The Role of Non-State Actors in Promoting Compliance with the World Heritage Convention: An Empirical Study of Australia's Great Barrier Reef

Many observers view the 1972 United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, as the event that heralded the active involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in international policy making. In the intervening years, NGO participation in international policy making has grown exponentially, as has the number of multilateral environmental conventions, global environmental conferences and other efforts to facilitate a global governance of the human environment. The increasing numbers of NGOs with a stake in global environmental politics has been well documented, as has the presence at multilateral negotiations and their influence on negotiation outcomes (Betsill and Corell 2008). This paper examines the role and influence of non-state actors (NSAs) in multinational, supranational and transnational policy making. We have selected three models of rulemaking to help explain the role and influence of NSAs in different governance systems, reflecting developments within global environmental governance over the past three decades. Whereas multinational cooperation remained the model of choice whenever international environmental rules were created until the 1980s, the model has been joined in recent years by supranational and transnational rulemaking models. We begin by briefly reviewing the three models before presenting three case studies. In the first we examine how NSAs brought their influence to bear in a particular case of multinational environmental negotiations: the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This should shed light on some of the conditions that allow NGOs to exert such a high degree of influence in multinational policy-making processes. Next we explore the role and influence of NSAs in the making of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS). This is a prime example of supranational policy making, and serves to demonstrate the complexity of assessing the influence of NSAs in a dense institutional context. Focusing on social and environmental certification programs, the third case examines a growing tendency for NSAs to act as transnational rule makers in policy areas where states have been unwilling or unable to provide governance. Three Models of Rule Making and the Role of Non-State Actors In multinational cooperation, here represented by the IWC, member states enjoy in principle full authority. The legitimacy of rule-making is ensured by consent between sovereign states based on international law. In this liberal intergovernmental rule-making model, NSAs belong to the set of domestic special interest organizations with sufficient clout to influence negotiating positions. Of course, their efforts to influence negotiation positions meet with varying success; nation-states always have the final word. In supranational cooperation, in this paper represented by the EU ETS scheme, nationstates have transferred some of their sovereignty to other actors. In the EU case, this is most visible is the rules on qualified majority voting, co-decision making by the European Parliament and the policy-initiating role of the Commission. In short, as the consent of a state in itself is sometimes wanting in terms of legitimacy, there need additional sources of

World Heritage Convention at Fifty Years Old:Shifting to Outstanding Heritage Management Practices Eugene Jo (bio) and Webber Ndoro (bio) KEYWORDS UNESCO, World Heritage Convention Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. The 43rd session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 1 Jul 2019. © Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan/M. Ragimov. [End Page 250] The World Heritage label emanates from the 1972 UNESCO Convention. The Convention is the instrument that is mostly used for celebrating the world's heritage, of Outstanding Universal Value. To most governments it is seen as an instrument of recognition and an arena for competition among other countries. As an international convention, its most important decision-making body is the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee. The Committee is formulated of twenty-one States Parties elected at the General Assembly, generally serving for a four-year mandate. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre is the Secretariat to the Convention. Experts, particularly the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee, see the Convention as a tool to better practice the conservation and management of heritage, which is clearly the intention of the 1972 Convention. Much of these Advisory Bodies' discussions can be aligned to what Laurajane Smith has called "the Authorized Heritage Discourse."1 This is the notion of heritage as a professional (expert) vocabulary, which, by determining the rules of the game, determines what heritage is, what heritage is worth protecting, how it should be protected, and for whom.2 In 2021, thirty-four new sites were added to the World Heritage List, and one was removed because of the threats urban development posed to its conservation management (Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City, UK). With 1,154 sites accumulated on the List over the past fifty years, there is probable cause to assume that at least twenty sites per year will continue to be added in the next decade. The annual meeting held online in July 2021 clearly indicated the current dynamics of the Committee and its various stakeholders, the States Parties of the Committee, the World Heritage Centre (the Secretariat) and the Advisory Bodies to the Committee. The increased politicization of the Committee over the past decade led to the formation of an ad hoc working group to establish a code of conduct. After more than two years of discussions, in 2021 at the Twenty-Third Session of the General Assembly of the World Heritage Convention, the Declaration of Principles to Promote International Solidarity and Cooperation for the Preservation of World Heritage was adopted as a nonbinding text.3 Though the Declaration is meant to apply for all actors involved with the Convention, the discussions were started essentially to address the conduct of States Parties. One illustration of the ongoing political tensions over the past ten years is the Committee's reactions to its Advisory Body's technical recommendations. The Committee has lauded science-based recommendations when they have been in favor of States Parties' interests and has vigorously challenged the legitimacy of those same recommendations when they have not. Although accusations of politicization of the Convention have persisted for [End Page 251] more than a decade, and have been described as detrimental to the credibility of the Committee, the intergovernmental—States Parties—DNA of UNESCO means that the organization and its deliberations will always be inherently political.4 The UNESCO Global Strategy, which calls upon the World Heritage List to be representative, balanced, and credible, is a problematic directive, considering the inherently political nature of the States Parties system.5 It is not clear how the objectives of the strategy are to be achieved: Is it through numbers per country or per region or even per area? What is the yardstick to indicate success or failure? UNESCO's own program Priority Africa cannot be judged apolitical. It is important for UNESCO to recognize that political issues will always dominate its deliberations. Hence, rather than denigrating the political nature of the Committee, the World Heritage Centre (WHC) needs to play a more active diplomatic role as Secretariat in ensuring that contentious issues between the States Parties and the Advisory Bodies are resolved prior to and between Committee meetings. This...

