Authors’ reply to Peter Bridgewater, ‘Australia resistant to World Heritage in Danger listing? Yes, but … a response to James, Hamman, and Hølleland (2025)’

Chapter 5 introduces one of the 'strongest' sanctioning components of the non-compliance response system, the List of World Heritage in Danger (In Danger List). Originally envisioned as a kind of safeguarding mechanism (or 'fire alarm') and used to galvanise the international community into action, the In Danger List has gradually come to be considered a 'disciplinary instrument', at least in the minds of certain States Parties. Tracing the history of this shift, this chapter builds on existing work in the literature as well as the authors' compliance cases, to further explore the formal use of the In Danger List as well as the informal practice of 'considering' properties for inclusion. The chapter explores how these practices seem to have become institutionalised alongside the more formal In Danger List procedure.

The World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger are prominent examples of listing mechanisms, which have been described as apparatuses in which the reputation of States can rise or fall. As a historically significant player within the World Heritage regime, Australia has both embraced World Heritage as a tool for global conservation, whilst, at the same time, engaged in protracted political and diplomatic campaigning against In Danger listings for its own sites. In this paper, we critically explore and theorise Australia’s resistance to the List of World Heritage in Danger through the concept of ‘face’, addressing how one State Party’s fear of losing face became deeply intertwined with regime’s need to save its institutional face, and foreshadowing broader phenomena of such resistance in the World Heritage regime.

The role and significance of lists of natural objects that are threatened by their ecological state is considered. The List of World Heritage in Danger is analyzed as the most famous “red” environmental list. The problems of including objects in this List are considered, in particular, the opposition of the States on whose territory the corresponding objects are located; the consequences of such inclusion are determined; the conclusions obtained are illustrated by the practice of including objects from different states in the List. The Montreux Record, which is rarely analyzed in modern legal science, receives coverage (List of Ramsar wetlands of international importance where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference). The procedure for including objects in it is revealed, some reasons are identified that determine the problems with the insufficient effectiveness of this environmental mechanism, in particular, the need to obtain the consent of the relevant state to include wetland in the Record, as well as competition with the reporting mechanisms of states under Article 3 of the Convention on Wetlands. Proposals are formulated on the need to form a “red” list in relation to specially protected natural territories included in the international network of biosphere reserves. Based on the results of the study, an instrumental attitude to international “red” environmental lists is proposed, as mechanisms capable of solving individual environmental problems.

This article highlights the widespread use of listing as a tool in environmental protection, drawing attention to various types of lists established under international legal instruments. It provides statistical data on properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and analyzes the historical context of its emergence. Particular attention is given to the pivotal role of the international campaign to rescue the Temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel and the Sanctuary of Isis on Philae Island, which significantly contributed to the establishment of the global system for the protection of World Heritage. The legal foundations for inclusion on the List, as set out in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, are examined. The article underscores the critical importance of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention, offering a retrospective analysis of their provisions regarding the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Special emphasis is placed on the decisions of a general nature adopted by the World Heritage Committee, which play a key role in shaping policy in this area, as well as on the technical and methodological documents developed by its advisory bodies. The evolution of the principle of state consent in the inscription process is explored, along with the circumstances that prompted a shift in approach. The article discusses instances where individual states strongly opposed the designation of sites on their territory as “in danger.” It also analyzes the practice of inscription based on the occurrence of specific conditions outlined by the World Heritage Committee, identifying the criteria used to assess the expected state of conservation of a property and the development of corrective action plans. Additionally, the article highlights the potential for financial institutions, including those in the banking sector, to suspend funding for high-risk projects that could lead to a site being placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Ultimately, the Author concludes that a realistic assessment of the List's potential is required, one that takes into account the actual state of the international regulatory framework governing World Heritage conservation.

