Chapitre 7.
Addressing the challenge of promoting
the UNESCO Convention’s notions
of diversity of cultural expressions

Educating young people through the UNESCO diversity kit[1]

Gemma Carbo Ribugent and Beatriz Barreiro Carril[2]


The need for an understanding “the importance of the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions” through education – as stated by Article 10 of the 2005 UNESCO Convention – has been definitely recognized by international human rights system through the evolving conception of the right to take part in cultural life at the international level. Although the 2005 Convention was not intended to address human rights issues directly, it is very likely to have an impact on these issues. This chapter follows the evolution of the recognition of cultural diversity through the right to education within the international human rights system. Second, it will critically assess the contribution of the 2005 Convention to the education policies for cultural diversity. Thirdly, it will explain the practical application of the “Diversity Kit for Youth” as a best practice for the implementation of Article 10 of the Convention. Finally, the authors will suggest some guidelines for the design of education policies for the implementation of Article 10 that will benefit the right to education approach that takes cultural diversity into account.


La nécessité de comprendre « l’importance de la protection et de la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles » par le biais de l’éducation, tel que le prévoit l’article 10 de la Convention de 2005, a été reconnue sans équivoque par le système international des droits de l’homme, grâce à l’évolution de la conception du droit de prendre part à la vie culturelle à l’échelle internationale. Bien que la Convention de 2005 n’avait pas l’intention de traiter directement les questions des droits de l’homme, il est très probable qu’elle ait des impacts sur ces questions. Ce chapitre suivra d’abord l’évolution de la prise en compte de la diversité culturelle par le droit à l’éducation dans le cadre du système international des droits de l’homme. Deuxièmement, il évaluera d’une façon critique la contribution de la Convention de 2005 aux politiques d’éducation pour la diversité culturelle. Troisièmement, il expliquera l’application pratique du « Kit Diversité pour les jeunes », en tant que bonne pratique pour la mise en œuvre de l’article 10 de la Convention. Enfin, les auteurs suggèreront quelques lignes directrices pour la conception de politiques éducatives mettant en application l’article 10, et qui vont dans le sens d’une approche du droit à l’éducation qui tient compte de la diversité culturelle.

Using an approach combining the sciences of education, cultural policy research, international law and international human rights, this article will address the conceptual shortcomings of the right to education with regard to cultural diversity concerns. The contributions made by changes in conceptions of the right to participate in cultural life to address these shortcomings will be analyzed. Second, it will critically assess the contribution of the 2005 Convention to education policies for cultural diversity. Third, it will explain the practical application of the “Diversity Kit for Youth.” Finally, the authors will suggest some guidelines for the design of education policies with a view to improving the implementation of Article 10 of the UNESCO Convention and the approach to the right to education from the perspective of cultural diversity.

Education and cultural diversity in international human rights : from “culturally appropriate education” to “cultural diversity education”

The right to education, as understood by the International Human Rights Covenants, includes a culturally appropriate education[3]. In this sense, education responds “to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings” (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999: paragraph 6(d)). Cultural diversity concerns were generally limited to the students’ need to receive an education respectful and in keeping their own culture[4]. The need for an “understanding of the importance of the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions […] through educational […] programmes”, as stated in Article 10 of the 2005 UNESCO Convention, was not at the core of the right to education within the meaning of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights’ (CESCR) General Comment No. 13 on the right to education. As regards the General Comments adopted by the CESCR, it was through the changes in the conception of another human right – the right to take part in cultural life[5] – that the full inclusion of cultural diversity concerns has begun to be seen as an essential part of education policies. As stated by the CESCR in relation to Article 15(1)(a) referring to the right to take part in cultural life (GC No. 21), “education […] enables children to […] learn and understand cultural values and practices of the communities to which they belong, as well as those of other communities and societies”[6]. States parties to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must adopt such an approach to education in order to ensure compliance with Article 15(1)(a) of the Covenant.