Cyberwarfare has become one of the most prominent aspects of global geopolitical competition, introducing a new dimension of conflict involving states and non-state actors. Although research on the role of states in cyber warfare has been amplacious, research on the role of non-state actors is still limited. This study aims to analyze the role and impact of non-state actors in global cyber warfare. In cyber warfare, non-state actors can exploit the vulnerabilities of security systems to achieve their political or ideological goals, changing geopolitical dynamics in unexpected ways. Case studies raised in this study include cyber attacks by Anonymous groups against governments and companies, cyber acts of terrorism by ISIS, manipulation of information by extremist groups to achieve their political goals, and the use of digital propaganda in regional conflicts. By paying attention to the concept of force and security in the perspective of realism, this research is expected to provide a better understanding of how non-state actors influence global geopolitical dynamics through cyber warfare. The implication of this research is the importance of strengthening national cyber defense and international cooperation in the face of threats presented by non-state actors in the cyber domain.

This book provides a critical assessment of the broadly held view that states ‘own’ war. The central theme of the book is that the persistence of non-state actors in historical as well as contemporary conflicts challenges this narrative. It takes a multidisciplinary approach to address a host of questions concerning the role of non-state actors, both armed and unarmed, in conflict and their relationship with states. Recurring themes are issues of loyalty, accountability and effectiveness. Part I is subdivided into two separate themes. The first is the use of civilians in war from a legal and military operational perspective, the second the question of loyalty and accountability of the private sector. Part II considers the cases of several non-state armed actors from the past and the present, showcasing the variety of actors and roles they play. Together, the contributions to this book provide an important new perspective on the role of non-state (armed) actors in war.

This chapter engages the key legal debates surrounding the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in climate law. NSAs—a wide category that reflects the expansion of international climate governance beyond the state—include entities as diverse as individuals, companies, international organizations, industry associations, cities, indigenous peoples, and civil-society organizations. Over the past decades, and especially since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the many roles of NSAs in addressing climate change have attracted significant interest from treaty negotiators, business man-agers, environmental activists, policymakers, and researchers. Seen as performing vital functions ranging from innovation and agenda-setting to implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, NSAs are widely considered as bringing about dynamic forms of climate governance. The potential of direct mitigation effort by NSAs, such as voluntary emission-reduction commitments by companies and cities, is similarly highlighted as a key component in any future solution to climate change. The growing climate action by NSAs forces a rethink of the legal underpinnings of the climate regime and opens new perspectives on the logic of NSA-driven climate governance. This chapter discusses the legal dynamics of non-state climate governance. Using three archetypical NSAs—companies, cities, and civil-society organizations—as proxies, the chapter isolates three primary debates that frame the interactions between NSAs and climate law. These debates focus on the responsibility of NSAs for causing climate change, the legal techniques of NSA governance, and the role of NSAs as agents of legal change and they reflect the rise of polycentric climate governance and illustrate the expansion of climate law beyond its original emphasis on states. However, the discussion also exposes the difficulties that emerge when embedding different NSAs in a single conceptual frame, as well as the limits of NSA-driven governance more broadly.

