Policy Compendium
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
2.2.2 - World Heritage criteria
31. “The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz concentration camp on the List as a unique site and to restrict the inscription of other sites of a similar nature.”
Theme: | 2.2.2.2 - Specific considerations related to criterion (vi) |
Decision: | 3 COM XII.46 |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee recommends providing a more detailed inventory of the attributes and elements of the property (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
The World Heritage Committee recommends providing a more detailed inventory of the attributes and elements of the property (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 2.2.4 - Integrity |
See for examples Decisions: | 32 COM 8B.28 33 COM 8B.32 34 COM 8B.20 34 COM 8B.11 |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
2.2.6 - Boundaries and buffer zones
7. "[The World Heritage Committee] considers that modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties that are related to mining activities should be considered through the procedure for significant modifications of boundaries, in accordance with paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines, given the potential impact of such projects on Outstanding Universal Value."
Theme: | 2.2.6.1 - Boundaries |
Decision: | 35 COM 8B.46 |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
(ii) "In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison."
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
Decision: | 3 COM XI.35 |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES
7. "[The World Heritage Committee] decides that comparative analyses by States Parties as part of the nomination dossier shall be undertaken in relation to similar properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national and international levels."
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
Decision: | 7 EXT.COM 4A |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee recommends undertaking a deep comparative analysis in order to demonstrate the Outstanding Universal Value of the property by fully assessing the relative values of the nominated property against other sites (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
The World Heritage Committee recommends undertaking a deep comparative analysis in order to demonstrate the Outstanding Universal Value of the property by fully assessing the relative values of the nominated property against other sites (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
See for examples Decisions: | 34 COM 8B.7 34 COM 8B.3 35 COM 8B.16 36 COM 8B.35 37 COM 8B.21 37 COM 8B.17 37 COM 8B.11 38 COM 8B.22 38 COM 8B.18 38 COM 8B.17 |
The World Heritage Policy Compendium was elaborated thanks to the generous contribution of the Government of Australia.
The World Heritage Policy Compendium On-line tool was developed thanks to the generous contribution of the Government of Korea.
With the Support of