Cultural Heritage and Local Self-Government (Case Study of Svetlanovsky Municipality St. Petersburg)

Because of the special history of the development of St. Petersburg, within the territory of the municipality there are both individual historical monuments and complex cultural heritage ensembles, which include many parts of the ensemble, which in turn, are individual historical monuments.

At the same time, while there is a comprehensive approach to the preservation of the heritage of St. Petersburg at the level of state policy, in modern practice facts have been revealed which do not comply with the above policy, and in some cases are of an offence requiring a prosecutorial response. Existing in the current legislation the procedure for identifying objects of cultural heritage is not objective and requires changes.

The authors believe that the vesting the powers of state control and supervision in a single executive body of state power, the lack of authority in terms of control by local self-government and regulated interaction between the federal and regional executive bodies of state power, the imperfection of existing legislation in St. Petersburg leads to the loss of effectiveness in the identification and preservation of cultural heritage of value both at the regional and federal level, which strains the efficiency of the identification and preservation of cultural heritage at both the regional and federal level.

Considering the emerging negative trend, the representative body of local self-government of Svetlanovskoye Municipality of St. Petersburg took municipal response measures, the issues of cultural heritage preservation were considered at the municipal council, and appeals were sent to the authorized authorities and the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office.

It became possible after the 2019 municipal elections, which resulted in the election of non-systemic municipal deputies to the representative bodies of local government, thereby forming open councils, to study in detail the specifics of state registration, identification and preservation of cultural heritage, and to find ways to solve existing problems at the level of the municipality. Exercising the powers in the representative body of local government, the actual representatives of the local community were able to study in practice the specifics of the functioning of local government, in the legal field of public authority to make public the issues of the problem field, to identify vulnerable places in the activities of executive power, to take response measures and make appropriate practical conclusions.

The purpose of this article is to provide a scientific substantiation of the necessity of local self-government participation in detection and protection of cultural heritage objects by the example of some separate municipality of Svetlanovsky municipality of St. Petersburg; to search and offer possible variants of local self-government participation in the issue of efficient cultural heritage protection; to study reasons of necessity of local self-government in the new conditions of modern community of St. Petersburg.

On the basis of the study the authors conclude that it is necessary to take specific response measures by the representative body of local government and the state bodies of St. Petersburg aimed at creating the necessary conditions for the effective identification and preservation of cultural heritage in the modern conditions of functioning of local government in the field of culture.

1. Batrshin R. Y. Administrative-jurisdictional activity of public administration bodies in the sphere of culture // Bulletin of the Saratov State Law Academy [Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii]. 2019. N 5 (130). P. 56-62. (In Rus).

2. Berdyugina Y. M. On the identification of objects of cultural heritage // Academic Bulletin of UralNIIproject RAACS [Akademicheskii vestnik UralNIIproekt RAASN]. 2017. N 4 (35). P. 65-67. (In Rus).

3. Bessorabov T.V., Ashitkova V. G. Prosecutors supervision over the execution of legislation on the protection of cultural heritage // Vestnik of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia [Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov]. Series: juridical sciences. 2014. N 4. P. 364-371. (In Rus).

4. Weber M. Selected works: transl. from German / co-authored, ed. and afterword. N. Davydov; foreword by P. P. Gaidenko. Moscow: Progress. 1990. (In Rus).

5. Verkhovinskaya L. V., Osipova D. V. To the question of conservation of cultural heritage objects — apartment buildings in St. Petersburg // Trends in Science and Education [Tendentsiya razvitiya nauki i obrazovaniya]. 2020. N 58-8. P 82-92. (In Rus).

6. Gumilev L. N. Ethnogenesis and the Earth Biosphere. Moscow: Iris-Press. 2013. P. 483. (In Rus).

7. Dudarenko V. N., Gerasimov N. M., Genin L. V., Vydrin I. V. Bodies of local self-government and the conservation of cultural heritage // Municipality: Economics and Management [Munitsipalitet: ekonomika i upravlenie]. 2018. N 3 (24). P. 11-19. (In Rus).