Contents: Part I Introduction and Sources: Non-state actors in the international system of states, Bob Reinalda The Yearbook of International Organizations and quantitative non-state actor research, Elizabeth Bloodgood Researching transnational history: the example of peace activism, Thomas Richard Davies The United Nations Intellectual History Project and the role of ideas, Francis Baert. Part II Actors Other than Governments:Transnational religious actors, John T.S. Madeley and Jeffrey Haynes Transnational corporations and the regulation of business at the global level, Karsten Ronit Unravelling the political role of experts and expertise in the professional services industry, Angela Wigger Parliaments and parliamentarians as international actors, AndrA(c)s Malamud and Stelios Stavridis Autonomous agencies of the European Union as non-state actors, Martijn Groenleer. Part III Perceptions and Understanding: Liberal political philosophy: the role of non-state actors and considerations of global justice, Geoff Gordon and Roland Pierik Non-governmental organizations and non-state actors in international law, Anna-Karin Lindblom Intergovernmental organizations in international relations theory and as actors in world politics, Joel E. Oestreich Inter-organizational relations: an emerging research programme, Rafael Biermann Civil society and NGO: far from unproblematic concepts, Norbert GA tz Non-state and state actors in global governance, Martin Koch Limitations of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, Dennis Dijkzeul and William E. DeMars. Part IV Nature and Impact: Non-state actors and the transformation of diplomacy, Brian Hocking Dynamism and resilience of intergovernmental organizations in a world of persisting state power and rising non-state actors, Yves Schemeil International bureaucracies: organizing world politics, Steffen Bauer and Silke Weinlich Interest representation and advocacy within the European Union: the making of democracy?, Sabine Saurugger From agenda setting to decision making: opening the black box of non-governmental organizations, Liesbet Heyse Non-governmental organizations and decision making in the United Nations, Jutta Joachim The ongoing organizational reform of the United Nations, Yves Beigbeder Reporting and peer review in the implementation of international rules: what role for non-state actors?, Thomas Conzelmann Accountability of public and private international organizations, Steve Charnovitz Non-state actors and the proliferation and individualization of international dispute settlement, Eric De Brabandere. Part V Separate Worlds: Politics and the world of humanitarian aid, Wolf-Dieter Eberwein Non-governmental organizations in the human rights world, Anja Mihr Non-state actors in the global security world, Carolyn M. Stephenson Non-state actors in the development aid world as seen from the South, Moushumi Basu Cities for citizens in the global South: approaches of non-governmental organizations working in urban development, Diana Mitlin Non-state actors in the global health world, Peter Hough Non-state actors in multilateral trade governance, Dirk De BiAvre and Marcel Hanegraaff Non-state actors and environmental governance: comparing multinational, supranational and transnational rule making, Lars H. Gulbrandsen, Steinar Andresen and Jon Birger SkjA|rseth Bibliography Index.

