A UNIVERSAL WORLD HERITAGE

IDEALISTIC POLICIES SERVING A FRACTURED GLOBE

KAYLEE LINDAHL
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL POLICY
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage

Convention establishes a framework for and outlines all the policies of UNESCO’s World

Heritage Centre. The Convention states that “cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding

interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole”

(World Heritage Committee 1972; emphasis added). From the Convention’s origins to the

present day, the concept of “world heritage” or “universal value” has been disputed by scholars,

politicians, and community members. Unfortunately, even the policies outlined in the

Convention and descriptions in the “World Heritage Information Kit” are unable to explain how

a site can ‘belong’ to all mankind.

To make matters worse, certain processes outlined in the World Heritage Convention’s

Rules of Procedure policy document prevent the institution from achieving its goal of a universal

world heritage. An ever-expanding organization stuck to a single model of governance has

allowed the politicization of World Heritage sites, desecrating the idea of “outstanding universal

value.”

The overarching idea of a shared world heritage is not flawed; there are countless benefits

to understanding another country’s culture. Yet the idealism found in the implementation of this

policy is in direct opposition to the fractured world in which we live. What changes need to be

made in order for this policy to effectively serve the diverse cultures of the world?

This paper will begin by addressing what scholars believe to be the main issues with the

World Heritage Convention. First, is that it is a “western-directed” institution as evidenced by its

origins and the geographic location of World Heritage Sites. Second, even though the

1
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

organization has grown immensely, it has not adjusted its governance practices to account for

such change, resulting in ineffective governance. Third, there are ongoing disagreements about

whose culture is actually being represented, dividing the “west from the rest” and pushing local

communities out of their homes.

Next, this paper will evaluate the World Heritage Convention policy document, paying

particular attention to how it defines and applies the term “universal world heritage.” It will

outline the facts, goals, assumptions, and contradictions of the policy. Finally, it will offer

recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Convention.

Problems of the World Heritage Convention

A “western-directed” institution
On November 16, 1972 twenty states-parties ratified the World Heritage Convention.

Despite the Convention’s policy that “outstanding natural and cultural heritage work to serve

humanity as a whole,” its foundation is western-oriented with a focus on colonialism (Meskell

2018). Discussions leading up to the Convention were heavily influenced by Julian Huxley, first

Director-General of UNESCO. Huxley, as well as other influential Europeans in the international

arena, believed in preserving the colonial lands to assert their superiority and improve European

economic and political influence (ibid). Furthermore, the whole idea of preservation is rooted in

western culture (Kawharu 2009). For example, Nepali craftsmen may prefer to replace rather

than repair cultural structures and Maori communities traditionally would have rather let a

meetinghouse rot or burn to the ground than preserve it (ibid). Colonists hoped to gain influence

and knowledge from such structures, so they had high incentives to preserve them.

2
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

World Heritage Site locations further illustrate the issue of a western-oriented institution.

There are currently 1,097 inscribed World Heritage Sites; 47% of them are in Europe and North

America (UNESCO 2019). The World Heritage General Assembly recently published a new

policy document called the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage with the intent to “increase

awareness and support for World Heritage as well as promote the establishment of new

partnerships” (World Heritage Committee 2002). Included in this new strategy is the goal to

invite more states parties to nominate sites, but it has yet to make a substantial difference in

balancing the number of sites across the globe.

Ineffective governance
It is best practice in governance to adjust the organizational structure as the institution

grows (Gross 2009; Mathiasen 1990; Stevens 2009). The World Heritage Convention has grown

from twenty states parties and twelve inscribed sites to 197 state and 1,097 sites. Despite such

immense growth, however, the governance structure has not changed. The organizational

structure of the World Heritage Convention is made up of three groups (“How the World

Heritage Convention Works 1983):

1. The World Heritage Committee: the policy and decision-making group. It determines

which sites make it on the list. It is comprised of 21 states parties. Terms last from

four to six years.

2. The Advisory Body: made of three nongovernmental organizations—the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Council on Monuments

and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). It was created with the intent to

advise the Committee in the nomination selection process.

3
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

3. The World Heritage Centre: acts as the Secretariat and coordinator within UNESCO.

It provides international assistance and reporting on sites.

In order for a site to be nominated as a World Heritage Site, it must pass through various

stages. First, the state must create a list of all possible sites within their borders that they think

would qualify for World Heritage status. In order for a site to qualify, it must “be of outstanding

universal value” and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria (World Heritage Committee

1972). Next, the state must submit a list of final nominations to the Committee. Usually, the state

government is the sole decision-maker in determining whether the site fits one of the ten criteria.