With regard to Indigenous Peoples, as very clearly stated by former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, more difficult than the implementation of culturally appropriate policies is putting into practice the “idea of multicultural or intercultural education, because this involves […] the educational philosophy of any country where there are indigenous peoples” (Stavenhagen, 2002: 20). As he underlines, “it basically means that the cultural diversity of the country is reflected in the curriculum and the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity become an objective compatible with […] the enjoyment of human rights by all” (20). In our view, the real inclusion of cultural minorities and indigenous peoples in national societies needs to go beyond culturally appropriate policies. It requires cultural diversity education for all students, regardless of whether they belong to dominant or minority cultures[7]. Such a view is the starting point of the UNESCO Diversity Kit: the Creativity Game, which we will present later in this article.

The link between the “right to education” and the “right to take part in cultural life” is therefore evident. It is not a coincidence that the interconnected notions of “personality”[8] and “life”[9] are contained respectively in the definition of these rights by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both notions evoke that of “identity”. The right to education, together with the right to participate in cultural life, promotes the development of personality and identity. The Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights (2007) is very clear in that sense. It includes the right to education in its “catalogue” of cultural rights. It is worth mentioning that such a right – as understood by the Fribourg Declaration – goes beyond what we call “culturally appropriate education” in this paper, as it includes “the freedom to teach and to receive teaching of and in one’s language and in other languages, as well as knowledge related to one’s own culture and other cultures[10] (Art. 6). As Farida Shaheed, the United Nations Independent Expert on Cultural Rights, has definitively declared, “the right to education […] constitutes a cultural right” (2011: 7-8).

Cultural diversity education in the Convention and related instruments

Although the 2005 Convention was not designed to address human rights issues directly[11], its scope of application “is broad and comprehensive” (Von Schorlemer, 2012 : 129) and states parties must accommodate their education policies to the requirements of Article 10 and its Operational Guidelines. In that sense, the contribution of the Convention to the effectiveness of the human right to education cannot be denied.

The background: the UNESCO declaration approach of cultural diversity education as a (cultural) human right

Under the title “Cultural rights as an enabling environment for cultural diversity”, Article 5 of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity provides that “all persons are entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity”. This culturally appropriate education-focused approach is complemented by Annex II to the Declaration containing the “main lines of an action plan for the implementation” of the Declaration. Besides the incorporation of “traditional pedagogies into the education process with a view to preserving and making full use of culturally appropriate methods of communication and transmission of Knowledge” (point 8), Annex II also refers to the promotion “through education and awareness of the positive value of cultural diversity[12] and the improvement “to this end [of] both curriculum design and teacher education” (point 7).

The drafting of the Convention: losing the human rights-based approach

Since the beginning of the Convention’s negotiation process, there has been a clear consensus on the need for States to commit themselves to education that teaches the values of the diversity of cultural expressions. During the meetings held by independent and intergovernmental experts, this preliminary consensus was both specified and nuanced (Carbó, 2016). The Preliminary study on the technical and legal aspects relating to the desirability of a standard-setting instrument on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2003) argues that Article 12 of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity had already acknowledged that it was the responsibility of UNESCO to “pursue its activities in standard-setting, awareness raising and capacity-building in the areas related to the (present) Declaration within its fields of competence” (1).

It is worth mentioning that in the second Independent Expert Meeting, experts agreed that the new convention should promote intercultural dialogue through education. This stresses the link between the Convention and the UNESCO Education Intercultural Program, which is one of the most important UNESCO educational policies. As stated in a subsequent document from 2006, Guidelines on Intercultural Education, “given that cultural diversity and cultural heritage are so important to the survival of cultures and knowledge, Intercultural Education policy has an important role to play in ensuring their continued vitality” (UNESCO, 2006: 16).

Another important proposal from this meeting – which, unfortunately, was not followed in the final text of the Convention – was to link the Convention to the objectives stated in the 1998 Stockholm Conference’s Action Plan on Cultural Policies for Development. The proposal referred specifically to the objective of promoting “knowledge and understanding of cultural and linguistic diversity by strengthening the cultural content of formal and non-formal education, in particular by encouraging the learning of one or more foreign languages” (Objective 2: 4) as well as to “the promotion of new links between culture and the education system so as to ensure full recognition of culture and the arts as a fundamental dimension of education for all, develop artistic education and stimulate creativity in education programs at all levels” (Objective 2: 4)[13].

