General Assembly Resolution #9 “Protecting Places of Cultural Significance” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Finding that, while the titular aim of GA#9 may be noble, its implementation is fatally flawed and insufficiently respectful of national sovereignty,
Recognising that GA#9 outlines a three-step process by which the World Landmarks Oversight Board (WLOB) registers World Cultural Landmarks (WCLs):
-
it receives requests by member states for sites to be registered as WCLs, as this is “the sole process by which [WCLs] may be established” (Article 3),
-
it ensures that no sites other than “defined protected places,” meaning “places of cultural significance” as defined in Article 1, are registered (Article 2), and
-
it is tasked with “[o]verseeing the evaluation, selection, establishment, and removal of” WCLs, with no restrictions imposed upon it in discharging these duties, other to ensure that only “defined protected places” which have been nominated by the appropriate member may be registered (Article 2a),
Observing that member states have no meaningful sovereign involvement in the process of registering or deregistering WCLs beyond nominating sites for registration, because:
-
there is no guarantee that any nominated site will be registered, even if it is a place of cultural significance, given WLOB’s extensive Article 2a oversight powers,
-
in contrast to the “sole process” for registration established by Article 3, that Article’s parallel deregistration process is not also proclaimed the sole process for deregistration, which - combined with WLOB’s Article 2a powers - means that WLOB can suddenly and arbitarily deregister even well-maintained WCLs, and
-
while Article 2e tasks WLOB with “[e]ncouraging the further expansion” of WCLs, Article 3 requires WLOB to only register new WCLs if members “nominate locations within their jurisdictions” for such purposes; therefore, sites may be registered as WCLs not because the nominating member genuinely believes they are worthy of preservation, but rather because WLOB pressured them to seek registration to meet its own stated goal of “further expansion” of WCLs,
Emphasising that the dual mandate for WCL site protection - by which Article 4 requires member states “to take reasonable measures to identify, protect, and preserve all [WCLs] within their own jurisdiction,” while Article 2b tasks WLOB with “[e]nsuring the proper protection, administration, and maintenance of” WCLs - defeats GA#9’s stated intention of “[d]efending the freedom of World Assembly nations to safeguard” culturally significant sites, because it:
-
incentivises WLOB to intervene in member states to require actions to be taken to protect WCLs within their jurisdiction, even if (for example) the member in question or independent archaeological experts have well-founded objections to these actions, or can show that “reasonable measures” have already been taken by that member to protect it,
-
fails to incentivise members to act in earnest to protect their WCLs, because Article 2b requires WLOB to ensure that WCLs are protected and maintained, rather than simply making recommendations; and because Article 2a makes it trivially easy for WLOB to deregister a WCL (or credibly threaten to do so) if that member fails to implement the actions that WLOB prescribes to protect it, even if they are fully compliant with their Article 4 obligations, thus making a mockery of the principle of due deference enshrined in GA#2 “National Sovereignty,” and
-
applies whether a WCL is on the Article 2d “list of [WCLs] at risk,” or is well-kept and in no great danger; in fact, WLOB is not required to do anything extra in relation to WCLs at risk compared to other WCLs (such as offering tailored support or closer monitoring) beyond just keeping a list of them,
Concluding that GA#9 hinders the right of member states to maintain their own WCLs more than it secures it, because it entitles WLOB to force its own ideas of “proper protection” upon them; which may endanger their WCL status and associated Article 2c “designated funds” if not accepted; so risking a vicious cycle where culturally significant sites in need of protection (even at-risk sites that were already not guaranteed dedicated support) fall into decay and disrepair; all because their law-abiding custodians declined to implement WLOB’s demands to gold-plate their already-sufficient protection measures, and
Convinced that it is better to have no resolution at all about the protection of cultural sites than it is to have the target resolution in force, because GA#9 introduces an opaque process by which WCLs can be registered, deregistered, and even micromanaged with only limited substantial involvement by its states parties, while reasonable member states can and will take meaningful steps to properly recognise and protect cultural sites within their jurisdiction as they see fit in the absence of any WA regulation…
The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#9 “Protecting Places of Cultural Significance.”