Questioning the Impact of Contemporary Post-War Reconstruction Ideas on World Heritage Sites

Abstract

When we look at the current situation in the ield of heritage protection and care, we can easily conclude that the adoption of numerous conventions, laws and orders concerning its safekeeping, value for the society and rules of conduct in the event of armed conlicts and hostilities did not provide signiicant results. The deliberate destruction of heritage, as well as collateral damages, in the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Darfur, Cambodia, Peru, South African Republic, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran have shown us that it is not enough to make a decision and give expert recommendations, but it is necessary to expand our front of operation. This paper attempts to take a step towards sketching the scope and the depth of the problems of World Heritage Sites at war and criteria for their recovery. In addition, through thorough analysis of the legal data, recent reports from international organizations in charge of heritage, and the political implications of their recommendations and decisions, we will provide insights into approaches to cope with these problems. Is it enough to assure the existence of heritage when something is declared a World Heritage site? What does that mean for the site itself? Is there any guarantee that the monument from the List of Heritage in Danger is going to have special, additional treatment? Why is it important that heritage becomes one of the priorities of post-conlict reconstruction? How can it contribute to the quality of co-existence and development of intercultural dialogue? These are just some of the questions that we will try to give answers to. As a case study, we will examine four World Heritage Sites in Kosovo*,1 monuments that have been part of the Heritage in Danger List for several years.