The Great Barrier Reef is inscribed on the World Heritage List for its natural values, including an abundance of marine life and extraordinary aesthetic qualities. These and the enormous scale of the Reef make it unique and a place of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’. In the twentieth century, protection of the Great Barrier Reef shifted from limiting mechanical and physical impacts on coral reefs to managing agricultural runoff from adjacent mainland to minimise environmental impacts. By the early twenty-first century, it was apparent that threats to the Great Barrier Reef were no longer a local issue. Global warming, more frequent extreme weather events and increased ocean temperatures have destroyed vast swathes of coral reefs. Conservation scientists have begun trialling radical new methods of reseeding areas of bleached coral and creating more resilient coral species. The future of the Great Barrier Reef may depend on genetically engineered corals, and reefs that are seeded, weeded and cultured. This article asks whether the Great Barrier Reef can remain a natural World Heritage site or whether it might become World Heritage in Danger as its naturalness is questioned.

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Australia, covers over 348,000 km 2 of tropical marine ecosystems of global significance. In July 2015, the World Heritage Committee called attention to the cumulative impacts of climate change, poor water quality, and coastal development on the region's outstanding universal value, but stopped short of inscribing the Great Barrier Reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Restoring the region's values is hindered by an environmental decision‐making process that fails to incorporate cumulative impacts, including the climate change impacts of greenhouse gas emissions sourced from one of Australia's largest exports, thermal coal. We identify policy and processes that enable a more comprehensive consideration of the cumulative effects of coal mining by environmental decision‐makers. Implementing cumulative impact assessment requires a collaborative and transparent program of planning and monitoring independent of Government and mine proponents that evaluates local, regional, and global impacts. The future of the Great Barrier Reef depends on transformational change in the cumulative assessment of Australian coal mines.

This chapter discusses Article 11 of the 1972 Convention, which governs the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It explains that clarification is needed of the condition laid down by the article. The request for assistance under the Convention should not be confused with a State Party request concerned for the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The chapter looks into the process of the deletion of a property from the World Heritage List. It explains how the World Heritage Committee is responsible for examining whether or not the property in question should be removed from the World Heritage List.

Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef

The author studies UNESCO’s activities in the cultural sphere, especially the protection and preservation of cultural heritage around the world. There is World Heritage List. Sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet the special criteria to be included on this List. Countries are trying to include their cultural objects for protection. Cultural heritage is architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature groups of buildings which are of outstanding universal value. The World Heritage Committee is responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention («Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage»,1972), gives financial assistance and decides on the listing or deletion of properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The List of World Heritage in Danger informs the international community of threat and to encourage corrective action. Special attention was given to European cultural and natural sites which are in this list. These are sites in Serbia (Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (2006)), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (2012)), Austria (Historic Centre of Vienna (2017)). This article focuses on the reasons for listing in the List of World Heritage in Danger (different conflicts, war, natural disasters, pollution, poaching, uncontrolled urbanization, tourist development etc.). Author outlines problems of protection world cultural heritage that need to be solved in the future. International community can help in this problem because each site in World Heritage List has outstanding universal value in our life. The author emphasizes on high importance of cultural sphere of the UNESCO’s activities.

The article makes up for the lack of scientific attention to the practice of fulfilling international obligations for the protection of World Heritage sites abroad, an in–depth analysis of which is carried out, first of all, in the framework of considering ways to overcome the threatening state of the Baikal ecosystem, the implementation of the plans of the Mongolian government to erect a cascade of hydraulic structures on the main tributary of Lake Baikal – the transboundary Selenga River within the territory of Mongolia. Everglades National Park was chosen as the object of research. The choice of this specially protected natural area is due, among other things, to the fact that this object has twice been included in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and is in it at the time of the creation of this article, while being included in the Montreux Record. The subject of the study is the practice of legal protection of the specified world Heritage site by the mechanisms of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Based on the study of foreign scientific literature, as well as the original texts of legal documents, the main problems threatening the ecosystem of the Everglades National Park, as well as the importance of the activities of the World Heritage Committee in its preservation, are considered. Separately, the influence of internal political processes in the United States on the exclusion and re-inclusion of an object located on the territory of the state in the List of World Heritage under Threat is noted. According to the results of the study, effective economic and legal mechanisms for the protection of unique natural objects are identified, which can potentially be used in the Russian Federation to solve the problems of protecting the ecosystem of Lake Baikal (purchase of land plots by the state; inclusion of objects in the List of World Heritage under threat, etc.).

