Controversial at inscription

Thailand, Germany and Finland voted against this 'result of human destructive activities'

Land is under customary ownership - which was supported after a considerable debate. The delegate of Thailand dissociated himself from this decision.

ICOMOS recommended deferral. None of Crit ii, iii and iv justified (though ii might be with more work), core and buffer zone boundaries not good enough, no inventory etc. Egy led proposal for inscription ("similarities with Cairo citadel case". Sui, Aus led against. Inscribed!

After 2x negative advice being overturned by the WHC, ICOMOS could not do a full evaluation anymore and was unable to provide a formal recommendation. In the end it stuck with its Not inscribe because no OUV, which was turned around by 2/3 majority in the WHC to full Inscription.

the AB was overruled from Not to inscribe (No OUV or other reasons) to Inscribe by the WHC - where in an earlier stage a Not to Inscribe was already rolled back to Referral

Regarding acknowledgment of fate of Korean (forced) workers at the wider Sado Mines. Japan and Korea came to a bilateral agreement before the discussion at the WHC started. The agreement includes a promise to show this fate in the on site interpretation.

"In its evaluation presented to the meeting of the Bureau in Paris in June 1998, ICOMOS recommended that the nominated property should not be inscribed on the World Heritage List, because it felt that the case for inscription depended on the use of criterion vi in isolation" - this was later that year overturned during an Extraordinary Meeting

IUCN recommended no inscription - didn't meet any natural criteria - should go for Ramsar/World Biosphere instead. ICOMOS were ok with cultural inscription. Some WHC members supported IUCN, some (e.g SA, Egy) wanted referral, some wanted deferral. Secret ballot 11/10was in favour of referring the Natural nomination for more studies on Bird life.

Inscribed after a vote, 7 votes, 6 in favour, 1 against (Russia), 14 abstained (2/3 majority needed). Russia wanted adjournment of the decision until the next session, in order to allow for a technical mission.

Several objections ('nothing has remained') started by Greece. Did not result in voting.

Voted in by a secret ballot (12 yes, 3 no, 6 abstentions) after an emergency nomination

x

Needed a secret ballot (11 pro out of 21, 7 abstentions), overruling the ICOMOS advice of not enough OUV and not an emergency

IUCN was against inclusion, also controversy about advocacy by the representative from Niger on a site in his own country. Of the 19 members, 4 finally voted against (Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States of America), not enough to prevent a 2/3 majority.

ICOMOS recommended deferral. OUV (Crit ii, iv, v and vi) not demonstrated and needed more work. Also needed better comparative analysis and management. Jor led case for inscription on original criteria, Aus, Sui opposed. Egy wanted referral and Mex opposed only Crit vi. Site was inscribed on that basis.

Support from the Romanian government for inscription remained unsure up to the WHC meeting

See www.agerpres.ro

Cambodia leaves Thailand out of it and revises the boundaries of the site to be limited to the monument alone

Site was proposed by Jordan; it took an Extraordinary Session to get it in (1 vote against (USA) and 5 abstentions).

Failed once and required a secret ballot on another occasion because of nearby Nuclear plant

ICOMOS recommended deferral -boundaries, integrity, were "unable" to send a mission. Mal, Nig, Egy, RSA, Jor lead for inscription. Sui, Swe et al against. Secret ballot 14/5 in favour with 1 abst,

(1) there were some issues concerning the whitewashing of the facts in relation to chinese and korean histories; (2) the korean press accused the chinese of political maneuvering in order to get the dprk's own koguryo nomination deferred so that its own koguryo site will have a greater chance of getting inscribed. ironically, both were inscribed on the list in 2004, and the committee even recommended that a transfrontier site be formed.

Norway disassociated itself from the decision to inscribe the site, due to human rights issues

See www.theguardian.com

Reservations expressed by China and disassociation by USA.

ICOMOS had advised inscription of this stretch, but Hungary withdrew its nomination on the eve of the WHC. Whether the remaining parts in Germany, Austria and Slovakia had OUV according to ICOMOS was hard to say. Inscription was eventually forced after a secret ballot, with an adjusted nomination expected to be submitted in 2022.

IUCN recommended Not to Inscribe in 2014 and 2016, both times brought back to a Referral by the WHC. At inscription in 2018, IUCN did give a positive recommendation for the substantially changed nomination - though "IUCN is deeply concerned about the manner in which the referral process has been used (and essentially misused) in the case of this nomination. The evaluation of this nomination has been lengthy, spanning five years and involving a disproportionate level of human and financial resources. IUCN has documented some 16 meetings and exchanges with the State Party and the World Heritage Centre between the 2014 referral, and then a further 11 meetings and exchanges between the 2016 referral decision and this resubmitted nomination"

It was a city that was barely 30 yrs old when it was inscribed on the list, and several representatives, notably the american delegate, opposed its inscription, " examination of 20th century cities should come after all the traditional historic towns have been examined"

ICOMOS recommended Not to inscribe ("selection of isolated components that do not add up to the idea of an overall cultural landscape", "largescale modern water management networks, and the modern urban developments since the 1960s, have greatly impacted the property"), which was fully overturned without objections by the WHC (opposition lead by Kuwait)
See www.worldheritagesite.org

Controversy between Japan and Korea, about use of forced labor at some of the sites during WWII. Germany mediated behind the scenes to a compromise.
See the-japan-news.com