaties as long as authorized by the federal state. The ILC commentary recognized that international law did not prohibit sub-federal entities from having the power to conclude treaties. The provision was dropped after lobbying by Canada and other countries. For a discussion, see Cyr, Hugo, Canadian Federalism and Treaty Powers: Organic Constitutionalism at Work (Brussels: PIE Peter Lang, 2009) at 155–57.Google Scholar ILC, “State Responsibility, General Commentary” (2001) 2(2) ILC Yearbook 31 at 81.

10 Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 10 April 1980, 1489 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 January 1988).

11 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 187 (entered into force 1 January 1995; Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 187 (entered into force 1 January 1995); see also Allison Christians, “A Global Perspective on Citizenship-Based Taxation” (2017) 38 Mich J Intl L 193.

12 See e.g. Kirby, Michael, “Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights Norms” (1999) 5: 2 Australian Journal of Human Rights 109.Google Scholar

13 Convention on Road Traffic, 19 September 1949, 125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 26 March 1952).

14 See e.g. Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on Their Recognition, 1 July 1985, 23 ILM 1389 (1984) (entered into force 1 January 1992): “Article 29. If a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law are applicable, it may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession declare that this Convention shall extend to all of its territorial units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by submitting another declaration at any time. Any such declaration shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and shall state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention applies. If a State makes no declaration under this Article, the Convention is to extend to all territorial units of that State.”

15 Jacomy-Millette, A, Treaty Law in Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975) at 70–71.Google Scholar

16 Arnold D McNair, “The Functions and Differing Legal Character of Treaties” (1930) 11 Brit YB Intl L 100.

17 See e.g. Brölmann, Catherine, “Law-Making Treaties: Form and Function in International Law” (2005) 74 Nordic J Intl L 383 (being critical of the distinction).Google Scholar

18 Knop, Karen, “International Law and the Disaggregated Democratic State: Two Case Studies on Women’s Human Rights and the United States” in Charters, Claire & Knight, Dean R, eds, We, the People(s): Participation in Governance (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2011) 127 at 131.Google Scholar

19 This terminology seems to be used in studies on education, to indicate overcoming a dialogical model in which knowledge is produced through interaction, to one in which knowledge is created through collaboration via shared objects. I do not purport to base my discussion on these models and simply borrow the terminology. But, on trialogical education, see Kai Hakkarainen & Sami Paavola, “Toward a Trialogical Approach to Learning” in Baruch Schwarz, Tommy Dreyfus & Rina Hershkowitz, eds, Transformation of Knowledge through Classroom Interaction (London: Routledge, 2009) 65.

20 Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 17 October 2003, 2368 UNTS 3 (entered into force 20 April 2006) [2003 UNESCO Convention].

21 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, No 16, consolidated with 2016 amendments [Victoria Heritage Act].

22 Cultural Heritage Act (Loi sur le patrimoine culturel) 2011, c 21, consolidated with 2012 amendments [Québec Heritage Act].

23 See generally Eslava, Luis, Local Space, Global Life: The Everyday Operation of International Law and Development (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 See generally Voon, Tania, Cultural Products and the World Trade Organization (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shi, Jingxia, Free Trade and Cultural Diversity in International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013).Google Scholar

25 Francesco Palermo & Jens Woelk, “From Minority Protection to a Law of Diversity? Reflections on the Evolution of Minority Rights” (2003) 3:1 European Yearbook of Minority Issues xi.

26 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240 (entered into force 7 August 1956); Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 358 (entered into force 7 August 1956); Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999, 2253 UNTS 172 (entered into force 9 March 2004).

27 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231 (entered into force 24 April 1972) [1970 UNESCO Convention].

28 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 23 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 15 December 1975).

29 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 2 November 2001, 2562 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 January 2009).

30 Smith, Laurajane, The Uses of Heritage (London: Routledge, 2006) at 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 For an overview, see Blake, Janet, International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 John Henry Merryman, “Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property” (1986) 80 AJIL 831.

33 Cuno, James, “View from the Universal Museum” in Merryman, John Henry, ed, Imperialism, Art and Restitution (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 15 [Merryman, Imperialism].Google Scholar

34 Drawn from Merryman, Imperialism, supra note 33; see also Francioni, Francesco, “Beyond State Sovereignty: The Protection of Cultural Heritage as a Shared Interest of Humanity” (2003–04) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 1209;Google Scholar Francioni, Francesco, “Cultural Property-International Law” in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, ed, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), online: <http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/EPIL>.Google Scholar

35 Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 16 November 1945, 4 UNTS 275 (entered into force 4 November 1946).

