United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization convention concerning the protection of the world


Comments made on paragraph 1 of the Draft Decision



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page9/26
Date31.05.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   26

Comments made on paragraph 1 of the Draft Decision
40. The Delegate of Thailand suggested that the paragraph should read: Recalls that the World Heritage Convention establishes a system of collective protection and conservation of the cultural and natural heritage of universal outstanding value.
41. The Delegate of Egypt, with the support of the Delegates of India and Hungary, stated that the word "collective" is redundant and suggested that the word "international" should remain.
42. The Delegate of Thailand recalled that the word "collective" was used several times in the Preamble of the Convention.
43. The Delegate of Argentina, with the support of the Delegate of Finland, stated that this paragraph was based on Article 7 of the World Heritage Convention. Thus, paragraph 1 should read: Recalls that the World Heritage Convention establishes a system of international co-operation and assistance for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage.
44. The Delegate of Saint Lucia suggested that the words "of outstanding universal value" should be added to the end of the paragraph.
45. The Delegate of Greece noted that the right terminology would be "the world's cultural and natural heritage".
46. The Chairperson read the text as amended by the Committee: Recalls that the World Heritage Convention establishes a system of international co-operation and assistance for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage; and noted the consensus on this text.
Comments made on paragraph 2 of the Draft Decision
47. The Delegate of Thailand suggested that the paragraph should read: Underlines its responsibility to ensure the protection and conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List;
48. The Delegate of Greece proposed that the words of Article 6.2 of the Convention "identification, protection, conservation and preservation" should be included.
49. The Delegate of Thailand and the Delegate of Argentina both stressed that Article 6.2 refers to the responsibility of the States Parties and not of the Committee.
50. The Delegate of Finland remarked that the words "the protection and" were not necessary as the sites were already protected when included on the World Heritage List.
51. The Delegates of Egypt and the Republic of Korea spoke in favour of "protection and conservation".
52. The Delegate of Saint Lucia mentioned that the term "conservation" in the 1980 World Conservation Strategy refers to preservation, protection, sustainable use, etc.
53. The Delegate of the United Kingdom cautioned against the danger of selectively quoting from the Convention. He suggested the words "recognising its obligations under the Convention" as they would cover all the concerns expressed by Committee members.
54. The Delegate of Egypt, supported by the Delegate of India, explained that paragraph 1 speaks of "protection" of all the world's cultural and natural heritage, whereas paragraph 2 should include both protection and conservation as the Committee is concerned with sites inscribed on the World Heritage List.
55. The Delegate of Thailand feared that the meaning of paragraph 2 would be lost with the wording suggested by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.

56. The Delegate of Saint Lucia suggested that the paragraph should read: Underlines its responsibility to ensure the preservation of the integrity of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List;


57. The Chairperson read the text which most Committee members seemed to adhere to: Underlines its responsibility to ensure the protection and conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List; and proclaimed it adopted.
Comments made on paragraph 3 on the Draft Decision
58. The Delegate of Egypt suggested that the word "considered" should be changed for the word "used".
59. The Delegate of Thailand supported the original text.
60. The Delegate of Mexico suggested the following text: Recalls that the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is an expression of international solidarity and not a sanction;
61. The Delegate of Saint Lucia proposed the word "censure" instead of "sanction", but he added that his delegation would accept the view of the majority.
62. The Delegate of Thailand noted that this was not the appropriate wording in legal terms.
63. The Delegate of India suggested that the sentence should stop after "international solidarity".
64. Noting the consensus on this last proposal, the Chairperson read the text as accepted by the Committee: Recalls that the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is an expression of international solidarity;

