ATANIA

RAHAD VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY SAVALI PIPELINE PROJECT

THAT CAUSED DEGRADATION TO KIN CANYON COMPLEX

The Kin Canyon complex is undisputedly a site of "outstanding universal value." 1 Rahad is

responsible under Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention (WHC) for the protection and

conservation of the Kin Canyon Complex.2 In fact, the Convention recognizes that the state in

which the property is located retains primary authority to dictate both the property's

recognition as "cultural" and to administer its uses. 3 Convention clearly states not to damage

sites located in other nations.4 Kin Canyon Complex was added to the World Heritage List in

1990, reflecting the international community's recognition of its universal value. 5 Far from

complying with its duty to protect the Kin Canyon Complex site, 6 Rahad breached

international law by causing degradation to Kin Canyon Complex.

1 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1037U.N.T.S. 151 (1972),
art. 1

2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage(opened for signature 16
November 1972, entered into force 17 December 1975)

3 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (TheHague 1972), art. 11.

4 WHC, Art. 6(3)

5 WHC, art.11.

6 WHC, art.4.
The preservation of World Heritage Sites within a State's territory is the prerogative of the

State.7 Therefore, outsiders can interfere only with the State's consent. 8 Even though the

World Heritage Convention references a universal interest in the preservation of world

cultural heritage, the Conventions use of the term international community is, under

international law, expressly restricted to the States Parties to the Convention.9

RELEVANT CASES :

1) CEAUSESCU'S SYSTEMIZATION PROGRAM AND THE THREAT TO

ROMANIA' S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE (1971-1989)

2) THE ILISU DAM AND THE THREAT TO HASANKEYF (1982-2002)

States should have a duty to consider any alternatives that are less damaging to the cultural

heritage, taking into account the available technology of the time.10 Similarly, states should

also have the duty to mitigate harm to the cultural property if they go through with their

plans.11

7 Meyer, Travaux Preparatoires for the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 2 EARTH LAWJOURNAL 45,
61(1976).

8 World Heritage Committee Report of the 181h Session, U.N.Doc.WHC-94/CONF.003/16, 14IX.6.

9 Craig Forrest, International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Routledge 2010) 245.

10 THE ASWAN HIGH DAM AND THE THREAT TO ABU SIMBEL AND PHILAE ISLAND
(1955-1980)

11 Monumental Challenges: The Lawfulness of Destroying Cultural Heritage During Peacetime,

Kanchana Wangkeo
RAHAD

RAHADS SAVALI PIPELINE PROJECT DID NOT CAUSE DEGRADATION TO

KIN COMPLEX AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Although the Convention states that heritage sites have "universal value,"'12 it also

emphasizes that international cooperation is undertaken "[w]hilstfully respecting the

sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage ... is

situated[.]"'13

THE CASE OF THE ASWAN HIGH DAM AND THE THREAT TO ABU SIMBEL AND

PHILAE ISLAND (1955-1980) IMPORTANT CASE ARGUMENT MADE -

ECONOMIC NECESSITY - Egypt argued that economic circumstances necessitated the

destruction of the relics. Because of a drastic population increase in the last half century, the

dam was needed to increase food production to meet the greater domestic demand and raise

the standard of living .14

12 1972 WHC, at art. 1, 11, 7.

13 Id. at art. 6(1)

14 HUSSEIN M. FAHIN, DAMS, PEOPLE AND DEVELOPMENT: THE ASWAN HIGH DAM
CASE 12 (1981).