APA 6th Edition Bukvić, N. (2014). Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova. Arhivski vjesnik, 57 (1), 71-111. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172
MLA 8th Edition Bukvić, Nenad. "Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova." Arhivski vjesnik, vol. 57, no. 1, 2014, pp. 71-111. https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172. Accessed 25 Sep. 2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Bukvić, Nenad. "Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova." Arhivski vjesnik 57, no. 1 (2014): 71-111. https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172
Harvard Bukvić, N. (2014). 'Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova', Arhivski vjesnik, 57(1), pp. 71-111. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172 (Accessed 25 September 2021)
Vancouver Bukvić N. Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova. Arhivski vjesnik [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 September 25];57(1):71-111. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172
IEEE N. Bukvić, "Arhivska služba i arhivsko zakonodavstvo u funkciji zaštite gradiva muzejskih ustanova", Arhivski vjesnik, vol.57, no. 1, pp. 71-111, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://hrcak.srce.hr/139172. [Accessed: 25 September 2021]
Abstracts This article analyses the role of the archival service and archival legislature with the purpose of protecting the archival and registry records created or owned by the museum institutions. The first chapter analyses the valid categorizations of all state Archives in Croatia that make the basis of their inspectional and accessional policy in regard to the creators of the archival and registry records outside the Archives. The information on all categorized museum institutions was systematized and their structure was analysed according to type, scope and founder. By analysing the regulations in the area of the museum activity the second chapter defines the entireties of records created by the work of the museum institutions and it also suggests a list of records methodologically made according to business functions. The reminder of the same chapter analyses the information about archival fonds and collections owned by the total of 54 museum institutions, which resulted in the conclusion that the museum institutions are holders of important wholes of archives of foreign provenance i.e. made by other creators. Since it partly concerns the wholes of public archives whose acquiring should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state Archives, there is an indication to the need of determining and standardizing the criteria for demarcation of archives between heritage institutions. The third chapter analyses the acquisition policy of the state Archives in regard to archives created by work of and owned by the museum institutions. It is determined that the wholes of the archives created by work of the museum institutions have up until now only been acquired by the state Archives to a lesser extent, which underlines the need for a more active acquisition policy in that area. The fourth chapter outlines the obligations that the museum institutions have as creators and holders of records in accordance with archival regulations and rules on protecting the cultural heritage.