Comments made on paragraph 4 of the Draft Decision
65. The Delegate of Egypt did not agree with the wording "Commits to seek".
66. The Delegate of Finland proposed to change it for "Reaffirms its co-operation".
67. The Chairperson read the text as accepted by the Committee: Reaffirms its co-operation with States Parties and will establish clearly defined procedures for consultation with States Parties on measures for the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties;
Comments made on paragraph 5 of the Draft Decision
68. The Delegate of Argentina, supported by the Delegate of the United Kingdom, stated that this paragraph did not mention where the resources were to come from and that these resources should not be taken from assistance activities such as capacity-building. She also mentioned that this paragraph might be misunderstood by some countries who might interpret this as an invitation to include their sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger as funding will be provided. She suggested that the paragraph should read as follows: Considers that the conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger should be adequately funded.
69. The Delegate of Thailand proposed the following text: Decides to give priority and to allocate its resources to properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
70. The Delegate of Egypt recommended that another paragraph be added to include mention to a separate budget line being created. He did not consider a footnote sufficient.
71. The Delegate of Saint Lucia did not consider that this was the most appropriate place to decide the creation of a special budget line. She drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that such a budget line was proposed in the new structure of the budget (working document WHC-02/CONF.202/13 D Rev). She concluded, receiving the support of the Delegates of Argentina and Nigeria, that this should be addressed during the discussion on the budget.
72. The Chairperson read the text as accepted by the Committee: Considers that the conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger should be adequately funded.
Comments made on paragraph 6 of the Draft Decision
73.1 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that he had no difficulties with paragraphs 6 (a) or 6 (c). On paragraph 6(b), he stated that his Delegation believes that the wording of the Convention gives clear support to the principle of State sovereignty and that the obscure wording of Article 11.4 cannot be considered to be a major derogation from what is clearly established elsewhere in the Convention as a principle on which the Convention is based. Therefore, he commented that his Delegation could not accept that there is an inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger when there is an objection from the State Party.
73.2 He acknowledged the different interpretation presented by the UNESCO Legal Adviser. He suggested that the Committee should acknowledge that the Committee has the right to tell any State Party that its sites are in danger, but that the inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger cannot take place if the State Party expressly objects. Thus, the explicit consent of the State Party is not required, and indeed this would take account of situations where there is a power vacuum in the State Party.
73.3 Therefore, the Delegate of United Kingdom suggested the following drafting for paragraph 6 (b): In cases of urgent need the Committee may advise a State Party that a site is in Danger, and it may inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger unless the State Party concerned expressly objects to such an inscription.
74.1 The Delegate of Nigeria expressed his agreement with paragraphs 6 (a) and 6 (c). However, he commented that paragraph 6 (b) is the core of the discussion and that the issue of State sovereignty was involved here. He commented that his impression was that during the discussion on this subject generally there was consensus that State sovereignty be respected. At the same time, there is a need for the Committee to ensure that the sites in danger are protected. He remarked that a mechanism for arbitration would be necessary, as mentioned by the Legal Adviser. He said that there is a need to ensure that State Party co-operation is provided. He proposed that the Committee establish clear criteria and parameters for defining cases of urgent need. It is important to determine what is urgent, and the different levels of urgency such as very urgent, casually urgent, ultimately urgent. He asked that the words "without the consent of the State Party" be removed from this paragraph.
74.2 He recommended that this paragraph should be modified according to the proposal made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom and that mention should also be made to the existence of mechanisms which ensure the co-operation and collaboration between the Committee and the State Party before the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The inscription would only come after this negotiation and not before as this might lead to unnecessary confrontation.
74.3 Thus, he proposed the following text for paragraph 6 (b): In cases of urgent need, the Committee may draw the attention of the State Party to the World Heritage property which is in Danger and advise the State Party of the procedure to be adopted for the listing on the List of World Heritage in Danger. A mechanism must be prepared and provided for arbitration to ensure that the State sovereignty as well as the principle of preservation are equitably maintained. The Committee should establish clear criteria and parameters for defining cases of urgent need.
75. The Delegate of Thailand stated that he could not agree nor accept the proposals made by the Delegates of the United Kingdom and Nigeria. If those amendments are accepted then the system of international protection and conservation of cultural and natural property would be ineffective which is contrary to the spirit and the wording of the Convention. He suggested that the spirit of paragraph 6 (b) should be kept, although the wording could be changed to make it easier to read.
76. The Delegate of Egypt said that this was not only a matter of legal wording, but that there are political and practical considerations and that the issue of State sovereignty should not be disregarded. He said that the Committee should understand the sensitivity of certain countries as this can sometimes be used as a political issue and as a means of political pressure. He supported the proposal made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
77. The Delegate of Greece stated that her Delegation accepted paragraph 6 (b).
78. The Delegate of Portugal proposed that at the end of paragraph 6(c) the following words be added: "Whenever possible the State Party should be previously informed of the procedure undertaken."
79. The Chairperson asked the Committee whether it would be willing to accept paragraph 6(a) as it now stands, without amendment.
