Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 205

Birgitta Ringbeck Between international obligations and Mechtild Rössler local politics: the case of the Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention

1 Introduction 2 The Nomination of the Dresden Elbe Valley On 25 June 2009, the World Heritage Com- mittee took a far-reaching decision: it struck It is almost not known that the site had the Dresden Elbe Valley off UNESCO´s been nominated by the former German World Heritage List. The Committee con- Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1988 as a sidered that the State Party of was historic town and that the ICOMOS evalu- not able to fulfil the obligations under the ation of the time was negative, because of 1972 World Heritage Convention1. a lack of authenticity due to the fact that the war-torn city was reconstructed after This was a dramatic step, as it means that World War II. Reconstruction was explicitly the international community has also failed not permitted as indicated in paragraph 86 as the World Heritage Committee stated of the Operational Guidelines2. The Bureau when referring to Article 6.1 of the Conven- of the World Heritage Committee conse- tion in its decision, which notes: “Whilst quently considered in its 14th session that fully respecting the sovereignty of the States the nomination did not meet the criteria on whose territory the cultural and natural for entry on the World Heritage List.3 The heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is State Party – in the meantime reunited situated, and without prejudice to property with the Federal Republic of Germany – de- right provided by national legislation, the cided to withdraw this first application.4 States Parties to this Convention recognize In 2001/02 a new nomination dossier was that such heritage constitutes a world her- elaborated by the local monument protec- itage for whose protection it is the duty of tion authority and taking into account the the international community as a whole to possibility of a nomination under the cul- co-operate”. tural landscape categories adopted by the The case is not only very complex due to World Heritage Committee in 1992. The the federal system, that is the different lev- nomination dossier was prepared in Ger- els of responsibility in Germany, in this man language and was translated into Eng- case the city of Dresden, the Free State of lish and submitted to the UNESCO World Sachsen and the federal authorities (Fed- Heritage Centre by 30 January 2003. In the eral Ministry of Transport, Building and Ur- dossier in paragraph 4 f the following text is Dr. Birgitta Ringbeck ban Affairs, Foreign Office and Permanent included: “Options for five new bridges are Delegierte der Kultusminister­ Delegation to UNESCO), but also because represented beside the existing bridges. A konferenz beim Welterbe­ komitee der UNESCO of the nomination, evaluation, inscription, final decision concerning number and loca- c/o Ministerium für Wirtschaft, and monitoring history of the former World tion has not yet been taken, except for the Energie, Bauen, Wohnen und Heritage property. Therefore the authors, Waldschlößchenbrücke decision of the city Verkehr NRW who were most closely involved in this pro- council (No. V2012-44-2002 from 30 May Jürgensplatz 1 cedure decided to fully document the case 2002).” Under paragraph 5a, Factors affect- 40219 Düsseldorf E-Mail: birgitta.ringbeck@ in this article and suggest using it for future ing the site – Development pressures, it was mwebwv.nrw.de reference. Furthermore the authors consid- stated “Other development pressures exist er that some misinformation was provided in the area of bridge locations (e.g. Wald- Dr. Mechtild Rössler by a number of sources including a few pol- schlößchenbrücke) through interference UNESCO World Heritage iticians, less informed journalists and the with the traditional settlement layout and Centre 7, place de Fontenoy general public, often not aware of complex the natural scenery, although continuing 75352 Paris 07 SP nomination and monitoring processes un- constructional development is not intend- France der this international legal instrument. ed in these areas.“ The dossier in paragraph E-Mail: m.rossler@.org Birgitta Ringbeck, Mechtild Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: 206 the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention

© Harf Zimmermann Photography, Berlin Dresden Elbe Valley

