Becoming a conservation ‘good power’: Norway’s early World Heritage history

Abstract

States stand at the core of the World Heritage Convention and their multifaceted interstate relations have been a central subject in contemporary World Heritage research. Less research has been directed towards intrastate relations, that is relations between organisation-agencies and individual agents within a State Party. Spurring from the 40th anniversary of Norway’s ratification of the World Heritage Convention, this paper utilises archival records to explore the intrastate relations and transactional authority at play within the State Party of Norway. Inspired by recent research in international relations and political science, it analyses Norway’s ratification process (1972–1977) through its early years as an observer (1978–1983) to its first committee tenure (1983–1989). Currently known as one of the spokespersons for scientific advice, returning to the 1980s provides an opportunity to reflect on how Norway laid the foundations for becoming a conservation ‘good power’ through its actions and responses to other states’ lobbying efforts.

Keywords:

• World Heritage
• intrastate relations
• Norway
• good power
• heritage politics
• international relations

Notes

1. All quotes in Norwegian are translated by the authors.

2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Climate and Environment. The records from the two latter are kept at the National Archives.

3. Following Neumann (2012), a diplomat is the title given to an official representative of a state working within the field of foreign affairs, at home or abroad. Thus all individuals working on the permanent delegation to UNESCO, at in-country embassies, in foreign ministries, or with titles that included words to indicate an international job focus, were categorized as diplomatic experts.

4. Individuals categorized as heritage experts include academics, individuals working for ministries of environment and cultural heritage at levels below the title of minister, and individuals with historic monuments in their title.

5. It should be noted that the methodology in determining heritage expert vs. diplomat is inexact and challenging due to title changes of participants. To exemplify further: During his years of involvement biologist Ralph Slayter’s institutional home changed from being Australian Ambassador to UNESCO to professor at ANU. Thus the educational background of diplomats may well be in a heritage related discipline.

6. In English, Riksantivkaren is currently known as the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. As its English name has changed during the period of investigation, the Norwegian name is used throughout.

7. The following year this was redeveloped to the International Course on Wood Conservation Technology (ICWCT) as a collaborative effort between ICCROM and the Riksantikvaren, originally funded in UNESCO’s budget for 1984–85. Since 1984 it has been hosted every other year.

8. Only records of Advisory Bodies’ evaluations for sites inscribed are part of the online archive and thus it is difficult to judge the extent to which the bureau follow their advice.