In the face of increasing frustration with the tepid, and largely feckless, national and international institutional responses to the growing threat of climate change, many governments, as well as non‐governmental actors, have either initiated or are exploring potential causes of action in judicial and quasi‐judicial fora. This article explores one of these recent actions, the petitions before the World Heritage Committee requesting listing of several sites listed as World Heritage Sites under the World Heritage Convention on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The article explores the contours of the petitions filed to the Committee, the potential implications of listing of sites threatened by climate change on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the merits of the legal arguments advanced in opposition to such listings.

This paper examines the modes of persuasion deployed throughout the decision-making processes of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Through long-term ethnographic, archival and quantitative research, we reveal how the lofty goals of global conservation are elided by national interests and alliance-building. What unfolds in annual meetings is a range of state-to-state threats and exactions, often masquerading as consensus, that guarantees certain heritage sites are inscribed on the World Heritage List or, alternatively, rescued from the List of World Heritage in Danger – all of which remain indifferent to conservation status. We begin by providing the background to the political landscape of UNESCO’s flagship World Heritage programme and then describe various modes of coercive diplomacy. We demonstrate how different pathways to persuasion further the goals of specific nations to secure the World Heritage brand by employing international political pressure and policy substitution, often undermining the very tenets of preservation. Such tactics effectively undercut the implementation of expert advice and conservation measures, thereby ‘gaming the system’ to new levels.

Since the 1970s, the Reef has been a site where Australian environmental policy has flourished, mirroring global environmental policy seeking to ‘balance’ human activity through ‘ecologically sustainable development’. The article examines the parallel and intersecting processes of modern environmental policy and news media practice in the context of the Reef to unveil how Australia's news media are communicating critical moments in the protection of the Reef. Through two key conservation moments – the 1981 World Heritage Listing and the 2012 threat to place the Reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger – the article examines the role of news media in different geographic contexts, highlighting the complex politics of protection from early conservation campaigns to the contemporary era of protecting the Reef in the context of global environmental crisis. We identify how ecologically sustainable development discourses can be used to communicate positions that challenge and discredit policy initiatives aimed at protecting natural environments.

Since Arab Spring, Islamic terror organisations have spread violence of cataclysmic proportions against civilian lives, infrastructure and cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean. Out of the 82 UNESCO World Heritage sites in the Arab region, 17 are on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to armed conflict. Prior to 2011, Syria displayed some of the most important cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean with twelve sites inscribed on the World Heritage Tentative List and six sites included in the UNESCO World Heritage list: the Ancient City of Damascus (1979), the Ancient City of Bosra (1980), the Site of Palmyra (1980), the Ancient City of Aleppo (1986), Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (2006), and the Ancient Villages of Northern Syria or Dead Cities (2011). As of 2013 these six sites have been moved to the list of World Heritage in Danger. As the conflict has progressed since 2011, the six UNESCO World Heritage sites are now either destroyed or severely damaged. At the same time, it has not been only the UNESCO World Heritage sites that have been affected by the ongoing hostilities but other national and local Syrian heritage sites that are essential to the cultural identity of the Syrian people too (Cunliffe et al. 2014).

The selection of World Heritage in Danger as a theme, more specifically, the factors of risk that threaten Cultural sites, derives from the understanding that the sense of loss is a strong promoter of heritage safeguard. With the present article, we have as main goal the realization of a critical reflection on endangered world heritage sites through a multinational perspective, based on the analysis of three case studies that can illustrate some of the main threats that harm cultural sites. For that end, several sources will be addressed from international documents like Conventions and national decrees, but also the documentation available on UNESCO’s Official Website. The essence of the research will focus on the evolution of heritage safeguard mainly from the 70s of the 20th century, and until the 2nd decade of the 2000s. The present text aims to contribute to a global and more humanized perspective on World Heritage in peril. It also intends to innovate through the recognition that the sense of loss is a major promoter of the protection of endangered sites.