世界遗产入选标准的对比分析及中国申报世界遗产的对策

Comparative Research on the Proportion and Combination Sorts of Adopted Criterions of World Heritage between the Globe and China

通过比较可知，2005年版《世界遗产公约操作指南》（以下简称“《操作指南》”）中的人选标准是对2002年暂时修订版中的确认和完善。应根据2005年版《操作指南》中人选标准的最新规定相应调整中国的世界遗产申报工作。对2004年世界遗产名单中的788项世界遗产的入选标准进行量化统计，总结出各项世界遗产入选标准被采用的频率和入选标准的组合类别状况。采用比较方法。分析出全球和中国的世界遗产在人选标准的采用频率和组合类别上的异同。研究表明，大多数中国的世界遗产必须符合多于世界平均水平的遗产标准才能被列人世界遗产名单。而众多符合1～2项入选标准的遗产资源则无法按照国际一般情况适时入选。但2005年版《操作指南》对每年入选遗产数目和每国申报数目的限制却将使中国众多的遗产资源无法与国外同类资源同期入选世界遗产名单，这是一项有悖公平合理的规定，不利于中国世界遗产申报工作的健康发展。针对2005年版《操作指南》的实施，中国的世界遗产申报工作应调整世界文化遗产申报策略，申报新的世界遗产类别；加大世界自然遗产的申报力度；树立世界遗产大国形象和地位，通过合适途径促成对现行《操作指南》中不合理规定的更改，维护自身利益。

There are Some differences on content, narrative and arrangement order of the criterions between the 2005 edition of Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention （hereinafter referred to as ＂ The Operational Guidelines＂） and the 2002 provisional revision edition. Those differences embody the new tendency in the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. So, it is worthy to research the criterions in the point of the development of world heritage projects in China. On the basis of full statistics, the paper analyses the proportion of adopted criterions and combination sorts of 788 world heritages on the World Heritage List of 2004 systematically, and especially, compares those With China. It is unfair to properties of China for inscription on the World Heritage List in the past years because almost each of them should meet more criterions than the international common level, but many heritage resources meet 1-2 criterion（s） can not be inscribed into the list timely. The quota of world heritage of each year and each State Party in the 2005 edition of The-Operational Guidelines will pose an obstacle to the inscription of heritage resources of China in the future. So, the State Parties of China should adjust the policy, and apply for new kinds of world cultural heritage and all kinds of natural heritages effectively, then, change the unreasonable regulations in the actual Operational Guidelines through proper way.