Procedure for Delisting a Site From the World Heritage List: Is Delisting With Consent or Against the Wish of a State Party Possible?

Albrecht, Eike; Gaillard, Bénédicte

doi:10.17265/2328-2169/2015.02.002

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tensions between heritage protection and planned development within World Heritage sites became particularly prominent with the delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List in 2009 as a direct result of the impact of the then newly-constructed Waldschlösschen Bridge (Ringbeck and Rössler 2011). Dresden's delisting indicates that planned developments can negatively impact the value of a World Heritage site to such an extent that UNESCO withdraws the World Heritage status (Albrecht and Gaillard 2015). To assist other World Heritage sites in not being delisted because of the impacts of planned developments, ICOMOS developed a guidance document to enable an effective assessment of potential threats to heritage values (ICOMOS 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines

Patiwael

Groote

Vanclay

2018

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, ICOMOS published its Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment for Cultural World Heritage Properties. By 2016, over 100 Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) had been requested by UNESCO. This paper provides an analytical critique of the HIA Guidelines focusing on their implicit assumptions. We argue that the assumptions in the HIA Guidelines derive from the 'preservation' discourse in heritage management, rather than from the 'conservation' or 'heritage planning' discourses. This is important because the discourse affects the way impacts and their severity are assessed within HIAs, thereby potentially affecting the conclusions reached. We also argue that this framing results in miscommunication and misunderstanding amongst the different stakeholders, about: (1) their perceptions of the nature of heritage value; (2) the perceived purpose of HIA; (3) the way impacts are assessed; and (4) the differing agendas of stakeholders. We recommend that HIA practitioners acknowledge the existence of the various discourses. This could make HIA a more effective heritage management tool. We also consider that for HIAs to be more robust that they be conducted by a multidisciplinary group and with a peer-review mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines

Patiwael

Groote

Vanclay

2018

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UNESCO has, in the past, completely delisted three WHSs: the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in 2007 due to the near-extinction of the oryx population, the Dresden Elbe Valley in 2009 due to bridge construction and Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City due to stadium construction in a redevelopment project. However, the criteria and process for UNESCO’s delisting are often unclear and not explicitly stated, as Albrecht and Gaillard (2015) have noted. The UNESCO Convention (Article 16) and its operational guidelines since the 1980 version discuss the delisting procedure, initiated when a state makes a request.…”

Section: Changes In Public Heritage Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the Operational Guidelines recommend consultation with the WHC before requesting delisting or boundary modifications for a WHS, the necessity for such consultation regarding other changes remains unclear. Furthermore, the Operational Guidelines, as periodically updated flexible working documents, lack regulatory authority (Albrecht & Gaillard, 2015). Therefore, as illustrated by the three cases, the delisting decision ultimately hinges on one crucial factor: the irreversible loss of attributes that convey the OUV of the property.…”

Section: Changes In Public Heritage Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uses of Hagia Sophia: Politics, Heritage and the Imperative for Inclusive Management

Cho

2023

Journal of Heritage Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reconversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque in 2020 created international controversy, and the Erdog˘an administration has been criticized for using it as a political vehicle, abandoning the state’s duties for safeguarding the World Heritage Site. This research will investigate the use of Hagia Sophia by the Republic of Turkey in their national and international politics, and it will demonstrate how both the museum and the mosque settings were oriented by the political needs of the time and affected heritage management: conservation, interpretation and visitor’s accessibility. The purpose of this study is to illustrate that the institutional uses of Hagia Sophia have always been political and to highlight the potential benefit and the continuing social, cultural and educational responsibilities as a living religious heritage site through multigovernmental and international collaboration. Recognizing the limitations of each institutional setting demands an inclusive and strategic management of Hagia Sophia that respects its complex history and diverse values to serve both local and global communities.

show abstract

“…World Heritage site to such an extent that UNESCO withdraws the World Heritage status(Albrecht and Gaillard 2015). To assist other World Heritage sites in not being delisted because of the impacts of planned developments, ICOMOS developed a guidance document to enable an effective assessment of potential threats to heritage values (ICOMOS 2011b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage Impact Assessment for World Heritage sites

Patiwael¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverneamendment. 'Outstanding Universal Value' (OUV), or that were 'so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity' (UNESCO 2019a, p.20). This convention (UNESCO 1972) followed the successful UNESCO campaigns to: relocate the Abu Simbel and Philae temples in Egypt to protect them from being flooded due to the construction of the Aswan High Dam; protect the historic city of Venice, Italy from flooding; rebuild the Borobudur temple compound in Indonesia; and protect the archaeological ruins of Moenjodaro in Pakistan from saline degradation due to a rise of the water level of the Indus River (UNESCO 2021c). The World Heritage Convention slowly became one of the most successful UN conventions after it entered into force on 17 December 1975, Maritime Mercantile City, see Box 1.

show abstract

Procedure for Delisting a Site From the World Heritage List: Is Delisting With Consent or Against the Wish of a State Party Possible?

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines

Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines

Uses of Hagia Sophia: Politics, Heritage and the Imperative for Inclusive Management

Heritage Impact Assessment for World Heritage sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About