7b gives reference to a “Short description of fined by paragraph 172 of the Operational the project Waldschlößchen bridge“. How- Guidelines for all sites inscribed. In excep- ever the original annexes which contained tional cases, such as for The Historic Centre a 1,5 page description of a potential Elbe of Vienna (Austria) in 2001 the World Herit- crossing was not translated into one of the age Committee requested a revision of an working languages of the 1972 Convention urban development project, which threat- and therefore not part of the official nomi- ened the Outstanding Universal Value of nation dossier. Furthermore, a plan with the property, at the time of the inscription. 5 options for potential crossings was in- cluded. Nowhere in the German or English dossier was any indication to be found that 3 World Heritage Committee session a complete planning procedure had started in Suzhou (2004) for the Waldschlößchen-Bridge including an international design competition award- Following the positive evaluation of the ing a First Prize on 14 December 1997 and nomination dossier by ICOMOS and the the submission of the documents for the consideration by the World Heritage Com- plan approval procedure in January 2001. mittee at its 28th session in Suzhou China, the site was inscribed as a cultural land- The official nomination dossier was af- scape under criteria (ii)(iii)(iv) and (v). The ter completeness checking at UNESCO in World Heritage Committee furthermore line with paragraph 165 of the Operational recommended that consideration be given Guidelines then transmitted to ICOMOS to cultural criterion (vi), referring to asso- International.5 In September 2003 ICOMOS ciative values, noting the important events carried out a field visit by an international associated with the city‘s history in World renowned expert from its network in ac- War II.6 cordance with the evaluation procedures in force. The evaluation mission report states The contradictions and errors in the nomi- concerning Management regime – Man- nation dossier and evaluation report were agement structure: “No traffic arteries are not corrected, neither by a factual error let- planned in this area, though there is the ter of Germany nor by any intervention of possibility for new bridges.” Concerning the German Delegation, which included Conservation – Management it is reported: the former State Conservator of and “The construction of a new bridge is fore- the head of the urban department of Dres- seen 5 km down the river from the centre.” den. Furthermore no information was given Although development projects were dis- concerning the planning approval notice cussed with the expert by the accompa- (Planfestellungsbeschluss) adopted in the nying group from the city of Dresden (ur- meantime by the Dresden Regional Admin- banism department) and the monuments istrative Authority (Regierungspräsidium) on protection authority, the evaluation proce- 25 February 2004 for the project to allow the dure requires that the field expert report is construction of the Waldschlößchen bridge. not the concluding document. The overall evaluation consists of desk studies, field vis- it report and decision by the ICOMOS Bu- 4 Inscription ceremony in Dresden reau (consisting of members from different parts of the world for a global assessment). As for many World Heritage properties, an Furthermore, any development project re- inscription ceremony took place in Dres- quires the application of the procedures de- den on 24 June 2005, at which the Director Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 207

© Henry Ripke Architekten Dresden Elbe Valley with Waldschlößchen bridge (draft) of the World Heritage Centre transmitted NGO visited the World Heritage Centre and the official certificate signed by the Director expressed their concerns. A second letter General of UNESCO and gave a speech. He dating from 12 September 2005 and a third specifically reminded the local authorities one dating from 14 November 2005 was sent that with the inscription also the obliga- by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to in- tions under the international legal instru- quire about the situation. On 24 November ment of the World Heritage Convention 2005 the Mayor of Dresden finally replied needed to be taken into account. and submitted documentation with a map, Just before the inscription ceremony the is- the Infrastructure Plan of the City of Dres- sue of an Elbe crossing, the so-called Wald- den, an extract of the Design Competition schlößchen bridge, came up in the local for the bridge, planning laws and regulations and national press. The first monitoring under municipal responsibility. Information letter by the World Heritage Centre to the on the juridical discussion was still missing. State Party concerning the Waldschlößchen bridge was sent on 13 April 2005. However, no official information was provided to the 5 Independent Impact Assessment World Heritage Centre on the decision to halt the planning on 23 September 2004 During a meeting at UNESCO Headquar- by the City Council due to