Australia,Indigenous peoples and World Heritage from Kakadu to Cape York: State Party behaviour under the World Heritage Convention

Abstract

The recent heritage literature abounds with criticism of UNESCO and the system set up under its World Heritage Convention. Much of this criticism would be better directed at the States Parties to the Convention, most of which operate in ways that serve their own national interest. Some, however, give mixed signals and demonstrate behaviour that seems inconsistent to the outside observer. Australia is an example of such a State Party, having been a leader in two seemingly opposed policy shifts within the World Heritage system during the last 15 years. On one hand, since the late 1990s Kakadu crisis it has sought to re-focus the World Heritage system on the conservation of Outstanding Universal Value to the detriment of important societal issues which the system could address more concertedly, such as the achievement of cultural dialogue and the entrenchment of human rights. On the other hand, Australia has been a principal advocate for greater involvement of Indigenous peoples in World Heritage nomination and management. The extent to which Australian governments have learnt to deal more sensitively with their Indigenous citizens is shown in the current development of the World Heritage nomination of Cape York. Australia’s apparently inconsistent behaviour within the World Heritage system reflects tensions within Australia’s internal governance arrangements and also at the interface between global governance and state governance. Clearer recognition of such tensions is necessary if a better understanding of the operations of the World Heritage system is to be achieved and if ways to improve the World Heritage system are to be found.