8. Iznaurov A. S. Historical stages of formation of the international legal framework in the sphere of protection of cultural heritage of mankind // Vestnik of Adygeyan State University [Vestnik Adygeiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta]. Series 1: Regional Studies: Philosophy, History, Sociology, Jurisprudence, Political Science, Cultural Studies. 2017. N 3 (204). P. 30-37. (In Rus).

9. Kashirina T. V., Fedotova K. E. Interaction between Russia and UNESCO on the issues of cultural heritage preservation // Social and Humanitarian Knowledge [Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye znaniya]. 2017.N 2. P 289-294 (In Rus).

10. Kirichenkova A. A. Protection obligation as a measure to strengthen control over the preservation of cultural heritage object // State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education of the Leningrad Region [Leningradskii yuridicheskii zhurnal]. 2021. N 3 (65). P. 103-116. (In Rus).

11. Kuzina S. V. About some priorities to improve the legislation on the protection of historical and cultural monuments // Bulletin of Saratov State Law Academy [Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii]. 2013. N 5 (94). P. 135-138. (In Rus).

12. Lavrov V. V. Actual problems of protection and use of objects of natural and cultural heritage. St. Petersburg Law Institute (branch) of the Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. 2016. (In Rus).

13. Likhachev D. V. Meditations on Russia. St. Petersburg: Logos, 1999. (In Rus).

14. Marshak A. L. Cultural Identity: Searches and Ways of Solving the Problem // Power [Vlast']. 2012. N 9. P. 4-7. (In Rus).

15. Nikolskaya T. M. Protection of Monuments of Art. History and Prospects of Development // Analytics of Cultural Studies [Analitika kul'turologii]. 2010. N 2 (17). UDC 008. 2010. (In Rus).

16. Paliy K. R. To the question of public-private partnership in the protection of cultural heritage of St. Petersburg // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie]. 2019. N 5. P. 140-150. (In Rus).

17. Paliy K. R. Regulatory-legal mechanism of development and implementation of policy for the preservation of historical and cultural heritage of St. Petersburg // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie]. 2018. N 7. P. 146-153. (In Rus).

18. Paliy K. R. Realization of policy in the field of preservation of material objects of cultural heritage: European experience // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie]. 2018. N 12. P. 142-153. (In Rus).

19. Rubin V. A. Military-memorial heritage as a resource of the Russian cultural policy: theory, history, practice: Abstract of doctoral dissertation / Chelyabinsk State Institute of Culture. Chelyabinsk, 2021. (In Rus).

20. Sivolap T. E. To the question of cultural heritage preservation in Russia: some aspects of the problem solution // Science about a Man: Humanitarian Studies [Nauka o cheloveke: gumanitarnye issledovaniya]. 2012. N 1 (9). P. 80-89. (In Rus).

21. Khalikov I. A. Problems of criminal-legal regulation of public relations associated with violations of the preservation or use of objects of cultural heritage, the revealed objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation // Archaeology of the Eurasian steppes. 2017. P. 356-363. (In Rus).

22. Khmelchenko E. G. Problems and prospects for the development of local self-government in the cities of federal significance: Moscow and St. Petersburg // University Herald [Vestnik universiteta]. 2017. N 3. P. 204-209. (In Rus).

23. Churilova K. V. Legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of conservation, use and state protection of cultural heritage // Conservation and study of cultural heritage of Altai Krai [Sokhranenie i izuchenie kul'turnogo naslediya Altaiskogo kraya]. 2019. N 25. P. 372-378. (In Rus).

24. Inch А. “Opening for business”? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising planning in Scotland // Urban Studies. 2018. N 55. Р. 1079-1092.

25. Lindqvist К. Dilemmas and Paradoxes of Regional Cultural Policy Implementation: Governance Modes, Discretion, and Policy Outcome // Administration and Society. 2019. Vol. 51. Iss. 1. Р. 63-90.

26. Porumbescu G. Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government: can it work? // State and Local Government Review: SAGE Publications, 2015. Vol. 47. Iss. 3. P. 205-213.