The preliminary draft resulting from the independent expert meetings included an annex containing a non-exhaustive list of cultural policies among which figured policies that “promote cultural contents in formal and non-formal education and the learning of mother tongues as well as of foreign languages” (4). Policies “promoting culture among young people” (6) were also included. It is important to note that among them figured policies enforcing “rights of the child and vulnerable groups with special educational and cultural needs” (UNESCO, 2004: 19). The human rights approach was therefore present at this stage of the process of elaboration of the Convention. Policies promoting creative education were also included in the list. The annex containing the non-exhaustive list of cultural policies was suppressed during the intergovernmental meetings. This was to be compensated by the inclusion of the concepts contained in the list in the article dedicated to the “definitions”. However, as far as education issues are concerned, this did not happen.

The final text of the Convention: an isolated article

        Under the title of “Education and public awareness”, Article 10 states that Parties shall:

  1. encourage and promote understanding of the importance of the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions, inter alia, through educational and greater public awareness programmes;
  2. cooperate with other Parties and international and regional organizations in achieving the purpose of this article;
  3. endeavour to encourage creativity and strengthen production capacities by setting up educational, training and exchange programmes in the field of cultural industries. These measures should be implemented in a manner which does not have a negative impact on traditional forms of production.

It is clear that the education programs referred to in this article included both those aimed at promoting the value of cultural diversity and those more pragmatically oriented towards productive capacities in the field of cultural industries. This paper focuses on the first type of education programs. While both types of programs are interrelated, we believe that the effectiveness of more specific programs geared towards productive capacities in the field of cultural industries requires measures aimed at promoting education in the value of cultural diversity (Barreiro, 2011: 296). The UNESCO Diversity Kit, which will be explained below, fits into such education programs on the value of cultural diversity.

There is no mention in the Preamble of the human right to education and, as already mentioned, the article containing the definitions does not refer to education issues.

Obligations and rights in the Operational Guidelines: a distinction between the education for capacity-building in the field of cultural industries and the education in values

Among the positive aspects of the Operational Guidelines (OGs) are the recognition of the crucial role of States in in promoting the values of the Convention and the recognition of the need for an integrated approach – which should strengthen “the ties between culture and education” – in the implementation of Article 10 (UNESCO, 2011: 285).

As with the distinction mentioned in the title of the present subsection, paragraph 4 of the OGs focuses on education programs oriented towards productive capacities in the field of cultural industries, while paragraph 5 focuses on those aimed at promoting the value of cultural diversity. Whereas paragraph 4 is written in terms of “obligations” (“States shall”) and the proposed measures are rather specific, paragraph 5 is written in terms of “rights” (“States can”) and the proposed measures are rather vague.

While recognizing the importance of the measures set out in paragraph 4, we believe that they should be complemented by the more comprehensive measures mentioned in paragraph 5 (Carbó, 2016). Besides, from our point of view, paragraph 5 fails to refer to essential abilities, such as the one conceptualized by Nussbaum as “narrative imagination” – “the ability to empathize with others and to put oneself in another’s place” (Nussbaum, 1995 ; Nussbaum & Cohen, 1996) – which necessarily leads to the “cosmopolitan ideal” (Nussbaum, 1995 ; Nussbaum & Cohen, 1996). Unfortunately, extreme nationalism plays an important role in the educational policies of many States. It must be recalled, as does Martin Gerner, that “in the course of the drafting process, education remained an extremely hot potato issue since it reflected a highly politicized domain of domestic politics”[14] (Gerner, 2012: 295). This explains very clearly the OGs’ preference for rights – rather than obligations – regarding educational policies for the promotion of the value of cultural diversity, despite the fact that Article 10 of the Convention uses the expression “States shall”.

The implementation of the Convention: a mixed balance

       The dilution of education in broader issues

From the reading of the States’ reports – and the related UNESCO documents analyzing them – we can establish the following:

– Three types of measures in the field of education have been taken by States:

  • Training programs in the field of the cultural industries: E.g. Argentina, Austria.
  • Art training (usually in schools): These types of measures were frequently reported. E.g. Lithuania, New Zeeland, Germany, Uruguay, Poland, Spain, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Dominican Republic, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and Croatia.
  • Education in the values of cultural diversity: Slovenia and Spain (UNESCO Diversity Kit). Besides, some policies of Mongolia[15], Portugal[16] and Spain[17] have indirect effects on education in the values of cultural diversity. Plans to include in the near future “information about the Convention in the educational curricula” are very rare. We only found the case of Albania.

