The trends in the development of the system of protection of unique sites of global significance, created in accordance with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, are analyzed. The significant contribution of the considered legal and institutional mechanisms in the conservation of such sites and the need to strengthen them in the crisis of international relations are noted. The existing problems in the World Heritage protection system are analyzed on the example of the Declaration of principles to promote international solidarity and cooperation to preserve World Heritage, adopted in 2021 at the twenty-third session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention. The persistent imbalance between cultural and natural heritage sites, which is also reflected in the text of the Declaration, is highlighted. A tendency to shift the focus on the selection and inscription processes is identified. There is a divergence between the provisions of the Convention and the practice of its application with regard to the role of the List. One of the serious problems threatening the sustainability of the World Heritage protection system is the systemic divergence between the positions of the World Heritage Committee and its Advisory Bodies. It is stated that there are shortcomings in the work of the Advisory Bodies of the Committee and the need to strengthen the quality of their scientific expertise. The necessity to create a comprehensive national normative-legal framework for the protection of World Natural Heritage in Russia is substantiated. On the example of Lake Baikal the necessity of preliminary scientific assessment of the consequences of changing the protection regime of World Heritage sites is shown. Based on the results of the study, proposals are formulated to improve the list of principles enshrined in the Declaration.

world heritage, international law, world heritage list, world heritage committee, UNESCO

Kolobov Roman Yurievich – Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Assistant Professor of Department of International and Comparative Law, Law Institute, Irkutsk State University (1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation); Researcher of Department of Regional Economic and Social problems, Irkutsk Scientific Centre SB RAS (134, Lermontov st., Irkutsk, 664033, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0000-0003-1488-7530, ResearcherID: H-4644-2016, e-mail: roman.kolobov@gmail.com

Kolobov R. Y. Problems and prospects for the development of the world heritage protection system [Problemy i perspektivy razvitiya sistemy ohrany vsemirnogo naslediya] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2024, no 1(104), pp. 127–133. – DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2024.1.127 (in Russian)

349.6

1. Kolobov R.Yu. Potencial Konvencii ob ohrane vsemirnogo kulturnogo i prirodnogo naslediya dlya social’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Bajkal’skoj prirodnoj territorii [Potential of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage for the socio-economic development of the Baikal Natural Territory]. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald], 2020, no. 2, pp. 100-106. (in Russian)

2. Kolobov R.YU., Ganeva E.O., Kuz’mina V. V. “Krasnye” prirodoohrannye spiski v mezhdunarodnom prave [“Red” environmental lists in International Law]. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald], 2023, no. 1, pp. 107-117. https://doi.org/10.26516/2071-8136.2023.1.107

3. Dailoo S.S., Pannekoek F. Nature and Culture: A New World Heritage Context. International Journal of Cultural Property, 2008, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 25-47. (in Russian)

4. Droste B. The concept of outstanding universal value and its application. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2011, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26-41.

5. Gfeller A.E. Negotiating the meaning of global heritage: ‘cultural landscapes’ in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972-92. Journal of Global History, 2013, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 483-503.

6. Huggins A. Protecting World Heritage Sites from the Adverse Impacts of Climate Change: Obligations for States Parties to the World Heritage Convention. Australian International Law Journal, 2007, vol. 14, pp. 121-136.

7. Khalaf R.W. The Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Continuity and Compatibility as Qualifying Conditions of Integrity. Heritage, 2020, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 384-401.

8. Meskell L. The rush to inscribe: Reflections on the 35th Session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Paris, 2011. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2012, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 145-151.

9. Meskell L., Liuzza C., Beracchini E., Donatella S. Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage: Decision-making, States Parties and political processes. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2015, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 423-440.

10. Taylor J.T. The ascendency of diplomatic expertise and decline of heritage knowledge in world heritage decision-making: The curious case of the Rosia Montana mining landscape’s dual world heritage inscription. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2022, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 189-207.

11. Tucker H., Carnegie E. World heritage and the contradictions of “universal value”. Annals of Tourism Research, 2014, vol. 47, pp. 63-76.