the fact that the ters concerning this situation, the Director majorities in the meantime had changed of the World Heritage Centre suggested to or on the public vote (Referendum), which carry out an independent visual impact as- had taken place on 27 February 2005. The sessment to fully understand any potential result of the Referendum was that a slight impacts on the outstanding universal value majority was in favour of the building of the and integrity of the property. At this meet- bridge and thus the City Council was forced ing the German National Commission for to resume the planning on 7 April 2005. Ac- UNESCO proposed to take this matter into cording to Paragraph 172 of the Operational their hands. They offered to make a ten- Guidelines all States Parties are required to der and the Technical University of Aachen inform the Committee, through the Secre- (Germany) was chosen to carry out the tariat, of their intention to undertake or to study.7 The study, which is fully available authorize in an area protected under the Convention major restorations or new con- on-line came to the following conclusions: structions which may affect the outstand- 1. The Waldschlößchen-Bridge does not ing universal value of the property. Notice fit in with existing series of Dresden City should be given as soon as possible (for Bridges; instance, before drafting basic documents for specific projects) and before making any 2. The Waldschlößchen-Bridge obscures a decisions that would be difficult to reverse, number of views of the Dresden skyline and so that the Committee may assist in seek- the Elbe valley which are of historical im- ing appropriate solutions to ensure that the portance as well as continuing relevance to outstanding universal value of the property daily life in the city; is fully preserved. This was not the case for 3. The Waldschlößchen-Bridge cuts into the the planning of the Waldschlößchen bridge. cohesive landscape of the Elbe River bend On 6 September 2005 the Nobel Prize Win- at its most sensitive point, splitting it irre- ner Günter Blobel and members of a local versibly into two halves. Birgitta Ringbeck, Mechtild Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: 208 the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention

6 The 30th session of the World Herit- convert it into national law. This decision age Committee in Vilnius in 2006 was confirmed by the Federal Constitution- al Court as that Court did not accept the Subsequently, the results of the Impact As- City of Dresden’s constitutional appeal and sessment which were analysed by ICOMOS made reference to the fact that, independ- International and the World Heritage Cen- ent of its conversion into national law, the tre were provided to the World Heritage World Heritage Convention does not offer, Committee. The Committee concluded that in its conception or its wording, absolute this infrastructure development at this spe- protection against every change. The court cific location with the design option chosen further stated that the fulfilment of the pro- by the city would constitute a threat to the tection mission is first and foremost a func- Outstanding Universal Value and integrity tion of sovereign State Parties. It is possible of the property in accordance with para- under constitutional law that the will of the graph 179 of the Operational Guidelines. citizens, as expressed in a formal vote, can After careful consideration and consider- prevail in a conflict concerning plans for able discussion, it included the property on the further development of a cultural land- the List of World Heritage in Danger in July scape. In consequence the possible disad- 2006 at its 30th session in Vilnius, Lithuania. vantages arising from the decision – for in- Furthermore the Committee requested the stance, the loss of the World Heritage status State Party and the city authorities to ur- and the concomitant loss of prestige – has gently halt the construction project and to to be accepted. take up discussions with all stakeholders Throughout the juridical processes there to find alternative solutions so as to ensure was a period of intense consultations, the safeguarding of the outstanding univer- which included a hearing of World Heritage 8 sal value of the property. Centre staff and the German World Herit- age coordinator at the Cultural Committee of the German Parliament (Kulturausschuss 7 Juridical processes including Baut­ des Deutschen Bundestages) in Berlin in zen, mediation process and hearing September 2006 as well as a visit to the at the German Parliament Court in Bautzen on 8 November 2006. The Bautzen meeting had the result to interrupt The Committee’s request to halt the project the process for mediation due to the fact and seek alternative