– The Periodic Report Template Form, which has to be filled out by States, does not contain a section dedicated to measures in the field of education[18]. Similarly, such a section is also missing from the list of innovative examples prepared by the Secretariat. This entails a lack of visibility of these measures, which should be found scattered among the measures taken in the different domains for which the template assigns a section. It also shows that education is not currently a priority in the implementation of the Convention.

– Partly as a consequence of what was just explained above, it is difficult to make a definitive and clear assessment of the degree of implementation of educational aspects of Article 10. The lack of “linkages between culture and education” is considered one of the “[c]hallenges to the implementation of the Convention” according to the document analyzing the 2012 reports[19], while the document analyzing the 2013 reports recognizes that “with regard to cultural participation / enjoyment, strengthening legislation and programmes on cultural and arts education was the most frequently reported measure” (UNESCO, 2013: 6). Finally, the document analyzing the 2014 reports starts from the premise that analysis of the 2012 and 2013 reports show that there are “common patterns” in the States measures involving education and training (UNESCO, 2014: 10). Therefore, reading the State reports and the documents analyzing them suggests mixed signals in assessing the implementation of the educational aspects of Article 10. In our view, the most remarkable fact is the widespread absence of general policies on cultural diversity education. Without them, the goal of linking culture to education, as well as the effectiveness of the Convention as a whole, runs the risk of becoming an illusion.

Practical application of the “diversity kit for youth: the creative game”

To promote the implementation of Article 10 of the Convention, the Youth Kit for Diversity: the Creativity Game has been developed as a genuine “teaching tool” to help train young people in the values and principles of the Convention in a way that is both enjoyable and rigorous.

Through Diversity: the Creativity Game, UNESCO aims to communicate the Convention’s key messages, principles and values to the young people who will make up tomorrow’s society. The aim is to help young people to:

  • Reflect on the value of diversity of cultural expression.
  • Demonstrate the potential of creativity and explore existing ties with the diversity of cultural expression.
  • Understand the importance and usefulness of protecting and promoting the diversity of cultural expression.
  • Understand the Convention’s meaning, its context in international law and its implications at the local level.

Diversity: the Creativity Game bets on a teaching strategy that involves young people as individuals and citizens in defense of the Convention. The protection of cultural diversity has often had to identify itself with the protection of minorities and isolated communities. For many young people, diversity always begins with the Other.

This teaching proposal highlights the need to reconsider the actual individual, the ME, as the first stage of diversity. Each of us holds various cultural identities. Each of us is or can be a function of time and space – just one of many different people capable of generating diverse forms of expression.

Young people, to whom Diversity is directed, are at a stage of identification and construction of their identity – their ME – in which they are discovering and modeling their own way of being. This is a key moment in their psychological and personal development and in the construction of a social individual. Therefore, Diversity emphasizes the development of the concept of diversity from an observation of individuality as a starting point, understanding it as the best way to capture the interest of young people while motivating them.

The process of construction of a personal identity also involves an affirmation of the US, the need to share cultural and aesthetic experiences and the need to feel part of something. Methodologically, this allows us to begin a reflexive process with young people, accompanying them in their progression from personal reality to social reality. The next step is simple and gradual. When a WE is formed from a group, the immediate idea of otherness is also formed. The idea of the OTHER or OTHERS is created as an opposite and complementary entity of the US. Lastly, from the sum of the US and the OTHERS, the concept of EVERYONE becomes clear. In progressing in this way, the diversity characterized by each of the elements discussed (me, us, the others) is what makes everyone’s existence possible.

To facilitate young people’s understanding of values, objectives and guiding principles of the Convention, Diversity, the creativity game is structured around four sections:

  • Cultural diversity

No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive – Mahatma Gandhi

In this section, discussion is based on the role of cultural practices and expressions which help shape a young person’s individual and collective identity, as well as the value and need for diversity in cultural expressions.

Social and cultural diversity is a reality and historical fact of which people living in a globalized world are ever more aware. In this context, the digital revolution has exponentially increased mobility. As a result, an ever higher percentage of people from different backgrounds across the world are coming into contact with each other.