Finally, the World Heritage Committee holds its annual meeting to determine which sites are

accepted. Ideally, the committee consults with the Advisory Body and select members of the

Secretariat to make final determinations.

Growth without change has led to a clash between the three governing bodies and what

many authors agree is a corrupt nomination system (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014; Djurberg

and Aasland 2018). Such a high number of states parties, combined with the United Nations

policy that every country is allowed one vote, have resulted in states forming pacts and coalitions

to meet their varying political motives (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014). Rather than using the

Convention to preserve and disseminate culture, governments use it to control culture and gain

legitimacy within their borders as well as internationally (Durrer et al. 2019). Although one-third

of the Committee is replaced every two years, those coalitions allow certain states to perpetually

have a say in nomination determinations. Additionally, there is little to no community

involvement in the initial selection process of sites; governments nominate sites based on their

own economic and foreign policy goals and the locals are left out—and in some cases, pushed

out (Al-Harithy 2005). The Advisory Body is meant to provide expertise throughout the

4
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

decision-making process, but diplomats and their social circles have become more influential

than the archaeological and cultural experts, rendering the Advisory Body useless (Rumann

2015). This politicization and fractured governance structure have created a broken institution

that struggles to fulfill its mission (Meskell 2014).

Disagreement about whose heritage it is

Examining the definition of a “universal” world heritage with a historical lens suggests

that at the time of its founding, “world heritage” was meant to imply that all the world’s heritage

belonged to the west (Meskell 2018; Frey et al. 2011). Prior to the creation of the Convention,

none of the discussions mentioned artifacts that were within major European borders; colonists

were concerned with dividing up the spoils of the Middle East among themselves (Meskell

2018). In one instance, the assistant keeper at the British Museum stated that “because museums

did not exist in some of the colonies, archaeological finds should be relocated so as to be

accessible to ‘the world’” (Meskell 2018). In light of the fact that only the global elite could

travel to those sites, it is clear that he really meant ‘the western world.’

While many intended for the definition of a universal world heritage to imply western

access, Julian Huxley, a believer of economic and social collectivist theories, intended to

establish an organization that would form a single world culture, hence a “universal world

culture” (ibid). As UNESCO Director-General, Huxley initiated a radio program and later a book

called The History of Mankind, in which he attempted to trace the history of humanity. His

collectivist view did not prove successful as various country representatives fought over what

was fact and what or who should be eliminated from the story—the Russians drew upon their

Marxist perspectives and the Pakistanis asked that the word “India” be removed from the history

5
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

(ibid). Despite this conflict, the idea that a divided world could evolve into one with a universal

world culture persisted and found its way into the Convention.

In recent decades, the debate surrounding a universal world culture has evolved. It is less

of a question of “west versus the rest” (Gfeller and Eisenberg 2015) and more concerned with

social class. Nomination as a World Heritage Site has become a brand for tourism on which

governments capitalize to boost their economies (Al-Harithy 2005). As wealthy Asian countries

like Japan, Korea, and China enter the tourist market, the “universality” of sites expands to those

tourists who can afford to travel the globe.

Policy Analysis
Facts
There are underling facts pertaining to “universal world heritage” that the Convention

describes. First, it defines universal world heritage as something with “outstanding universal

value” (World Heritage Committee 1972). It recognizes that natural and cultural sites are in

danger because of man-made causes, and states that not all countries have the resources to

protect their own heritage. To remedy that, it advocates for a collective protection agency to

ensure that heritage is preserved for future generations. At the same time, however, it emphasizes

that although sites become defined as “universal” heritage, it is still the duty of each individual

state to protect and preserve its sites.

Goals

Communicating a policy of a universal world heritage serves a number of goals. First and

foremost, it hopes to establish “a system of international cooperation and assistance designed to

6
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage”

(World Heritage Committee 1972, Article 7). Through the process of preservation, it hopes for

everyone to understand the value of natural and cultural sites regardless of the borders in which

they are located, and as a consequence rally support on a national and local level to preserve

items for future generations. Ultimately, the declaration of a universal world heritage establishes

the goal of collective protection of natural and cultural heritage.

Assumptions

The facts and goals outlined in the policy document are idealistic and have proven to be

somewhat ineffective, even after over forty years. The Convention immediately assumes that all

states parties who ratify the document have a vested interest in other states’ heritage and as such

will not be prejudiced. Numerous examples throughout the document’s history show that that is

not true. The long-standing debates over sites in Israel and Palestine serve as a prime example of

this incorrect assumption. Additionally, the Convention assumes that the World Heritage

Committee will “ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the

world” (World Heritage Committee 1972, Article 8). As mentioned above, not only is the

institution western-oriented, but its politicized governance practices have moved it further from

achieving its goal of equal representation across the globe.