80. The Observer of the United States suggested that the first sentence of paragraph 6(a) should read: Under ordinary circumstances the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger presupposes that a request for assistance has been submitted by the State Party to the Committee under the Convention.
81. The Chairperson asked the Committee whether it would be willing to accept paragraph 6(a) as amended by the Observer of the United States.
82. The Delegate of Egypt asked to see the amendments in written form.
83. The Delegate of India commented that even though the Convention requires that the State Party where the site is situated be the one to request assistance, in practice she did not think that in previous cases the sites had been inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger following a request from the State Party for assistance.
84. The Chairperson asked the Committee whether it would be ready to accept paragraph 6 (c) including the amendment suggested by the Delegate of Portugal.
85. The Delegate of Egypt stated that the first part of the last sentence of paragraph 6(c) was still a problem. He said that deletion of a property from the World Heritage List must be in concert with the State Party as long as its sovereignty on the property is both de jure and de facto. If its sovereignty is only de jure and not de facto, this would be an exceptional case. Therefore, when referring to paragraph 6(b), and specifically to the term "cases of urgent need", he said that he had difficulty understanding what is urgent need, and need for whom and by whom. Moreover, he said that this is not a case of urgent need, it is a case of "exceptional circumstances", as this is opposite of ordinary circumstances. Thus, paragraph 6(c) should start with the words "In exceptional circumstances". He stated that the second line of paragraph 6 (b) is also not acceptable to his Delegation.
86. The Delegate of India suggested an amendment to the proposal made by the Delegation of Portugal on paragraph 6(c) so that it reads: "In all cases the State Party should be previously informed of the procedure undertaken."
87. The Delegate of Thailand accepted the proposal made by the Delegation of Portugal on paragraph 6(c).
88. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea asked whether the Committee could resolve this issue without changing the World Heritage Convention or the Operational Guidelines.
89. The Delegate of Saint Lucia stated that she did not agree with the comments made by the Delegate of Egypt on deletion from the World Heritage List as this was one of the prerogatives of the World Heritage Committee.
90. The Delegate of Nigeria stated that both paragraphs 6 (b) and (c) involve the status of States Parties and it would be advisable to consider the proposal made by the Delegation of Portugal in both these paragraphs.
91. The Delegate of Greece stated that the Committee had opened the discussion on the Operational Guidelines. Furthermore, the draft revised Operational Guidelines provide clear procedure for the deletion of World Heritage properties. Thus, she suggested that this discussion should be restricted to the political framework.
92. The Delegation of Zimbabwe stressed the importance of discussing these issues in the context of the revision of the Operational Guidelines. He acknowledged the consensus found in previous discussions with regard to the balance between State Party sovereignty and the future of World Heritage. He considered the two are not incompatible and it is important to have a final text which reflects this.
93. The Delegate of Finland said that his Delegation could agree with the proposal made by the Delegation of the United Kingdom, but he proposed another draft for paragraph 6(b)in order to look for a compromise solution: In cases of urgent need, a property may be inscribed on the List without the consent of the State Party. If the State Party concerned expressly objects to such an inscription, this inscription should be held in abeyance while an appropriate mechanism for obtaining the co-operation of the State Party is found.
94. The Delegate of India supported the comments made by the Delegate of Greece on paragraph 6 (c), and asked to maintain the element of consultation during the process of deletion from the World Heritage List, as reflected in the draft revised Operational Guidelines.
95. The Delegate of Belgium expressed his surprise that notwithstanding the fact that the Committee had discussed these issues for several years, that legal advice on this subject had been requested and provided and that during the present Committee session a certain consensus had been obtained, the discussion was now at odds with everything. He stated that paragraph 6 (b) was already a compromise solution prepared on the basis of the discussions at this session. If more were to be compromised, he questioned what would be the outcome. He recalled the strong statements expressed by the Delegate of Thailand and the Observer of France. He questioned the interest of a Convention when States Parties are not willing to give even a minimal part of their sovereignty. He commented that it would be very difficult to reach a conclusion on this subject on the basis of the drafts presented by the Delegates of the United Kingdom and Nigeria.
96. The Delegate of the United Kingdom said that no consensus had been reached previously and his intervention had made this clear. He stressed that the interpretation of the Convention was a matter for the Committee and that there are two main questions in this debate: Does the Convention provide that a site may be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party? Does the Convention provide for the deletion of a site from the World Heritage List without the consent of the State Party? He reiterated the views of his Delegation on both questions, but recognised that there were other interpretations on this matter. To conclude, he said that the business of this Committee was to interpret the Convention.
97. The Delegate of Lebanon agreed with the comments made by the Delegate of Belgium and stated that this wording did not represent any progress and that it would be better to leave things as they now stand in order to avoid discrediting the Convention and the work of the Committee.
98. The Observer of Poland asked for clarification as to what mechanisms of co-operation would be included in paragraph 6 (b).
99.1 The Chairperson replied that paragraph 7 was to deal with this. He commented that the discussion had been very useful with regard to the revision of the Operational Guidelines. Secondly, he said that considering all the contributions, the Committee would be presented with a second draft decision which would include the first five points which were adopted by the Committee. To conclude, he said that all discussions were enriching, but the Committee might not be able to reach a total consensus. A vote might be required on certain issues.
99.2 Due to time constraints, and upon the proposal of the Chairperson, the Committee eventually decided to defer its decision on this item until the extraordinary session of the Committee in 2003 (decision 26 COM 12).





Share with your friends:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   26




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page