Missing Countries

What countries are not even signatories of the World Heritage Convention?
I went through the list of sovereign or semi-sovereign states. Here is what I came by:
Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Bhutan, Brunei, Djibouti, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait (a signatory with neither T list nor inscribed properties), Liberia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nauru, Rwanda, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalo (all UN members)
as well as non-UN members Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Palestinian Territories, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria and Western Sahara.
For at least some of them it is evident they could inscribe some properties on the list. I know both Taiwan and the Palestinian Territories are in constant contact with Unesco in an attempt to have their nominations recognized despite their disputed international status, so far with little success. What about the rest?

According to the official website

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/

Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Djibouti, Kuwait, Liberia, Monaco, Rwanda, St Vincent & Grenadines, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone and Swaziland are actually signatoiries of the WH Convention. Swaziland even has a site on its Tentative List since December 08.

So this leaves us then with:
Bahamas, Brunei, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalo and all the disputed states.
Still something to account for but thanks for the correction Khuft.

Does Khuft (or anyone else) understand the logic of which "countries" (State Parties) can participate in the World Heritage Convention (WHC) and therefore the WH scheme? One might have thought that
a. To do so a state would have to be a member of UNESCO
b. To be a member of UNESCO a state would have had to be a member of the UN.
But apparently neither is true!

a. There are 192 members of the UN. We know that acceptance for membership is a diplomatic and political decision taken by members of the Security Council and that some states which might be recognised as fully sovereign by other UN members might not be accepted since they are not acceptable to some Security Council member e.g Taiwan, Kosovo. The UN also maintains 2 other forms of status for "countries"/"states"/"entities" (as well as others for organisations - but they are not relevant here)
i. "Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer mission at Headquarters" - The Holy See is the only state in this category
ii. "Entity having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer mission at Headquarters" - Palestine is the only "entity" in this category

b. There are 193 members of UNESCO plus 6 "Associate members"
i. The 193 consists of all 192 UN members except Liechtenstein plus non UN members Cook Islands and Niue.
ii. The 6 "Associate members" are Aruba, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Macao (!!) Netherlands Antilles and Tokelau. Quite why these "not totally independent states" should be "associate members" whilst Cook Islands/Niue are full members I know not. I know that Tokelau has twice had a referendum and rejected full independence. I suspect this goes back to the UN list of "Non Self-governing territories" which goes back to the "anti colonialist" era! Cook Islands was removed from this list as the UN now considers it "Internally self governing". So Bermuda for instance, that well known "sink of colonial repression" which considers itself certainly as "internally self governing" as Cook Islands can't join UNESCO and can only get its (single) WHS inscribed by UK!! The NL Antilles also managed to escape from this anti colonialism list by some constitutional sleight of hand but, I believe, that its potential sites would still have to be nominated by NL - presumably because it has, unlike Cook Islands, only gone for "Associate memebership" of UNESCO. Another "state" on the anti colonial list is Puerto Rico, despite being a "self governing commonwealth" it can only get sites inscribed by USA.
iii. Singapore only joined as recently as Oct 2007

c. There are 186 State Parties at some stage of ratifying the WHC - i.e "Ratification",
"Acceptance", "Notification of Acceptance" or "Notification of succession" to a previous State Party
i. Of these The Holy See rather strangely is not a Member or Associate Member of UNESCO! It is not quite clear to me therefore on what basis it was allowed to sign the WHC and gain inscriptions!
ii. In addition there are 8 members of UNESCO which are not at an any ratification stage - Bahamas, Brunei, Eq Guinea, Nauru (not of course a UN member), Singapore, Somalia, Timor Leste and Tuvalu. (Assif - Trinidad signed in 2005).
iii. In addition the WHC has not been signed by Liechtenstein (which is not a member of UNESCO either)

I checked what was written in the WH Convention. It states the following:

Article 31

1. This Convention shall be subject to ratification or acceptance by States members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.
2. The instruments of ratification or acceptance shall be deposited with the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Article 32

1. This Convention shall be open to accession by all States not members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization which are invited by the General Conference of the Organization to accede to it.
2. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.


I'm not an international lawyer, but from my understanding:
- The Convention only applies to those UNESCO member states that ratify it according to their laws.
- The Convention is open to all other states that wish to join if the General Conference of UNESCO invites them to it.

So this would explain why the Holy See got in, and why other UNESCO members actually are not (yet).

Thanks Khuft - yes that would seem to explain the Holy See "anomaly".
I had a look at the rules for membership of UNESCO too. Here are the sections relevant to the discrepanices vis a vis UN membership :-
"Membership of the UN carries with it the right to membership of UNESCO. States that are not members of UN may be admitted to UNESCO, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.
Territories or groups of territories that are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members. Their admission and their rights and obligations are determined by the General Conference"

The Cook Islands would seem to get in to UNESCO with full rather than associate memebership on the basis that they are a "self governing parliamentary democracy in free association with NZ" with some responsibility for their external affairs. Wiki states that "Defence is the responsibility of New Zealand, in consultation with the Cook Islands and at its request. In recent times, the Cook Islands have adopted an increasingly independent foreign policy."

Niue's connection with NZ is similar except that its foreign relations capability seems less clear viz Wiki - "Niue is fully responsible for its internal affairs. Niue's position concerning its external relations is less clear cut. Section 6 of the Niue Constitution Act provides that: "Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue."" UNESCO would appear to have ignored this uncertainly in allowing Niue to join with full membership - but I guess that NZ can't have been worried much!

The net result seems to be that
a. UNESCO can allow any non UN member "state" to join if enough members want it
b. The WHC can be "acceded to" by any "state" even if not a member of UNESCO (or the UN) if UNESCO wants it

But I don't think we will see Transnistria, Abkhazia, S Ossetia, Somaliland or N Cyprus signing up to the WHC any time soon!

En passant, whilst doing my "research" on this subject I noted, with some surprise and even a little amusement, that apparently Liechtenstein recognises neither the Czech Republic or Slovakia (and v.v) because of the Benes Decrees of 1945 concerning the treatment of Czechoslovak citizens of German (and Hungarian) ethnicity and confiscation of property (this coincidentally relates to a recent "Connection" we added concerning the Liechtenstein Family which had property within WHC boundaries within Czechoslovakia confiscated). I can't believe that this has anything to do with Liechtenstein's non-membership of UNESCO and non-accession to the WHC - who knows? But these 2 aspects do prevent yet another European medieval castle (Vaduz) gaining inscription!