IA Right

Individual Sovereignty over Intangible Cultural Heritage as a Foundation for an Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Reflection based on the UNESCO Convention of 17 October 2003

Abstract

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO on 17 October 2003 and ratified by 180 States, establishes a fundamental yet often overlooked principle: the sovereignty of the individual in recognizing their own intangible cultural heritage (ICH). This paper explores the implications of this principle for reflection on artificial intelligence, articulating the distinctions between knowledge and know-how, between open and free, and between explicit and tacit knowledge. It proposes that this international legal framework, which places the individual at the heart of heritage recognition, offers a model for thinking about an ethics of AI that respects individual and collective sovereignties in the face of data extraction and aggregation logics.

1. Introduction: a widely overlooked legal framework with profound implications

The UNESCO Convention of 17 October 2003 for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage represents one of the most widely adopted international legal instruments, with 180 States parties. Yet its implications for emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, remain largely unexplored.

Article 2 of the Convention defines intangible cultural heritage as:

"the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage."

The phrase "in some cases, individuals" is of capital importance. It establishes that recognition by the individual is legitimate and sovereign. A person may consider that a practice, know-how or expression forms part of their cultural heritage, independently of any prior collective validation. This provision anchors in international law the individual dimension of intangible heritage.

2. The living nature of intangible cultural heritage: a foundational characteristic

Before proceeding further, a fundamental characteristic of ICH must be emphasized, one that distinguishes it radically from tangible heritage: ICH is living, dynamic, and constantly recreated.

Article 2 of the Convention explicitly states that intangible cultural heritage is:

"transmitted from generation to generation, constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity."

This "constant recreation" implies several essential properties:

• ICH is not a fixed archive but a living process. A ritual, a craft skill, a oral tradition exists only in its performance and transmission.
• ICH is augmented by each generation that receives it, adapts it to new contexts, and passes it on transformed. Each bearer adds to it, modifies it, enriches it.
• ICH has a trajectory – it carries its history while being oriented toward the future. It is not a snapshot but a film.

This living, augmentable nature has profound implications for the relationship between ICH and AI, as we shall see.

3. Conceptual clarifications: knowledge, know-how, open, free

To fully grasp the implications of this principle for AI, several conceptual distinctions are necessary.

3.1 Knowledge vs Know-how

The English language operates a distinction that French tends to blur:

Concept	Term	Nature	Transmission
Knowledge	Knowledge	Theoretical, declarative (knowing that)	Through reading, study
Know-how	Know-how / Skill	Practical, procedural (knowing how)	Through practice, imitation

This distinction overlaps with that introduced by Michael Polanyi, between explicit knowledge (codifiable, transmissible through writing) and tacit knowledge (embodied, difficult to formalize). Polanyi's famous aphorism captures this difference: "We can know more than we can tell."

3.2 Open vs Free

A second distinction, inherited from the free software movement, is crucial:

Characteristic	"Open" Knowledge	"Free" Knowledge
Definition	Accessible and reusable without major barriers	Guarantees the four fundamental freedoms (use, study, modification, sharing)
Gratuity	Yes	Yes
Modifications	Possible, but conditions vary	Fundamental
Licenses	CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC0, etc. (broad spectrum)	Narrower spectrum (CC BY, CC0, debate on CC BY-SA)

"Free" knowledge constitutes a more restrictive subset of "open" knowledge: it requires not only access but the effective possibility of modification and redistribution. This distinction is essential for understanding what AI can do with the data it absorbs.

4. Intangible cultural heritage as living, augmentable, individual tacit knowledge

The connection between ICH and tacit knowledge becomes compelling, particularly when we integrate the living and augmentable dimension of heritage.

4.1 Convergence of characteristics

Characteristic	Tacit knowledge (Polanyi)	Individual ICH (UNESCO 2003)
Nature	Embodied, experiential	Embodied, lived, living
Transmission	Through practice, imitation, apprenticeship	Through oral transmission, observation, participation, performance
Formalization	Resists exhaustive codification	Resists complete documentation
Identity	Constitutes the person's practical identity	Constitutes the person's cultural identity
Dynamics	Evolves with experience	Constantly recreated, augmented by each bearer

Individual ICH thus appears as the culturally situated dimension of tacit knowledge – that part of our embodied heritage that connects us to a history, a family, a community, while remaining alive and open to augmentation by each person who carries it.

4.2 The three circles of heritage

The Convention, correctly interpreted, delineates a complete cartography of human heritage experience:

1. The individual circle: What is proper to a person, their intimate history, their singular inheritances (a family lullaby, a transmitted gesture, a recipe modified over generations). This heritage is augmented by the individual's own life experience.
2. The collective circle: What is shared by an identifiable group (a traditional dance, a community ritual, a local artisanal know-how). This heritage is augmented by each practitioner who brings their personal touch.
3. The common circle: What belongs to humanity as a whole (universal techniques, foundational narratives, shared values). This heritage is augmented by the cumulative contributions of countless individuals and communities.

The major innovation of the Convention is to place the individual at the heart of this system. It is not the common that descends upon the individual, nor the collective that absorbs them. It is the sovereign individual who, through their recognition and practice, can irrigate the collective, feed the common, and augment heritage through their own living contribution.

5. AI facing intangible cultural heritage

5.1 What AI can capture

AI excels at processing explicit knowledge about ICH:

• Documentation of practices (texts, images, videos)
• Structural analysis of musical or choreographic patterns
• Transcription and translation of oral narratives
• Databases of artisanal techniques

It can massively ingest these materials and restitute them in the form of open knowledge – accessible, consultable, shareable.

