Outstanding Universal Value of World Natural Heritage Sites: Definition Issues

The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of outstanding universal value of world heritage sites, which is the supporting category of the entire system of protection of unique natural sites. The paper considers the normative basis for the definition of this concept in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Guidelines for its implementation, the practice of the World Heritage Committee and the acts of its advisory bodies. The tripartite division of the composition of outstanding universal value is critically analyzed and the reasons for its appearance are highlighted. Methods of formalizing the analyzed concept are explored, shortcomings in the formulation of wordings of outstanding universal value are highlighted, and various ways to improve this institution are proposed. The comparative legal method of research is widely used: all the problems discussed in the paper are illustrated by the current law enforcement practice of the World Heritage Committee in reviewing the state of conservation of unique natural objects located in foreign countries. The results obtained are compared with the problems of protecting Russian World Natural Heritage sites.

1. Kolobov R. Yu. Problemy opredeleniya granits obekta vsemirnogo naslediya «Ozero Baykal» // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 113–119.

2. Kolobov R. Yu., Ditsevich Ya. B., Ganeva E. O., Shornikov D. V. Problemy sokhraneniya mezhdunarodno-pravovogo statusa ozera Baykal v svete analiza praktiki isklyucheniya obektov iz Spiska vsemirnogo naslediya (ch. 1) // Pravo i politika. — 2022. — № 6. — S. 1–10. — URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=38174 (data obrashcheniya: 20.07.2023).

3. Rovnyy V. V. Obem i predely priravnivaniya v chastnom prave (okonchanie) // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. — 2014. — № 3. — S. 52–65.

4. Rovnyy V. V. Priravnivanie v chastnom prave (yuridiko-tekhnicheskie sposoby i predely) // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. — 2014. — № 2. — S. 39–53.

5. Arntzen S. Integrity and Uses of Nature // Global Bioethics. — Vol. 14. — № 1. — P. 67–75.

6. Boland P. et al. The politics of World Heritage Sites: city planning, bird shit architecture and European impunity // Territory. Politics, Governance. — 2022. — P. 1–22.

7. Labadi S. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions (Archaeology in Society). — Lanham: Alta Mira Press, 2013. — 204 p.

8. Rybchenko A. A., Kadetova A. V., Williams A. T., Kozyreva E. A. The scenic value of lake Baikal beaches, Russia and tourism development // Ocean and Coastal Management. — 2022. — Vol. 228. — P. 1–18.

9. Schoch D. Whose World Heritage? Dresden’s Waldschlößchen Bridge and UNESCO’s Delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley // International Journal of Cultural Property. — 2014. — Vol. 21. — № 2. — P. 199–223.

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. — № 1. — P. 189–207.

11. Trujillo J. Intersubjectivity and the Sociology of Alfred Shutz // Bulletin d’analyse phenomenologique. — 2018. — Vol. 14. — № 7. — P. 1–30.

12. Tucker H., Carnegie E. World Heritage and the contradictions of «universal value» // Annals of Tourism Research. — 2014. — Vol. 47. — P. 63–76.

13. Woodley S. Ecological Integrity and Canada’s National Parks // Parks Canada Agency. — 2010. — Vol. 27. — № 2. — P. 151–160

14.