Contradictions

One of the main challenges of creating policies for an international organization (as

opposed to a sovereign country) is that not all countries subscribe to the same models of

communication. Despite the institution’s Western origins, most of the policies outlined in the

Convention follow nationalist-cultural or development models of communication—both of

7
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

which are not prevalent in the West. First, the idea behind a universal world culture follows a

nationalist-cultural model. The institution’s origins were heavily influenced by utopian ideals

where there is a single global culture determined by a smaller group of representatives. The goals

and assumptions of the Convention are created with the intent of benefitting the collective,

adding that “it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate” (World

Heritage Committee 1972, Article 6). At the same time, some of these policies fall in line with

the development model of communication. The Convention, as well as a separate publication

entitled “The World Heritage Information Kit,” explicitly state that one of the major reasons to

nominate a site is because it leads to increased economic development.

In direct contrast with the Convention’s policies, the United States follows a liberal

model of communication and places utmost importance on democracy and the rights of the

individual. This clash in models has led to ongoing disagreements between the United States and

UNESCO, under which the World Heritage Convention falls. In 1984, the United States

withdrew from UNESCO citing “antidemocratic leanings” among other issues (U.S. Library of

Congress 2017). After rejoining in 1997, the United States again withdrew in 2018 because of

the organization’s politicization, disagreement over admitting Palestine as a member state, and

the United States’ minor influence despite its heavy monetary contributions (ibid). The

nationalist-cultural and liberal models contain inherent conflicts that will prevent the United

States and UNESCO from being able to move forward and enact change together. Therefore, this

begs the question: why does UNESCO (and the World Heritage Convention) continue to

communicate values that are in direct opposition to its highest constituencies?

A look at Carol Rosenstein’s framework for cultural policy (2018) might provide some

explanation. Rosenstein’s framework for evaluating cultural policy examines cultural norms,

8
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

challenges, the rationale for addressing challenges, and the resulting set of policy goals. First, it

is possible that the institution is more concerned with establishing norms that appeal to as many

countries as possible than explicitly promoting democratic ideals. A norm, by its own definition,

requires “shared understanding and expectations” (Rosenstein 2018), and because every country

that sits on the General Assembly receives one vote, the norm becomes the voice of the majority,

not of the highest constituency.

Next, the challenge that UNESCO is attempting to address presents culture as threatened.

Once again, the institution’s history provides context to better understand these current policies.

Some of the events that surrounded UNESCO’s founding include Hitler’s attack on culture, the

USSR’s extreme cultural repression, and China’s devastating cultural revolution (ibid). In order

to address these challenges, the organization had to appeal to those regions of the world.

Furthermore, its rationale for addressing them was its claim that the cultural heritage of one

country has an effect on all mankind and must be preserved. The resulting policies were created

to guide the choices and actions of those countries in conflict. Today, even though half a century

has passed, the policies still reflect the original challenges, rationale and goals of the

organization.

Recommendations

This report shows how the term “universal world culture” can make varying implications

depending on the time period and who sits on the Committee. Therefore, the solution is not

necessarily to change those words in the Convention, but rather to alter the nomination process

so that it acknowledges whose culture is actually being represented. The Convention as well as

the World Heritage Rules and Procedures give states members of the Committee the power to

9
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

select who will advise them in the nomination process, counseling them to choose “persons

qualified in the field of the cultural or natural heritage” (UNESCO 2015, Rule 5.2). That assumes

that each state will put their cultural heritage above other more pressing foreign policy goals (e.g.

economic development, influence in the global arena). This policy should be changed so that the

Advisory Body, which is already comprised of archaeological and cultural professionals in

various NGOs, should select representatives from each country to advise the Committee. That

would not only decrease politicization of heritage sites (it is impossible to completely eliminate

politics in an organization largely comprised of politicians), but also give opportunities to local

experts who are not involved in government but have higher stakes in the outcome of the sites.

There should also be stronger mechanisms in place for states or the World Heritage

Centre to remove sites from the World Heritage List. The Convention states that universal world

heritage should be protected for future generations, but is it possible for a site to have

“outstanding universal value” forever? As the number of sites that are selected increases while

the World Heritage Centre’s budget to care for them decreases, preservation is becoming more of

a challenge. High rates of tourism combined with local governments’ mismanagement of sites

compounds preservation issues, leaving many sites either no longer representative of the culture

they were meant to share, or badly damaged. If there were an easy process to remove sites from

the list, it would incentivize governments to be more intentional and careful about how many

sites are nominated.