solutions, directed to that none of the contending parties was the Federal Republic of Germany and the determined by a court decision between a City authorities, and was fulfilled by the Referendum and international law and that Dresden City Council insofar as it reached a verdict would not have a satisfactory ef- a majority decision to suspend the award- fect. A panel of five experts chaired by the ing of already tendered work. The legality representative of the Standing Conference of this resolution by the City Council was of the Ministers of Education and Cultural criticized by the Dresden Regional Admin- Affairs of the Länder (Ständige Konferenz istrative Authority, which imposed indem- der Kultusminister) in the Federal Republic nity payments and made reference to the was put in place in order to seek for alterna- binding effect of the public Referendum tive solutions. Meetings with stakeholders on 27 February 2004 that had favoured the followed, but the Land of Saxony had only bridge. When the Dresden Administrative sent “a silent observer” with no negotiating Court confirmed the resolution’s legality, mandate, thereby reflecting its intension the Dresden Regional Administrative Au- to only accept modifications on the basis thority appealed the decision to the Saxon of the existing planning decision and not Higher Administrative Court in Bautzen. allow any major modifications. The repre- The appeal was successful. In expedited sentative of the City of Dresden represented proceedings on 13 March 2007 the Saxon the same position. In doing so, alternative Higher Administrative Court determined solution as requested by the Committee’s that the public Referendum had priority decision could not be developed. The me- and, with reference to the ultimate decision diation ended on 24 January 2007 stating to be made in the main process, questioned that the planned bridge is not improvable the binding effect of the 1972 World Herit- and does not fit into the World Heritage age Convention because of the failure to cultural landscape. The panel of experts Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 209

© Henry Ripke Architekten The Waldschlößchen bridge (draft) recommended revising the traffic concept 8 The World Heritage Committee in for Dresden in order to allow solutions with Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2007 fewer impacts for an Elbe crossing, it noted that a tunnel may not be an adequate solu- The World Heritage Committee at its 31st tion and requested a workshop for the elab- session in New Zealand in July 2007 had a oration of the framework for a completely considerable debate about the Dresden new planning. case. It noted that judicial process has been exhausted, and asked nevertheless that the The City in its letter dated 30 January 2007 authorities continue their efforts to find to the World Heritage Centre confirmed an appropriate solution to protect the out- that it was interested to continue the me- standing universal value and integrity of diation process to find a solution which the World Heritage property, taking up the would protect the World Heritage values; an alternative proposals discussed at the mod- expert workshop was organized chaired by erated workshop of May 2007, and others, the German Delegate to the World Heritage and to submit these proposals for evalua- Committee with international experts in- tion by the Advisory Bodies. cluding experts nominated by ICOMOS and UNESCO. The Ambassador Permanent Del- The Committee at the same time in 2007 egate of Germany to UNESCO informed the proceeded with the first delisting of any World Heritage Centre on 14 February 2007 property ever: the property of the Arabian “that all interested parties ought to work in Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) was removed from the framework of a moderated workshop on the World Heritage List. The considerations new perspectives to find a solution on the above and also the newly introduced Rein- issue of the “Waldschlößchenbrücke”. Such forced Monitoring Mechanism prevented a workshop should establish the founda- the immediate delisting of Dresden: the site tions and a framework for a new planning was included under the Reinforced Moni- process with regard to the issue.” Such a toring Mechanism together with Jerusalem workshop would need to address location, and the threatened natural sites from the design and future traffic volume. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Many meetings at UNESCO followed to The Committee also decided to issue a di- identify the origins and scope of the problem rect warning: “Also decides to delete the and the differences of the nomination dos- property from the World Heritage List, in sier versions in German and English. Even conformity with Paragraphs 192-198 of the a meeting between the Chairperson of the Operational Guidelines, in the event that the construction of the bridge has an irre- World Heritage Committee and the German versible impact on the outstanding univer- Minister for Traffic, took place during the sal value of the property.” German EU presidency meeting on World Heritage in Lübeck (Germany) in June 2007. Birgitta Ringbeck, Mechtild Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: 210 the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention

very disturbing block and cut the valley into two separate areas. The indicated changes could only be considered ‘cosmetic’. Un- der those circumstances, it was feared that there was hardly any hope that the tunnel solution, which it had also recommended as a compromise, would be realized. The Chairperson, in opening the debate, noted that if delisting was decided it would be the first property to be delisted without the consent of the State Party. After an ex- hausting discussion the World Heritage Committee regretted the fact that the au- thorities, having allowed the construction works to proceed, had seriously compro- mised the Outstanding Universal Value of the property; The Committee finally decid- Seville 2009, World Heritage Committee, State of Conservation Report: the Work ed to retain the Dresden Elbe Valley on the on the Waldschlößchen bridge has started (Foto: R. Zunke, Stadt Wien) List of World Heritage in Danger, with the option of the deletion of this property from 9 The World Heritage Committee in the World Heritage List at its 33rd session Quebec, Canada, 2008 in 2009, if the planned works on the bridge continue and the damage already caused is The Committee debate about the Wald- not reversed. schlößchen bridge at the 32nd session in Quebec was mainly based on the Rein- forced Monitoring Mission that had taken 10 The World Heritage Committee in place from 4 to 5 February 2008, with ex- Seville, Spain 2009 perts from the World Heritage Centre and from ICOMOS International. The mission An update report on the situation was sub- noted that construction work on the Wald- mitted by the Permanent Delegation of schlößchen bridge had already started Germany on 28 January 2009. It addressed due to a court decision of November 2007, the key question and confirmed that work which had ordered to construct the bridge began on the Waldschlößchen bridge in Au- immediately according to the original plans gust 2007, based on the Dresden Regional that had been approved by the City Council. Council decision of 8 June 2008. As of mid- November 2008 the foundations for the Elbe The international mission considered that Bridge were completed. Work had started in the modifications made to the original de- the factory on the steel construction for the sign of the bridge testified to a genuine supporting structure of the bridge. The re- attempt to make it less intrusive, but the port informed that the substructures were fundamental concept of the proposed con- finished in January 2009 and that the super- struction had not changed. The prelimi- structures which commenced in November nary evaluation by the mission was that the 2008 were being carried out for completion tunnel solution would obviously have less in June 2011. The road constructions lead- direct impacts on the Elbe Valley cultural ing to the bridge at the Käthe-Kollwitz-Ufer landscape. The mission recommended that would start in March 2009 for completion in the construction of the foundation pillars June 2011. On the other side, construction be stopped in order not to prejudice the for a connecting tunnel, ramps and road possibility of the choice of an alternative construction had started in January 2009 for solution. completion in September 2010. The report ICOMOS confirmed that the only margin- also pointed out that all legal procedures at ally changed planning was no essential im- Courts concerning the halting or changing of provement of the situation. The four-lane, the current bridge crossing project had been city highway-like construction defined in completed with the result that the bridge is the planning approval procedure would being built as planned. remain; it would cross the Elbe valley as a Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 211

