Procedure for Delisting a Site From the World Heritage List: Is Delisting With Consent or Against the Wish of a State Party Possible?

As of 2015 (UNESCO, 2015), the over-40-year-old Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) has been ratified by 191 nations, making it a universal and internationally recognised instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. In the meantime, 1007 World Heritage Sites have been inscribed on the World Heritage List (as of February 2015) and two sites have been delisted. This paper discusses the delisting procedure of a site from the World Heritage List based on the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (henceforth OG). First of all, the question of the possibility to delist a site from the World Heritage List, in general, is addressed. And based on this discussion, the necessity of the consent of the State Party to the WHC on whose territory the site to be delisted is located is then examined.

World Heritage Site, delisting, World Heritage in Danger, Dresden Elbe Valley, cultural landscape, World Heritage Convention (WHC), World Heritage Committee, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WHC (OG)

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2005). Treaty law-making and non-treaty law-making: The evolving structure of the international
legal order. In R. Wolfrum, & V. Röben (Eds.), Developments of international law in treaty making (pp. 463-480). Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Gaillard, B. (2014). Conflictive delisting process of a world heritage site in Germany: The case of the Dresden Elbe Valley (Ph.D.
thesis, Brandenburgische Technische Universität, Cottbus, Germany).
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (1977). Operational guidelines for the World Heritage Committee. Retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide77a.pdf
UNESCO. (1980). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide80.pdf
UNESCO. (1994). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee
Eighteenth Session, Phuket, Thailand, WHC-94/CONF.003/16. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2004). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee
Twenty-eighth Session, Suzhou, China, WHC-04/28.COM/26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2006). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee
Thirtieth Session, Vilnius, Lithuania, WHC-06/30.COM/19. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2007). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee
Thirty-first Session, Christchurch, New Zealand, WHC-07/31.COM/24. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2009). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee
Thirty-third Session, Seville, Spain, WHC-09/33.COM. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2009/whc09-33com-summary.pdf
UNESCO. (2013). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide13-en.pdf
UNESCO. (2015). States parties: Ratification status. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf

Von Schorlemer, S. (2008). Compliance with the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Reflections on the Elbe Valley and the
Dresden Waldschlösschen Bridge. German Yearbook of International Law, 51, 321-390.
Zacharias, D. (2010). The UNESCO regime for the protection of world heritage as prototype of an autonomy-gaining international
institution. In A. Bogdandy, R. Wolfrum, J. von Bernstorff, P. Dann, & M. Goldmann (Eds.), The exercise of public authority
by international institutions. Advancing international institutional law (pp. 301-336). Heidelberg: Springer.