Insights: Publications Coastal Cultural Heritage Protection in the United States, France and the United Kingdom
Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy, Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 2, 2-62
Exacerbated by climate change, sea levels are rising rapidly. This poses a significant, immediate threat to coastal or riverine urban areas and the tangible cultural heritage (e.g. artifacts, buildings, monuments, archaeological sites) that makes them unique. Protecting coastal cultural resources from climate change is quickly becoming a global priority, and comparing cultural heritage laws designed to protect historic resources in coastal areas from several countries may illuminate potential paths forward. Following a brief discussion of the economic and public health benefits arising from the protection of cultural heritage, this article describes, examines, and compares the legal frameworks through which the United States, France, and the United Kingdom address cultural heritage protection in coastal areas. Several case studies from each country are also presented to demonstrate different preservation initiatives.
Related People
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