36 But the potential of international heritage processes for self-determination purposes is often over-promised. See Lixinski, Lucas, “Heritage Listing as Self-Determination” in Durbach, Andrea & Lixinski, Lucas, eds, Heritage, Culture and Rights: Challenging Legal Discourses (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017) 227.Google Scholar

37 Lowenthal, David, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural Objects (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 1970 UNESCO Convention, supra note 27.Google Scholar

39 Makau W Mutua, “Why Redraw the Map of Africa: A Moral and Legal Inquiry” (1995) 16 Mich J Intl L 1113.

40 Sarah van Beurden, “The Art of (Re)Possession: Heritage and the Cultural Politics of Congo’s Decolonization” (2015) 56:1 Journal of African History 143.

41 A particularly interesting case study is that of Norway, which in the nineteenth century, then under Swedish rule, ventured into creating the concept of “True Norwegianness,” built precisely around the celebration of folk culture, including costumes and festivals. Folk culture was then re-introduced in smaller villages, an improved version of a cultural distinctiveness then disappearing or vanished. The use of costumes and dialects generated a sense of pride and spurred the quest for authentic Norwegian identity, which ultimately fuelled the political independence movements in the country. See Oxaal, Astrid, “Bunaden: stagnasjon eller nyskapning” in Sørensen, Øystein, ed, Jakten på det norske. Perspektiver på utviklingen av en nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet (Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal 1998) 141;Google Scholar Anne Lise Seip, “Det norske ‘vi’: kulturnasjonalisme i Norge” in Sørensen, ibid, 95. Interestingly enough, Sweden also engaged in this process of identity building through folk culture during the same period. See Billy Ehn, Jonas Frykman & Orvar Löfgren, Försvenskningen av Sverige; Det nationellas förvandlingar, Natur och Kultur (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur: 1993) at 140. I am thankful to Mats Ingulstad for this insight and his help with the Norwegian sources.

42 Sarah Nouwen, MH, Complementarity in the Line of Fire: The Catalysing Effect of the International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Further, it is worth noting that, in the practice of the International Criminal Court, certain justice-delivery processes like traditional Gacaca courts in Rwanda or even non-judicial transitional justice mechanisms, are seen as not falling within the bounds of a state’s duty to address a situation domestically. I am thankful to Maite Schmitz for this insight.

43 Hueglin, Thomas O & Fenna, Alan, Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry, 2d ed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015) at 3.Google Scholar

44 Hogg, Petter W,Constitutional Law of Canada, student edn (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2017) at 5–12 [Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2017].Google Scholar

45 Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] 3 SCR 457 at para 273, cited in Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2017, supra note 44 at 5-14.

46 Hueglin & Fenna, supra note 43 at 27.

47 Ibid at 58.

48 Poirier, Johanne & Saunders, Cheryl, “Comparing Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems: An Introduction” in Poirier, Johanne, Saunders, Cheryl & Kincaid, John, eds, Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems: Comparative Structures and Dynamics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 1 at 1.Google Scholar

49 Ibid at 7.

50 Johanne Poirier & Cheryl Saunders, “Conclusion: Comparative Experiences of Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems” in Poirier, Saunders & Kincaid, supra note 48, 440 at 442 [Poirier & Saunders, “Conclusion”].

51 Hueglin & Fenna, supra note 43 at 2–3.

52 Arnold, Bettina & Hassmann, Henning, “Archaeology in Nazi Germany: The Legacy of the Faustian Bargain” in Kohl, Philip L and Fawcett, Clare, eds, Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 70 at 70–71;Google Scholar see also Arnold, Bettina, “Justifying Genocide: Archaeology and the Construction of Difference” in Hinton, Alex Laban, ed, Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002) 95.Google Scholar

53 Bur, Donald F, Law of the Constitution: The Distribution of Powers (Markham: LexisNexis, 2016) at 1713.Google Scholar Citing Kitkatla Band v British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 SCR 146 at 162, n 4260 (SCC): “All parties agree that legislation concerning the protection of heritage or cultural property falls under provincial legislative jurisdiction as being a law relating to property and civil rights within the province, under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The intervener, the Attorney General of Canada, agrees, with one caveat. She points out that some cultural properties may fall under federal jurisdiction or that the application of unspecified federal heads of power may affect them. In the present case, the Attorney General of Canada supports the validity of the legislation challenged by the appellants. The respondents and all the interveners take the same position.”

54 Phillimore, John & Harwood, Jeffrey, “Intergovernmental Relations in Australia: Increasing Engagement within a Centralizing Dynamic” in Poirier, Saunders & Kincaid, supra note 48, 42 at 46.Google Scholar

55 Poirier & Saunders, “Conclusion,” supra note 50 at 488–89.

56 Bur, supra note 53 at 1713.

57 Robert B Looper, “Limitations on the Treaty Power in Federal States” (1959) 34 NYU L Rev 1045 at 1046–1047.

58 But see Johns, Fleur, “Introduction” in Johns, Fleur, ed, International Legal Personality (London: Ashgate, 2010) i (mapping other forms of assertion of at least partial personality in international law).Google Scholar

59 For a collection of essays on the topic, including Canada, the United States, and India, see Bradley, Curtis A, ed, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar

60 Williams, George, Brennan, Sean & Lynch, Andrew, Blackshield & Williams Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials, 6th ed (Sydney: Federation Press, 2014) at 232.Google Scholar

61 Australia Act 1986 (Cth), s 2.

62 Union Steamship Company of Australia Pty Ltd v King, [1988] HCA 55 at para 14.

63 Bropho v Western Australia, (1990) 171 CLR 1; Austin v Commonwealth of Australia, [2003] HCA 3, 215 CLR 185; Clarke v Commissioner of Taxation, [2009] HCA 33; see also Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal of NSW v Henderson; Ex parte Defence Housing Authority, [1997] HCA 36, (1997) 190 CLR 410.

64 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth), s 109 [Australia Constitution Act].

65 R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell, (1920) 28 CLR 23.

66 Clyde Engineering v Cowburn, (1926) 37 CLR 466.

67 APLA v Legal Services Commissioner, (2006) 224 CLR 322; Cth v Australian Capital Territory, [2013] HCA 55.

68 Peter Hanks, “‘Inconsistent’ Commonwealth and State Laws: Centralizing Government Power in the Australian Federation’ (1986) 16 Federal L Rev 107 at 125.

69 Australia Constitution Act, supra note 64, s 51: “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … (xxix) external affairs.”

70 Williams, Brennan & Lynch, supra note 60 at 242.

71 As mapped in ibid at 885–903.

72 Commonwealth v Tasmania, (1983) 58 CLR 1. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Heritage and Natural Heritage, 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975) [World Heritage Convention].

73 Andrew Byrnes & Hilary Charlesworth, “Federalism and the International Legal Order: Recent Developments in Australia” (1985) 79 AJIL 622 at 638.

74 As discussed in Williams, Brennan & Lynch, supra note 60 at 919–29.

75 James Crawford, “The Constitution and the Environment” (1991) 13 Sydney L Rev 11 at 21.

76 Williams, Brennan & Lynch, supra note 60 at 242.

77 R v Morgentaler, [1993] 3 SCR 463; see also Monahan, Patrick J, Shaw, Byron & Ryan, Padraic, Constitutional Law, 5th ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2017) at 248.Google Scholar

78 R v Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915 at 947–48.

79 Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3.

80 Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon, [1982] 2 SCR 161.

81 Looper, supra note 57 at 1053.

82 Kindred, Hugh M, Saunders, Phillip M & Currie, Robert J, eds, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada, 8th ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2014) at 160.Google Scholar

83 Department of External Affairs, Federalism and International Relations (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1968). Treaty-making power rests on three considerations: “principles of international law relating to the power of component parts of federal states to make treaties; the constitution and constitutional practices of federal states; and, finally, the Canadian Constitution and constitutional practice.” Cited in Kindred, Saunders & Currie, supra note 82 at 160.

84 Attorney-General of Canada v Attorney-General of Ontario and Others, [1937] Privy Council Appeal No 100 (1936).

85 Hogg, Peter W, Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th ed (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 1997), 300 [Hogg, Constitutional Law, 1997].Google Scholar

86 Ibid at 300–01.

87 Ibid at 303.

88 R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401, cited in Kindred, Saunders & Currie, supra note 82 at 177–78.

89 Even intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is largely defined in relation to the territory where it is practised.

90 Hogg, Constitutional Law, 1997, supra note 85 at 303.

91 On the use of proceduralism as an approach to division of powers in federal countries, see Hueglin & Fenna, supra note 43 at 136.

92 Van Ert, Gib & Matiation, Stefan, “Labour Conventions and Comprehensive Claim Agreements: A New Model for Subfederal Participation in Canadian International Treaty-Making” in Fitzgerald, Oonagh E, ed, The Globalized Rule of Law: Relationships between International and Domestic Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006) 203 at 203.Google Scholar

93 De Mestral, Armand & Fox-Decent, Evan, “Implementation and Reception: The Congeniality of Canada’s Legal Order to International Law” in Fitzgerald, supra note 92, 31 at 36–37.Google Scholar

94 Williams, Brennan & Lynch, supra note 60 at 260.

95 Allocution de M Paul Gérin-Lajoie, vice-président du Conseil exécutif du Québec et ministre de l’Éducation, aux membres du Corps consulaire de Montréal, 12 avril 1965, reprinted in Positions du Québec dans les domaines constitutionnel et intergouvernemental de 1936 à mars 2001 (Québec City: Gouvernement du Québec, 2001) 137 at 141, online: <http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/documents/positions-historiques/positions-du-qc/partie2/PaulGerinLajoie1965.pdf>.

96 Ibid.

97 See e.g. a special issue of the Revue québecoise de droit international entirely dedicated to the fiftieth anniversary of the statement (June 2016). See particularlyPaquin, Stéphane & Chaloux, Annie, “La doctrine Gérin-Lajoie: 50 ans et pas une ride!” (2016) Revue québecoise de droit international, special series 5;Google Scholar Daniel Turp, “L’approbation des engagements internationaux importants du Québec: La nouvelle dimension parlementaire à la doctrine Gérin-Lajoie” (2016) Revue québecoise de droit international, special series 9; Michèle Rioux & Destiny Tchéhouali, “La Convention sur la Protection et la Promotion de la Diversité des Expressions Culturelles de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture face aux enjeux et défis du numérique” (2016) Revue québecoise de droit international, special series 185; Véronique Guèvremont, “L’exercice de la compétence culturelle du Québec au-delà de ses frontières: de la coopération culturelle internationale au développement du droit international de la culture” (2016) Revue québecoise de droit international, special series 227.

98 Jacomy-Millette, A, Treaty Law in Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975) at 79.Google Scholar

99 Stéphane Beaulac, “The Myth of Jus Tractatus in La Belle Province: Québec’s Gérin-Lajoie Statement” (2012) 35 Dalhousie LJ 237 at 241.

100 Ibid at 79–80.

101 Ibid at 80–83.

102 Cyr, supra note 9 at 14.

103 Ibid at 14.

104 Ibid at 38.

105 Ibid at 57.

106 Ibid at 172–73.

107 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Québec Concerning the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 5 May 2006, online: <http://en.ccunesco.ca/-/media/Files/Unesco/About/Governance/AgreementGOCGOQUNESCO2006.pdf?la=en> [UNESCO Agreement].

108 Speech by Charest, Jean, Premier of Québec, 5 May 2006, quoted in Québec Relations Internationales et Francophonie, Québec-Canada Agreement on UNESCO, online: <http://www.mrif.gouv.qc.ca/en/relations-du-quebec/organisations-et-forums/representation-unesco/accord-unesco>..>Google Scholar

109 Ibid.

110 UNESCO Agreement, supra note 107 at 3.4.

111 Where the delegation is composed of a representative of government, one of employers, and one of employees. This tripartite model is enshrined in the Constitution of the ILO: “Article 3. Conference — Meetings and Delegates. 1. The meetings of the General Conference of representatives of the Members shall be held from time to time as occasion may require, and at least once in every year. It shall be composed of four representatives of each of the Members, of whom two shall be Government delegates and the two others shall be delegates representing respectively the employers and the workpeople of each of the Members.” ILO, Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), 1 April 1919, adopted by the Peace Conference in April 1919, the ILO Constitution became Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919). For a discussion, see Alvarez, José E, International Organizations as Law-Makers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

112 Williams, Brennan & Lynch, supra note 60 at 260.

113 Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2017, supra note 44 at 4-5, 4-12.

114 2003 UNESCO Convention, supra note 20, Art 2.1.

115 For more details on this history, see Lixinski, Lucas, “Selecting Heritage: The Interplay of Art, Politics and Identity” (2011) 22:1 EJIL 81 [Lixinski, “Selecting Heritage”].Google Scholar

116 2003 UNESCO Convention, supra note 20, Art 2.3.

117 Lixinski, “Selecting Heritage,” supra note 115.

118 2003 UNESCO Convention, supra note 20, Art 1.

119 Ubertazzi, Benedetta, “The Territorial Condition for the Inscription of Elements on the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage” in Adell, Nicolas et al, eds, Between Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice: Participation, Territory and the Making of Heritage (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2015) 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120 Lixinski, “Selecting Heritage,” supra note 115.

121 For an updated status list, see UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage, The States Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), online: <https://ich.unesco.org/en/states-parties-00024>.

122 For a deeper discussion of these reasons, see Matthew Bevins, Australia and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage [manuscript on file with the author].

123 As discussed by personal communication with Antoine Gauthier (23 October 2017), who led the efforts within Québec for ICH legislation.. Convention on the Protection and the Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, 20 October 2005, 2440 UNTS 311 (entered into force 18 March 2007).

124 World Heritage Convention, supra note 72, Art 34. For a commentary, see Boer, Ben, “Article 34: The Federal Clause” in Francioni, Francesco, ed, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 355.Google Scholar

125 2003 UNESCO Convention, supra note 20, Art 35: “Article 35 — Federal or non-unitary constitutional systems. The following provisions shall apply to States Parties which have a federal or non-unitary constitutional system: (a) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of the federal or central legislative power, the obligations of the federal or central government shall be the same as for those States Parties which are not federal States; (b) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the jurisdiction of individual constituent States, countries, provinces or cantons which are not obliged by the constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the federal government shall inform the competent authorities of such States, countries, provinces or cantons of the said provisions, with its recommendation for their adoption.”

126 Québec Heritage Act, supra note 22, s 2: “‘[P]atrimoine immatériel’: les savoir-faire, les connaissances, les expressions, les pratiques et les représentations transmis de génération en génération et recréés en permanence, en conjonction, le cas échéant, avec les objets et les espaces culturels qui leur sont associés, qu’une communauté ou un groupe reconnaît comme faisant partie de son patrimoine culturel et dont la connaissance, la sauvegarde, la transmission ou la mise en valeur présente un intérêt public.”

127 Antoine Gauthier, Confessions d’un gestionnaire: Les possibilités et les choix liés au patrimoine immatériel à l’échelle nationale (Québec City: Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant, 2014).

128 Personal communication with Antoine Gauthier (23 October 2017); see also Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant, Le patrimoine immatériel dans la législation québécoise: Mémoire sur le projet de loi 82 sur le patrimoine culturel déposé à la Commission de la culture et de la éducation de l’Assemblée nationale (Québec City: Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant, 2010).Google Scholar

129 Québec culture et communications, Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec, online: <http://www.patrimoine-culturel.gouv.qc.ca/rpcq/rechercheImmateriel.do?methode=afficherResultat>..>Google Scholar

130 Davenport, Paul, “Introduction” in Davenport, Paul & Leach, Richard H, eds, Reshaping Confederation: The 1982 Reform of the Canadian Constitution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984) 1 at 6.Google Scholar Citing Daniel Latouche, “Les Calculs Stratégiques derrière le “Canada Bill”” in Davenport & Leach, ibid, 165.

131 Victoria Heritage Act, supra note 21, s 79B.

132 For a general discussion, see Lucas Lixinski & Louise Buckingham, “Propertization, Safeguarding and the Cultural Commons: The Turf Wars of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Traditional Cultural Expressions” in Valentina Vadi & Bruno de Witte, eds, Culture and International Economic Law (London: Routledge 2015) 160.

133 Victoria Heritage Act, supra note 21, s 12(a).

134 Ibid, s 79C.

135 Ibid, s 79D.

136 Ibid, ss 79G (absence of contract) and 79H (non-compliance with terms of contract).

137 Government of Victoria, Registering Aboriginal Intangible Heritage, online: <https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/heritage/aboriginal-intangible-heritage-in-victoria/registering-aboriginal-intangible-heritage.html>.

138 Antoine Gauthier, “Medir el Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: Enfoques, desafíos y retos” (manuscript on file with the author).

139 Knop, supra note 18 at 140–41.

140 Ibid at 133.

141 Ibid at 134.

142 On the Australian position, see Bevins, supra note 122.

143 Knop, supra note 18 at 136–38.

144 For a discussion, see Andreas Føllesdal, “Survey Article: Subsidiarity” (1998) 6: 2 Journal of Political Philosophy 190 at 190.

145 Ibid at 191.

146 Cyr, supra note 9 at 241–42, citing Mark A Luz & C Marc Miller, “Globalization and Canadian Federalism: Implications of the NAFTA’s Investment Rules” (2002) 47 McGill LJ 951 at 985–86.

147 Ibid at 266.

148 See generally Morss, John R, International Law as the Law of Collectives: Toward a Law of People (London: Ashgate, 2013).Google Scholar

149 Dye, Christopher et al, “Data Sharing in Public Health Emergencies: A Call to Researchers,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization (2016), online: http://cdr www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-170860.pdf>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

150 United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, online: <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/>..>Google Scholar

151 For an overview and arguing for the need to harden international law around education, see Beiter, Klaus Dieter, The Protection of the Right to Education by International Law Including a Systematic Analysis of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Leiden: Brill, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

152 Nollkaemper, André, “Framing Elephant Extinction” 3: 6 ESIL Reflection, online: <http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/643>..>Google Scholar