This article analyses the application of the 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (the WHC) in the context of the armed conflicts that have taken place in the Virunga National Park (the Park), a natural world heritage site in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). Instead of addressing wartime environmental damage under the law of armed conflict, this article seeks to establish how such damage can be addressed using multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). MEAs often consist of general principles and vague obligations and their relevance or applicability during situations of armed conflict may be questioned. However, a number of MEAs, including the WHC, authorise their convention bodies to develop detailed and substantive obligations applicable to their parties. Thus, the decisions and recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee, a body established under the WHC, provide substantive content to the provisions of the WHC. These decisions and recommendations may, however, run counter to the requirements of military necessity thereby affecting the application of the law of armed conflict. While the position adopted by the World Heritage Committee does not inevitably imply a clash between the obligations in the WHC and the law of armed conflict, it does raise the question of whether the outstanding values of world heritage should trump the rules of military necessity and other pressing concerns during armed conflict. On an informal basis, the World Heritage Committee and the UN peacekeeping forces deployed in the DRC have agreed to perform operations that jointly address the interconnected concerns of security and conservation of natural resources in the region of the Park. This cooperative ‘green-keeping’ operation represents a useful approach to regime interaction and the harmonisation of obligations set out in different legal regimes that are applicable to the same subject matter.

This article analyses the application of the 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (the WHC) in the context of the armed conflicts that have taken place in the Virunga National Park (the Park), a natural world heritage site in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). Instead of addressing wartime environmental damage under the law of armed conflict, this article seeks to establish how such damage can be addressed using multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). MEAs often consist of general principles and vague obligations and their relevance or applicability during situations of armed conflict may be questioned. However, a number of MEAs, including the WHC, authorise their convention bodies to develop detailed and substantive obligations applicable to their parties. Thus, the decisions and recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee, a body established under the WHC, provide substantive content to the provisions of the WHC. These decisions and recommendations may, however, run counter to the requirements of military necessity thereby affecting the application of the law of armed conflict. While the position adopted by the World Heritage Committee does not inevitably imply a clash between the obligations in the WHC and the law of armed conflict, it does raise the question of whether the outstanding values of world heritage should trump the rules of military necessity and other pressing concerns during armed conflict. On an informal basis, the World Heritage Committee and the UN peacekeeping forces deployed in the DRC have agreed to perform operations that jointly address the interconnected concerns of security and conservation of natural resources in the region of the Park. This cooperative ‘green-keeping’ operation represents a useful approach to regime interaction and the harmonisation of obligations set out in different legal regimes that are applicable to the same subject matter.

Climate change is increasingly threatening World Heritage (WH) properties and their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Climate change impacts the attributes that collectively contribute to the OUV; these attributes can be natural (e.g., seagrass) or cultural (e.g., monuments). A recent UNESCO report showed that seagrass habitats within WH properties are estimated to hold 25% of the global seagrass blue carbon asset. Globally, seagrass habitats provide a wide range of benefits to adjacent ecosystems and coastal human communities, yet they have been declining due to direct anthropogenic and climate change stressors. However, the UNESCO report did not provide any information about the relative importance of the attribute “seagrass habitats” toward the OUV and associated communities of WH properties, nor about their conservation status. This study builds upon this previous work by assessing the relative importance of seagrass habitats toward the values of WH properties and by reviewing the current knowledge about the conservation status, threats, monitoring, and management of seagrass habitats within WH properties. Seagrass was identified as an attribute of Very High or High importance to 9 of 28 WH properties. Through analysis of UNESCO documents and scientific literature, we highlight the lack of research, monitoring, and management instruments addressing the protection of seagrass from climate change impacts within these 28 WH properties. Notably, climate change threats to WH seagrass habitats are poorly addressed within WH documentation. The insufficient analysis and reporting of climate impacts on seagrass within WH properties point to an underestimation of the value of this marine ecosystem broadly.

The World Heritage Convention provides a powerful platform to develop and test new tools for sustainable development. However, the Convention comes with its own unique complications. This paper highlights the challenges inherent in nominating the Barotse Plains Cultural Landscape (BPCL) as a World Heritage property. One of the major motivations behind the proposed inscription was the potential strengthening of the cultural identity of the Lozi people and the recognition of this culture at an international level. The BPCL was submitted for World Heritage nomination in 2013 under World Heritage Criteria (iii), (v) and (vi). IUCN, in its evaluation and recommendation, stressed the importance of the natural values of the site and proposed to extend the boundary to include all key attributes. In addition, the ICOMOS evaluation found that all three proposed criteria had not been met, and there were concerns about mining explorations. The World Heritage Committee has often espoused the philosophy that World Heritage Sites, first and foremost, need to be protected, rather than be a source for economic gain. In Zambia, the authorities feel that they have to decide between conservation and development and fear that World Heritage inscription will prevent any major economically charged development. In conclusion, it is obvious that there is a major divide between development and conservation interests in the BPCL, leaving Zambia in a dilemma thereby jeopardizing its potential for nomination as a World Heritage property. Therefore, a broader integrated approach to planning for conservation and development is needed.