Conclusion
The world is in a constant state of disarray and conflict, but the World Heritage

Convention exists to unify and protect its natural and man-made wonders. Growing divides

between nations make it increasingly difficult for the organization to accomplish these lofty but

10
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

worthy goals. The problems outlined in this report are not intended to discount the immense

contribution the organization has made. After all, countless sites have been preserved because of

its efforts. Yet under its current policies, the World Heritage Convention is not the most effective

solution for preserving and uniting cultures across the globe. By reforming the nomination

process, etc., the Convention can better carry out its mission.

11
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

Bibliography
Al-Harithy, Howayda. “[Reframing] World Heritage.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements
Review, 17:1, 2005 (7-17). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41758301.
Bureau of Financial Management. “Statement of Compulsory Contributions as at 30 April 2019.”
World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Fund, April 2019.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund.
Djurberg, Mats and Tora Aasland. “Reforming UNESCO’s World Heritage.” The Globalist, June
27, 2018. https://www.theglobalist.com/unesco-world-heritage-committee-reform/.
Dore, Bhavya. “Who Controls Cultural Heritage? Interview with Lucas Lixinski.” Hyperallergic,
December 31, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/477859/who-controls-cultural-heritage/.
Durrer, Victoria, Toby Miller, and Dave OBrien. The Routledge Handbook of Global Cultural
Policy. London: Routledge, 2019.
Frey, Bruno S. and Lasse Steiner. “World Heritage List: does it make sense?” International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 17:5, 2011 (555-573).
Gfeller, Aurelie Elisa and Jaci Eisenberg. “Scaling the Local: Canada’s Rideau Canal and
Shifting World Heritage Norms.” Journal of World History, 26:3, September 2015 (491-
520). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43901773.
Gross, Susan. Seven Turning Points. Washington, DC: Management Assistance Group, 2009.
“How the World Heritage Convention Works.” Ambio, 12:3/4, 1983 (140-145).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312901.
Kawharu, Merata. “Ancestral Landscapes and World Heritage from a Maori Viewpoint.” The
Journal of the Polynesian Society, 118:4, December 2009 (317-338).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20707498.
Mathiasen, Karl. Board Passages: Three Key Stages in a Nonprofit Board’s Life Cycle. National
Center for Nonprofit Boards, 1990.
Meskell, Lynn. Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2018.
Meskell, Lynn. “States of Conservation: Protection, Politics, and Pacting within UNESCO’s
World Heritage Committee.” Anthropological Quarterly, 87:1, 2014 (217-243).
Meskell, Lynn. “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the Economic and
Political Order of International Heritage Conservation.” Current Anthropology, 54:4,
August 2013 (483-494). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671136.
Rumann, Christoff. “Community as Myth and Reality in the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention” in Between Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice:

12
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

Participation, Territory, and the Making of Heritage. Nicolas Adell et al. Göttingen:
Göttingen University, 2015.
Rosenstein, Carole. Understanding Cultural Policy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
Schmitt, Thomas M. “Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning World
Heritage between Politics and Science.” Erdkunde, 63:2, April-June 2009 (103-121).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25648197.
Slatyer, Ralph O. “The Origin and Evloution of the World Heritage Convention.” Ambio, 12:3/4,
1983 (138-140). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312900.
Stevens, Susan Kenny. Nonprofit Lifecycles: Stage-based Wisdom for Nonprofit Capacity.
Wayzata, Minneapolis: Stagewise Enterprises, Inc., 2nd edition, 2008.
U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. U.S. Withdrawal from the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Author redacted.
IN10802. 2017
World Heritage Committee. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. General Conference, 17th Session, Paris November 16, 1972.
World Heritage Committee. “World Heritage Information Kit.” UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, June 2008.
World Heritage Committee. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. World Heritage
Committee, 26th Session, Budapest, Hungary, June 2002.
UNESCO. Rules of Procedure. World Heritage Committee 39th Session, July 2015.
UNESCO. Mission Report: Venice and its Lagoon (Italy) (394). World Heritage Committee, 40th
session, October 2015.
UNESCO. “World Heritage List Statistics.” World Heritage Committee, 2019. Accessed June
2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/.
UNESCO. “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” International
Organization, 1:1, February 1947 (130-133). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2703530.

13