jeanbon:
My understanding is that is a new nomination ; websites mention "already inscribed" for Carcassonne. So we should consider it as a new nomination, otherwise some of them would mention "extension".
Agreed.
I have read and reread the UNESCO T List description for the site and can see no justification for us concluding that it was to be an extenion other than the presence of the word "Carcassonne" in both. The word "extension" never appears and there would be a logical difficulty to overcome if it was to be nominated as an extension in that the ENTIRE justification for Crit ii as written for Carcassonne is the Violet le duc restoration - which clearly doesn't apply to the other forts. And remember also that the existing "Carcasonne" is inscribed as MORE than just a "fort" -the issue which led to probems with its first attempt at nomination.
On the other hand it would seem the those who wrote the Historic forts description were trying to maintain arguments for it being nominated on Crit ii and iv (exactly the same as those for Carcassonne) - but it has come up with rather different arguments and words. I have tried to establish the degree to which past "Extensions" have involved a reformulation of the OUV Criteria but haven't found an easy method of doing so. Conceptually one would have thought that an extension should at least maintain the same Criteria and at most develop and extend them in a way which applies to both old and extended elements ...and certainly not go off in a different direction and alter one entirely?
Whilst looking at the UNESCO wording for a number of T List sites we have categorised as "Extensions" and having found that they (nearly?) always included the word within the description I did have problems with Argentina's "Sierra de las Quijadas National Park". We have this categorised as an extension to "Ischigualasto / Talampaya Natural Parks". I think this is doubtful. Its proposed criteria are vii, viii, ix whilst Ischigualasto is inscribed solely on vii. The words extension isn't used anywhere and although mention is made of Ischigualasto it is in somewhat vague terms which don't necessarily imply an extension IMO -
"The World Heritage resources of the Sierra de las Quijadas, National Parks are of great archaeological, prehistorically and ethnographic value and evidence a close relationship and regional integration with the Ischigualasto and Tamlampaya National Parks. This would permit to establish a cultural chain with similar anthropological patterns in the mentioned geographical area central region of Argentina known in the world." Does "regional integration" mean "Extension"??
Page 7 of 9: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »