Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. International Journal of Cultural Property
  4. Volume 1
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 1 - January 1992

Contents

Page 1 of 3

Editorial

  • Editorial

  • Norman Palmer
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 June 2007, pp. 5-8
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Editorial

  • Norman Palmer
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 June 2007, pp. 269-272
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Articles

  • ‘Cultural Heritage’ or ‘Cultural Property’?

  • Lyndel V. Prott, Patrick J. O'Keefe
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 June 2007, pp. 307-320
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Correspondence

  • The Elsen/Walsh Controversy* (reprinted from Artnews)

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 June 2007, pp. 129-136
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Opinion

Essay

Chronicles

Chronicles and Events

Case Notes

  • Scheduling Monuments: The Rose Theatre Case

  • Joanna Goyder
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 June 2007, pp. 353-358

  • In R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 All ER 754, Schiemann J. held that no ordinary member of the public, nor even a very large number of members of the public who have joined together for that very purpose, has any standing to challenge a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment not to schedule a site as a monument of national importance under Section 1(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Moreover, the Secretary of State may base the exercise of his discretion on a number of factors in addition to the consideration of whether or not the site is a monument of national importance.

Page 1 of 3