Cultural expression is the fruit of different realities and contexts in which various communities and cultural groups operate. They have not only a social character which contributes to strengthening social cohesion, but also an individual character. According to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, each human being is different, unique and original, and we all share the same universal rights and ethical duties.

  • Creativity and cultural expression

People often talk about creativity as if it were the precious possession of only a few people. – Robert Sternberg

Creativity is a competent and practical resource, so that young people are aware of their own individual and collective creativity, and they understand the enormous potential that it holds for their personal development, as well as that of the wider society.

Creativity is the capacity to imagine and invent different ways of expressing oneself; to live and interact, to solve problems and change reality. Creativity applies to any human action or expression, but it is certainly one of the central elements of cultural expression. Like all inherent human abilities, its full potential is only developed when its value is recognized and the conditions necessary for its development are met.

Beyond its individual character, creativity always has a collective component, either at its source (when it is the result of accumulated experience and social knowledge) or in the process of identifying and building ideas and common projects.

Societies and cultures are part of a complex environment and interactions between people and communities. As a result of these constant interactions, creativity and innovation develop as a natural and constant capacity of adaptation with a changing and dynamic reality.

  • Cultural policies and measures

By cultural policies, we understand the interventions set by the State, civil institutions and community groups that are organised to guide symbolic development, satisfy the population’s cultural needs and obtain consensus for a type of order or social transformation. – Néstor García Canclini

The role of cultural policies in protecting and promoting the creativity and diversity of cultural expressions is discussed in this section, along with the explanation of the importance of participating in their elaboration and implementation.

Cultural policies and measures are both instruments and expressions of the different ways of being within societies. These are defined in artistic and expressive practices (cultural expressions) and modes of coexistence (customs).

The Convention refers to policies and measures relating to culture (local, national, regional or international) that focus on culture as such, or are designed to have a direct effect on cultural expressions; in particular, the creation, production, dissemination/distribution and access to such policies and measures.

The adoption of the Convention and its rapid entry into force are indicators of the importance that these policies are acquiring in a new economic and social context in which knowledge is becoming a central element.

  • Solidarity and cultural cooperation

[…] the tension between universal values and individual identities could be resolved on the basis of an exchange in which no value system unilaterally laid the bases and limits of said dialogue. – Ramin Jahanbegloo, In Praise of Diversity

This section emphasizes the need for cultural cooperation policies with young people. These policies, as an exercise in solidarity, guarantee equal opportunity to every country and community to promote sustainability of the global cultural system, thus promoting the construction of a more equitable world in a peaceful environment.

Solidarity and cultural cooperation are central to protecting and promoting the diversity of cultural expressions and mitigating the risks of uniformity and homogenization that globalization processes can generate on a global level. To be consistent and effective, cooperation policies and measures must act in terms of reciprocity and solidarity with those communities and individuals who start from a situation of inequality. Although born in local contexts or even the result of individual contributions, cultural expressions should be understood as inseparable parts of universal cultural inheritance, as a heritage and a resource for all of humanity.

To achieve the objectives set, the Youth Kit affects the first two Sections in a special way, working on the concepts of cultural diversity, diversity of cultural expression and creativity. The central idea is that on the basis of culture being a crucial factor for economic and social development, all of these ideas can be transformed into cultural projects and events.

It begins with a vision of the diversity of cultural expressions as a dynamic concept, as expressions of reality that are not static, distant and fixed, but the result of interactions and dialogue between different people, groups, realities and communities. This type of process is important and inherent to the vision of diversity of cultural expressions defended by the Convention. But Diversity moves beyond this and promotes the teaching of values such as interculturalism, tolerance, dialogue and solidarity.

Diversity is an innovative approach to using digital technologies for educational purposes available in three different formats:

  • Online, through which young people play in groups in front of a computer;
  • on a CD-ROM, which can be seen on a computer screen or using a projector; or
  • in print, which can be downloaded and printed locally, facilitating the Kit’s dissemination without the use of digital tools.

In all cases, the explanatory nature of this approach is decentralized by the realization of a collaborative process in a shared space: the screen or board. This creates an experience that, far from reproducing a unidirectional logic, presents a creative space that promotes real interaction and the social construction of content. Furthermore, both the paper and multimedia versions of Diversity commit to a dynamic, simple and modern design based on graphic resources that appeal to a young audience.