5.2 What escapes AI

The tacit, living, augmentable part of ICH fundamentally escapes it:

• The lived experience of a ritual
• The intuitive adjustment between participants
• The sensation of the right gesture
• The profound meaning for the individual or community
• The intimate history that binds a person to a practice
• The capacity to augment heritage – to transform it, adapt it, enrich it through living practice

This is precisely the limit of AI when faced with tacit knowledge in general, and with living, individual ICH in particular. AI can document heritage; it cannot live it or augment it authentically.

5.3 The extractive model of AI as a threat to sovereignty and living heritage

Contemporary AI operates according to an extractive and aggregative model:

1. Massive data aspiration (texts, images, sounds, traces)
2. Decomposition into elementary units (tokens, statistical patterns)
3. Recomposition to generate new content

In doing so, it dissolves individual origin and freezes living processes. A gesture learned from a grandparent, once absorbed into a model, becomes a statistical correlation among billions. The living, evolving practice is captured as a fixed data point. The individual's sovereignty over "what is their heritage" is ignored because it is not technically legible to the machine.

The passage from free knowledge (modifiable, whose origin can be traced, capable of being augmented) to merely open knowledge (accessible but whose provenance is drowned and whose living dynamics are flattened) is here crucial. AI tends to transform the living into the archived, the augmentable into the fixed, the "free" (with its four freedoms) into the "open" (accessible but whose genealogy and capacity for authentic augmentation are lost).

6. A proposition: individual sovereignty as a foundation for an ethics of AI

The UNESCO Convention of 17 October 2003, a law adopted by 180 States, offers a conceptual and legal framework for thinking differently about the relationship between humans and AI.

6.1 The principle of individual sovereignty over living heritage

If the individual is sovereign in recognizing what falls within their intangible cultural heritage, and if this heritage is living and augmentable, then:

1. They are the legitimate depositary of this heritage, without necessary external validation.
2. They have authority to control its use by third-party systems, including AI.
3. They are the only one who can authentically augment it through their living practice.
4. They can choose to share it (to contribute it to the collective or the common) according to terms they define, while retaining the capacity to continue living and augmenting it.

This sovereignty is primary: it does not derive from recognition by the State, the community, or the expert. It is inherent to the person as a living bearer of heritage.

6.2 Implications for the design of AI systems

This principle should guide the design of AI systems respectful of cultural rights, capable of:

• Recognizing provenance: Knowing that an element of knowledge comes from a sovereign human source, with its history, significance, and living context.
• Respecting integrity: Not denaturing a heritage element by treating it as mere interchangeable data, and acknowledging its living, evolving nature.
• Enabling consent: Offering the individual the possibility to say "this is my living heritage, I choose whether or not to share its documentation, and under what conditions."
• Ensuring traceability: Even in recomposition, allowing the individual contribution to the result to be traced.
• Guaranteeing reversibility: Allowing the individual to withdraw their heritage documentation from an AI system if they wish.
• Acknowledging augmentation: Recognizing that the individual continues to live and transform their heritage independently of any AI capture, and that this living process cannot be reduced to data.

6.3 A hierarchy of requirements according to heritage circles

Type of ICH	Relation to AI	Minimum ethical requirement
Common	Documentation may be harvested without individual consent, as by definition shared by humanity.	Ensure that the common remains common (no exclusive private appropriation) and that its living transmission is not disrupted.
Collective	Documentation requires the consent of the community.	Define procedures for representative collective consent that respect the living, evolving nature of the heritage.
Individual	Documentation requires the explicit consent of the sovereign individual.	Prior, informed, and revocable individual consent, with recognition that the living heritage continues beyond any documentation.

7. Conclusion: towards an AI at the service of living heritage sovereignty

The UNESCO Convention of 17 October 2003 is not an exotic text reserved for heritage specialists. It is, in many respects, a global law for the recognition of the human in their cultural singularity and living creativity.

Its Article 2, correctly interpreted, offers a model for thinking about the place of the individual in relation to AI systems. It reminds us that:

• The human is not primarily a "data producer" but a living bearer of heritage.
• Heritage is not a "fixed archive" but a living process, constantly augmented.
• Knowledge is not merely an "informational good" but a part of identity and life.
• Sovereignty is not only a matter of the State but a prerogative of the person over their living heritage.

Faced with AI systems designed to extract, aggregate, and recompose without regard for the living sources, this international legal framework invites us to reverse the perspective. The task would be to design AI systems at the service of individual and collective sovereignty over living heritage – capable of recognizing, respecting, and valuing the part of humanity that each individual carries within them and continuously augments through their life.

The 180 States that have ratified this Convention have, perhaps without knowing it, laid the foundations for an ethics of artificial intelligence based on cultural rights and the recognition of heritage as a living, augmentable reality. It now falls to researchers, developers, and legislators to draw all the consequences from this framework to build a truly human AI – one that serves living heritage rather than merely extracting it.

---

Author: [jfcm.pm]
Date: 20 February 2026
Version: 2.0

---

This paper was developed from an in-depth exchange on the relationships between open science, artificial intelligence, and intangible cultural heritage, in light of the UNESCO Convention of 17 October 2003. Version 2.0 integrates the fundamental characteristic of ICH as living and constantly recreated.