This development could have been pre- cities or landscapes. However, the mission dicted. At the request of the Mayor of Dres- of the World Heritage Committee through den, a meeting between the State Party, the the work of the Secretariat and the Advisory Mayor, the city authorities, ICOMOS and Bodies is to find adequate solutions to en- the World Heritage Centre took place on 14 able the transmission of the World Heritage October 2008 as a follow-up to the World sites and at the same time ensure that any Heritage Committee’s decisions and the development is in line with the conserva- state of implementation of the bridge to al- tion of the values for which the sites were low for a dialogue about potential solutions. inscribed. The fulfilment of the protection The meeting did not produce any concrete mission and the implementation of the results or solutions. World Heritage Convention is moreover first and foremost a task of the sovereign The assessment of all relevant documents State Parties. concluded that the planned works on the bridge were continuing, that the project This article tried to explain in detail all the was not halted and the damage caused to different stages in the complex and multi- the World Heritage property had not been layered process from the inscription of the reversed. The significant infrastructure site on the World Heritage List in 2004 to works so far undertaken had already im- its delisting in 2009. It is clear that many pacted irreversibly on the integrity and out- possibilities for redressing such a develop- standing universal value of the property. ment have been overlooked: at the time of the nomination, – the situation could have The World Heritage Committee concluded been explained in the nomination docu- at its 33rd session in June 2009 that the ment –, at the time of inscription – ICOMOS specific requests at its 30th, 31st and 32nd could have made it clear that there was a sessions to halt the project and the bridge development project for a bridge under construction had not been addressed. In discussion – and the State Party could have its decision9 the Committee “regretted that informed the Committee of its plans, as re- the entreaties of the World Heritage failed quired in the Operational Guidelines. Once to protect the property and the fact that the the information reached the World Heritage authorities have not halted the project, had Centre of the specific project of the Wald- been detrimental to the Outstanding Uni- schlößchen bridge, it was already too late as versal Value of the property. It concluded far-reaching decisions had been taken. that the damage already caused has not been reversed. The Committee emphasized It is possible under constitutional law that that States Parties have the obligation un- the will of the citizens, as expressed in a der the Convention to protect and conserve formal vote (Referendum), can prevail in the World Cultural and a conflict concerning plans for the further situated on their territory, notably to ensure development of a cultural landscape or ur- that effective and active measures are taken ban ensemble. In consequence, the pos- for the protection and conservation of such sible disadvantages arising from the deci- heritage. sion – for instance as noted by the Courts, the loss of the World Heritage status and After a long debate the Committee proceed- the concomitant loss of prestige – has to be ed with a vote and deleted the Dresden Elbe taken into account. Especially States Parties Valley (Germany) from the World Heritage organized in a federal system should con- List. sider the implications and may have to in- tegrate the World Heritage Convention into their respective national laws. 11 Conclusions However, the overall question is one of in- The World Heritage Convention is an inter- tergenerational equity: sites on the World national legal instrument which calls on Heritage List are there to present the rich States Parties and the international com- cultural and natural diversity of the world munity as a whole to do their utmost to to future generations. The inadequate de- protect sites of outstanding universal value velopment at the Dresden Elbe Valley does for future generations. These World Herit- not allow future generations to enjoy the age properties cannot be sheltered against site as a cultural landscape of outstanding every impact or change, as they are living universal value. The case of the Dresden Birgitta Ringbeck, Mechtild Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: 212 the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention

Elbe Valley could be therefore considered ciety and decision-making. World Heritage as a failure of the adequate and long-term designation should not be envisaged only implementation of the World Heritage Con- for international recognition and short- vention by the international community, as term economic and tourism payback, it well as the national and local authorities. should be fully understood as a long-term commitment integrated into an overall sus- It is hoped that in the future the beneficial tainable development perspective for the provisions of the World Heritage Conven- benefits of current and future generations. tion are fully understood at all levels of so-