This chapter examines the role of non-state actors in promoting compliance with climate change instruments and finds that their contribution has been substantial. Non-state actors are proven enforcers – sometimes more effective than states. Climate cases brought by non-state actors to non-climate institutions help to demonstrate this point, and effective mechanisms for non-state access to compliance are modeled within multilateral environmental agreements ranging from Aarhus to NAFTA. The author argues that the role of non-state actors should be expanded as climate change frameworks evolve and compliance mechanisms are strengthened. Leaving the public without standing within formal enforcement mechanisms misses a critical opportunity to promote compliance.

Over the past thirty years since the Great Barrier Reef was recognised as a World Heritage Site, it has been estimated that coral cover has declined by over 50%. Today, a lethal cocktail of climate change, ocean acidification and coastal development threatens the conservation and preservation of the Great Barrier Reef for both present and future generations. Despite this outlook, the Australian Government has approved plans for a project, colloquially described by environmental organisations as the “world’s biggest coal port”, to be built adjacent to the World Heritage Site. This development at Abbot Point, and the associated construction of new coal mines in the Galilee Basin, will facilitate the release of an additional 900 Million tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. As well as contributing to climate change, the dredging required for this project will also have an immediate, direct impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, yet marine scientists contend that the long-term effects of this dredging activity remain unclear. This factual background raises the question as to whether international biodiversity law offers adequate protection to the Great Barrier Reef. To address this question, two further questions must be asked. First, as two major pillars within international biodiversity law, are the Australian Government in breach of their obligations to protect and conserve the Great Barrier Reef under both the World Heritage Convention (WHC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and secondly, are there adequate enforcement mechanisms under both Conventions?

The paper explores the role of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in safeguarding natural and cultural heritage, with a specific focus on sites facing armed conflict. The Convention acts as a global mechanism for the protection and conservation of sites with Outstanding Universal Value. The study investigates the use of ‘soft power’ and ‘nudging’ strategies by the World Heritage Committee to facilitate the restoration of World Heritage Sites facing threats, particularly in the Global South. The analysis is based on the examination of 32 natural sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1984, nine of which are in the Global South and faced with armed conflict. Case studies illustrate how armed conflicts impact biodiversity and the steps taken to recover these sites. The study emphasises the soft power of the World Heritage Convention, backed by diplomatic ties and financial aid, as instrumental in achieving restoration. Nudging is observed in the strategic alignment of choices to encourage conservation efforts. The findings suggest that the World Heritage Committee’s influence extends beyond conservation, contributing to regional development, especially in the Global South. However, challenges persist, and the paper calls for a continuous evolution of the World Heritage Convention’s role in addressing conflicts, development, and climate change to ensure effective global heritage conservation.

This study examined the role of Non State Actors (NSAs) in strengthening the developmental capacity of the state, using a case study of Cross River State, Nigeria. Primary and secondary data on selected constituents of NSAs including Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Privately Owned Companies, Banks, Private Hospitals and Private Schools were analyzed using tables and charts. The results revealed that activities of NSAs significantly enhance the developmental capacity of Cross River State especially in the areas of provision of public services, knowledge and skill acquisition, infrastructural development and employment generation. Besides other recommendations, it was recommended that NSAs and the government should perform complementary roles in enhancing developmental capacity and that the establishment of more NSAs in the rural areas should be encouraged through the provision of special funding and other incentives for NSAs that have their offices in the rural areas.

Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at world heritage sites