Together with the Teaching Approach, the Youth Kit contains a Didactic Guide with Method Sheets which offer the educator a script to carry out each activity. The Method Sheets include theoretical guidance to develop content, guidelines to stimulate the group and indications on the technical requirements. They also include a space to take notes throughout the activity that can be used later for evaluation purposes.

The students, teachers and directors of the schools that have participated in the pilot phase of the project are the Instituto Experimental PENEM II (Guatemala), Instituto Nacional de Bachillerato en Computación (INBC) (Guatemala), Colegio Ergos (Dominican Republic), Liceo República Argentina (Dominican Republic) and Escola Pía Olot (Spain).

The Kit has been implemented in many countries in Latin-American contexts and has been translated to other languages such as Euskara and Catalan. The English translation is in progress.


Although the 2005 Convention was not intended to address the human right to education, it is very likely to affect it. Article 10 is an essential article of the Convention, since education and awareness-raising are informal tools to ensure the effectiveness of the Convention (Barreiro, 2011: 295).

In the course of the drafting of the Convention, important elements of cultural diversity education were lost. This has been partially offset by the Operational Guidelines which, however, are quite limited with regard to education in the values of cultural diversity. The OGs do not refer to important capacities and do not establish in specific terms how an integrated approach can be achieved. In this context, the UNESCO Diversity Kit is likely to be an important tool which can be used by different States and in different contexts for the promotion of cultural diversity education, and thus, for the implementation of Article 10. From an institutional point of view, the inclusion of cultural diversity issues in educational curricula and teacher training plans is absolutely necessary. The design of how the work among teachers, artists, and other cultural actors can be conceived must be undertaken[20].

As Amin Maalouf says, “there is an urgent need to educate people on how to live together”[21]. An important UNESCO report recognizes that “learning to live together can be successfully implemented only if cultural diversity is situated at their core” (UNESCO, 2009: 15). We agree with Maalouf that “education is the solution to save humanity from its evils”. Without the implementation of education policies, the main goal of the Convention cannot be achieved.

Young people are the most important actors for the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. They are the main consumers of cultural goods and services. Without cultural roots, they cannot be creative citizens and entrepreneurs in cultural industries. Therefore, all efforts, both national and international, must be combined. UNESCO’s Education Section, United Nations agencies working on the right to take part in cultural life as well as those working on the right to education are likely to be very useful for the right implementation of Article 10.


Barreiro, Beatriz (2011). La diversidad cultural en el Derecho Internacional : La Convención de la Unesco. Madrid, Iustel.

Barreiro, Beatriz (2013). “The right of access to culture : An effective human right for the establishment of consistent cultural policies in Europe in the context of the economic crisis ?”, Spanish Review of International Relations, 5 : 44-62.

Carbó, Gemma (2016). “Comentario al artículo 10 : Educación y sensibilización del público”, in Jesús Prieto and Honorio Velasco (ed.). La diversidad cultural. Análisis sistemático e interdisciplinar de la Convención de la UNESCO. Madrid, Trotta, 2016, p. 376.

Fourmont, Guillaume (2010). “Amin Maalouf : El reconciliador”, Público, [Online],, accessed November 2, 2015.

Gerner, Martin (2012). “Article 10 : Education and Public Awareness”, in Sabine von Schorlemer and Peter-Tobias Stoll (Eds.). The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Explanatory Notes. Heidelberg, Springer, 2012, p. 778.

Giannecchini, Laura (2014). “The CDCE and the new Education Acts in Latin America”, in Lilian Richieri Hanania (ed.). Cultural Diversity in International Law. The effectiveness of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. London, Routledge, 2014, p. 358.

Nussbaum, Martha C., and Joshua Cohen (ed.) (1996). For love of country : Debating the limits of patriotism. Boston, Beacon Press.

Nussbaum, Martha C. (1995). Poetic justice. The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Boston, Beacon Press.

Prieto de Pedro, Jesús (2001). Memorias del seminario Economía y Cultura : la tercera cara de la moneda. Bogotá, Convenio Andrés Bello., “¿Están los jóvenes divorciados del arte ? » 2015, [Online],, accessed November 02, 2015.

Shaheed, Farida (2011). Report of the Independent Expert in the field of Cultural Rights. UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/17/38.

Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (2002). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, submitted pursuant to Commission Resolution 2001/57. UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2002/97.

Tomasevski, Katerina (2006). Human Rights Obligations in Education : The 4-A Scheme. Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers.

UNESCO (2004). Preliminary draft of a convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions. CLT/CPD/2004/CONF-201/2.

UNESCO (2003). Desirability of Drawing Up an International Standard-setting Instrument on Cultural Diversity. CLT/CPD/2004/CONF.201/5.

UNESCO (2006). UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Educations. Paris, UNESCO.

UNESCO (2009). Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. Paris, UNESCO.

UNESCO (2011). Operational guidelines on education and public awareness (Article 10 of the Convention). CE/10/4.IGC/205/9.

UNESCO (2013). Quadrennial periodic reporting : new reports and analytical summary. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection and the Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, CE/13/7.IGC/5.

UNESCO (2014). Quadrennial periodic reporting : new reports and analytical summary. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection and the Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, CE/14/8.IGC/7a.

UNESCO (2012). Challenges to the implementation of the Convention. Cicle 2012. [Online],, accessed November 2, 2015.

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General Comment on the right to education (article 13 of the Covenant). UN Doc E/C.12/1999/10.

United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (2009). General Comment 21 on the Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (article 15.1.a) of the Covenant). E/C.12/GC/21.

Von Schorlemer, Sabine (2012). “Article 3. Scope of Application”, in Schorlemer and Peter-Tobias Stoll (ed.). The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions Explanatory Notes. Heidelberg, Springer, 2012, p. 778.

  1. We are deeply grateful to Professor Jesús Prieto de Pedro (Professor of Administrative Law (UNED, Spain and Former General Director of Fine Arts, Cultural Heritage, Archives and Libraries) for his inspiring comments to this chapter. All errors are ours alone.
  2. Gemma Carbo Ribugent, University of Girona, and Beatriz Barreiro Carril, Rey Juan Carlos University.
  3. See, for instance, paragraph 6(d) of the CESCR’s General Comment (GC) No. 13 on the right to education (Article 13 of the Covenant) (1999) and Tomasevski (2006).
  4. Emphasis added.
  5. See the CESCR’s GC No. 21 on “the Right of everyone to take part in cultural life” (2009) and the work of the first United Nations Independent Expert on cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, appointed in the same year. See Barreiro (2013).
  6. Emphasis added.
  7. Even the recent Ecuadorian General Education Act, which addresses cultural diversity concerns, fails to include such a cultural diversity education for all approach. As Laura Giannecchini points out, even if it “strongly emphasizes the concept of interculturality”,
    the Ecuadorian Act “creates a system apart […] to respond specifically to indigenous peoples’ education. This may make a real integration of indigenous cultures in the NES [National Education System] more difficult, even if the law states that the NES will progressively include at least one ancestral language teaching and the systematic study of national and local unofficial wisdom, realities and stories” (Giannecchini, 2014: 291).
  8. As provided in Article 13(1) of the ICESCR, “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Emphasis added. Vid. Prieto de Pedro (2001 : 219).
  9. Article 15 of the ICESCR is the only article in the Covenant that contains the word “life”.
  10. Emphasis added.
  11. See UNESCO (2003).
  12. Emphasis added.
  13. See Carbó (2016).
  14. Emphasis in the text.
  15. Using public service broadcasting in order to build awareness around cultural diversity values.
  16. Through the creation of “an art-centered urban management and the development intervention whose core rationale is the promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions of the local inhabitants”.
  17. Through the Strategy of Spanish Cooperation.
  18. Laura Giannecchini emphasizes this fact and recommends the inclusion of specific questions related to education in the Periodic Report Form (2014: 292).
  19. UNESCO (2012). Challenges to the implementation of the Convention. Cicle 2012, [Online],, accessed November 2, 2015.
  20. For an in-depth explanation of the shortcomings of arts education at present, see Gemma Carbó’s intervention in the program “¿Están los jóvenes divorciados del arte ?”, 2015, [Online],, accessed November 2, 2015.
  21. Interview with Amin Maalouf, see: Fourmont (2010). “Amin Maalouf : El reconciliador”, Público, [Online],, accessed November 2, 2015. Our translation.

Laisser un commentaire