Annotations (1) Literature Rössler, M.: Weltkulturerbe und Globalisierung. See web-page at whc.unesco.org Vom Weltwunder zum »Erbe der Menschheit«. Bandarin, F.: Looking ahead: The World Heritage In: Welt Räume Geschichte, Geographie und (2) Convention in the Twenty First Century. In: World Globalisierung seit 1900. Hrsg.: Schroeder, I.; The only exception to this rule was the in­ Heritage – Challenges for the Millennium. Direc­ Hoehler, S. – Frankfurt, New York 2005, pp. scription of Warsaw in 1980. ted by F. Bandarin. – Paris: UNESCO World Heri­ 235–257 (3) tage Centre 2007, pp. 18–24 (http://whc.unesco. Document CC-90/CONF.004/2 dated 17 Oc­ org/en/activities/558/) Rössler, M.: Le patrimoine mondial et la mon­ tober 1990 dialisation. (Table ronde – A la découverte du Bocquet, D.: Dresde et l’UNESCO: questions sur patrimoine de l‘humanité). In: 60 ans d’histoire (4) les catégories de classement et la gouvernance de l’UNESCO. Actes du colloque internati­ Document CLT-90/CONF.004/13 of 12 Decem­ des sites classés au patrimoine mondial. In: Pay­ onal, Paris 16–18 Novembre 2005. – Paris: ber 1990, Section VII.16 sages urbains historiques: Synthèse des jour­ UNESCO 2007, pp. 327–332 (www.unesco. nées techniques. Journées organisées par ICO­ org/archives/Archives/files/actes_FINAL_web. (5) MOS France et la Convention France UNESCO pdf) A copy was also transmitted to IUCN, how­ avec la Ville de Bordeaux, l’Association Natio­ ever both Advisory Bodies agreed that ICO­ nale des Architectes des Bâtiments de France, Schorlemer, S. von: Compliance with the MOS would carry out the evaluation on its l’Association Nationale des Villes et Pays d‘Art et UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Re­ own as natural values of the property were d‘Histoire/VSS, l’Association nationale des biens flections on the Elbe Valley and the Dresden not in the forefront of the dossier, a cultural français du patrimoine mondial. – Paris 2009, pp. Waldschlösschen-Bridge. In: German Year­ landscape in an urban context 73–78 (http://france.icomos.org/fr/comite_grou­ book of International Law – Jahrbuch für In­ (6) pe/comites_paysages_urbains/seminaire_paysa­ ternationales Recht 51 (2008), pp. 321–390 ges_urbains_his.htm) Decision of the World Heritage Committee. 28 Titchen, S.: On the Construction of Outstan­ COM 14B.40 Bogdandy, A. von, Zacharias, D.: Zum Status der ding Universal Value: UNESCO‘s World Heri­ (7) Weltkulturerbekonvention im deutschen Rechts­ tage Convention (Convention concerning the The TU Aachen had already carried out the raum – ein Beitrag zum internationalen Verwal­ Protection of the World Cultural and Natural study concerning the impacts on Cologne Ca­ tungsrecht. In: NVwZ (2007) 5, pp. 527–532 Heritage, 1972). PhD dissertation, Australian thedral in 2006 and was known to the World National University, Canberra, Australia 1995 Heritage Committee for its technical Impact Brown Weiss, E.: In Fairness to Future Gene­ Assessments. rations: International Law, Common Patrimony, UNESCO: Convention concerning the protec­ and Intergenerational Equity. – Leiden, Boston, tion of the world cultural and natural heritage, (8) Tokyo 1989 adopted by the General Conference at its se­ Working Document WHC-06/30 COM/7B and venteenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972 World Heritage Committee Decision 30 COM Fastenrath, U.: Der Schutz des Weltkulturerbes in 7B.77 Deutschland. In: DÖV (2006) S., 1017–1027 UNESCO: Linking Universal and Local Values: (9) Managing a Sustainable Future for World He­ World Heritage Committee Decision 33 COM Hönes, E.-R.: Zur Transformation des Überein­ ritage. Proceedings of a conference organized 7A.26 kommens zum Schutz des Kultur- und Naturer­ by the Netherlands National Commission for bes der Welt von 1972. In DÖV (Jahrgang?), pp. UNESCO, Amsterdam 22 – 24 May 2003. – 54–62 Paris 2004. = UNESCO World Heritage papers 13 RWTH Aachen, Lehrstuhl und Institut für Städ­ tebau und Landesplanung: Gutachten zu den UNESCO: Guidelines for the Implementation visuellen Auswirkungen des Verkehrszuges of the World Heritage Convention. – Paris: Waldschlösschenbrücke‘ auf das UNESCO- UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2008 (http:// Weltkulturerbe ‚Elbtal Dresden‘. Visual Impact whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/) Study, dritte überarbeitete Fassung. – Aachen, April 2006, p. 112 (www.welterbe-erhalten.de/ UNESCO: Database of the Decisions of the pdf/0604gutachten.pdf) World Heritage Committee (http://whc.unesco. org/en/decisions/) The World Heritage Convention – Legal Frame­ work and Obligations. In: Weltkulturerbe Deutschland. Präventive Konservierung und Erhaltungsperspektiven., ICOMOS, Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees XLV. – 2008, S. 28–31