The making and UN-making of consensus: Institutional inertia in the UNESCO World Heritage Committee

Liuzza, Claudia

doi:10.1017/s0940739121000175

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Important changes include a rapid politicisation of the WHC since the 2010 Brasilia session (Bertacchini et al., 2016) and an increase in diplomatic coercion during sessions (Liuzza & Meskell, 2021). Moreover, the greater role of Asia‐Pacific countries and the concomitant diversification of ideas about heritage have complicated negotiations (Liuzza, 2021, p. 272). Although there is a prevailing sense that politicisation is deepening with the increasing ‘transactionalisation’ of World Heritage and the shift in power away from traditional Western heritage powers such as France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (Liuzza & Meskell, 2021; Meskell, 2018), Brumann argues that the inverse (depoliticisation) has become the norm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese power in the World Heritage Committee: From learning the game to shaping the rules

Langendonk,

Drieskens

2024

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite growing interest in China's use of heritage in its domestic and foreign policies, little is known about how its evolving power affects the multilateral core of the heritage regime. To tackle this gap, we apply Barnett and Duvall's four‐power framework to China's role in the World Heritage Committee (WHC) and heritage issues in UNESCO since the early 2000s. To parse power shifts across the four ideal types of compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive power, we analyse the domestic and international developments that shaped China's relationship with the regime and highlight two episodes of Chinese power at work: the WHC's Suzhou (2004) and Fuzhou (2021) sessions. We argue that China's power potential rose across all four power types and that its potential for exercising structural and productive power is buoyed by the Belt and Road Initiative and the integration of heritage into its foreign policy. We note that China's exercise of power rarely transgresses organisational norms and that it has followed, rather than spurred, the shift to a culture of thinly veiled power politics in the WHC. Nevertheless, we argue that, as an ambitious power in heritage, China shares the responsibility for this outcome and the future of the heritage regime.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese power in the World Heritage Committee: From learning the game to shaping the rules

Langendonk,

Drieskens

2024

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, the need to tackle negative aspects of fisheries is embedded in international, regional and national policy frameworks and action plans (Singh et al, 2018). As with any policies arising from consensus‐driven processes, moving from political ambitions to implementation is an enduring challenge (Armitage et al, 2020; Liuzza, 2021; Sorkar, 2020). A well‐established component of this challenge is interpreting the language of global goals and their associated targets, particularly where texts of agreements, or related resolutions or measures, are legally binding for terms that are vague (King, 2017; UNESCO, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Destructive fishing’—A ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media and policy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term 'destructive fishing' appears in multiple international policy instruments intended to improve outcomes for marine biodiversity, coastal communities and sustainable fisheries. However, the meaning of 'destructive fishing' is often vague, limiting effectiveness in policy. Therefore, in this study, we systematically reviewed the use of 'destructive fishing' in three record types: academic literature, media articles and policy documents between 1976 and 2020. A more detailed analysis was performed on subsets of these records, considering the extent to which the term is characterised, geographic distribution of use, and specific impacts and practices associated with the term. We found that use of 'destructive fishing' relative to the generic term 'fisheries' has increased since the 1990s. Records focussed predominantly on fishing practices in South-eastern Asia, followed by Southern Asia and Europe. The term was characterised in detail in only 15% of records. Habitat damage and blast/poison fishing were the most associated ecological impacts and gear/practices, respectively. Bottom trawling and unspecified net fishing were regularly linked to destructive fishing. Importantly, the three record types use the term differently. Academic literature tends to specifically articulate the negative impacts, while media articles focus generally on associated gears/practices. Significant regional variation also exists in how the term is used and what phenomena it is applied to. This study provides evidence and recommendations to inform stakeholders in any future pursuit of a unified definition of 'destructive fishing' to support more meaningful implementation of global sustainability goals.

show abstract

“…Consequently, the need to tackle negative aspects of fisheries is embedded in international, regional and national policy frameworks and action plans (Singh et al, 2018). As with any policies arising from consensus-driven processes, moving from political ambitions to implementation is an enduring challenge (Armitage et al, 2020;Liuzza, 2021;Sorkar, 2020). A well-established component of this challenge is interpreting the language of global goals and their associated targets, particularly where texts of agreements, or related resolutions or measures, are legally binding for terms that are vague (King, 2017;UNESCO, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Destructive fishing” – a ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media, and policy

Willer¹,

Brian²,

Derrick

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tackling the global problem of 'destructive fishing' is central to the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 'Life Below Water', yet the term remains vague, making it difficult to track and quantify progress. Here we evaluate the frequency and range of uses of the term 'destructive fishing' across the peer reviewed literature and media. Our research elucidated the clear lack of a consensus definition for 'destructive fishing', with only 6 academic articles to date providing a definition, and none of these matching. There is also a mismatch between regions where academia and policy identify fishing practices as 'destructive' and the regions in which the media reports it. There are however clear trends in the types of fishing activity referred to as destructive in the academic literature, media and policy, and the term is used to refer to practices beyond those previously exemplified as 'destructive' in an international policy context. We conclude that further exploration around the definition and scope of this term is warranted. By assembling a culturally and sectorally balanced pool of expert views, future research plans to use an iterative, anonymised approach to constructively address the conceptual vagueness and contention around this term.

show abstract

The making and UN-making of consensus: Institutional inertia in the UNESCO World Heritage Committee

Cited by 8 publications

References 53 publications

Chinese power in the World Heritage Committee: From learning the game to shaping the rules

Chinese power in the World Heritage Committee: From learning the game to shaping the rules

‘Destructive fishing’—A ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media and policy

“Destructive fishing” – a ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media, and policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About