Legal mechanisms for the formation of cultural code

2026

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.46914/2959-4197-2026-1-3-75-90
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Cultural code is a dynamic system of historical memory, language, values, symbols, traditions, and social practices that ensures the recognizability and continuity of a society. Legal scholarship, however, often reduces the mechanisms of its formation to fragmented rules on cultural heritage protection, while the interaction between rights, procedures, institutions, and digital safeguards remains insufficiently explained. This study aims to develop a legal model for the formation of cultural code based on international standards and legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The research applies formal legal, systemic, comparative, hermeneutic, and risk-based methods. It argues that cultural code is not fixed content created directly by the state. Law establishes the conditions under which cultural meanings are preserved, interpreted, transmitted, and renewed with the participation of their bearers. Five levels of the legal mechanism are identified: constitutional and value-based regulation; institutional and policy regulation; identification, safeguarding, and transmission of heritage; guarantees of participation and cultural rights; and digital and intellectual-property regulation. Alongside the strengths of the Kazakhstani model, the analysis reveals sectoral fragmentation, the predominance of detailed rules on tangible heritage, insufficient specification of the procedural rights of bearer communities, and underdeveloped safeguards for the digital use of cultural data. The study contributes a shift from understanding cultural code as a static object of protection to viewing it as a system of social relations continuously reproduced through legal procedures.