lexrussicaLex russicaLex Russica1729-59202686-7869MSAL10.17803/1729-5920.2025.229.12.128-147lexrussica-4940Research ArticleСРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ / COMPARATIVE STUDIESCOMPARATIVE STUDIES / COMPARATIVE STUDIESВзаимодействие национальных и международных природоохранных мер на порайонной основе (на примере объектов всемирного природного наследия)Interaction of National and International Environmental Protection Policies on a District‑by‑District Basis (As in the Case of World Natural Heritage Sites)КолобовР. Ю.KolobovR. Yu.

Колобов Роман Юрьевич, кандидат юридических наук, доцент, научный сотрудник, научный сотрудник кафедры водных ресурсов ЮНЕСКО, доцент кафедры международного права и сравнительного правоведения Юридического института 

д. 10, Улан-Баторская ул., г. Иркутск 664003

Roman Yu. Kolobov, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Researcher; Researcher at the UNESCO Department of Water Resources, Associate Professor, Department of International Law and Comparative Law, Law Institute

Irkutsk

roman.kolobov@gmail.comФедеральный исследовательский центр «Иркутский институт химии имени А.Е. Фаворского СО РАН» ; Иркутский государственный университетFederal Research Center Irkutsk Institute of Chemistry named after A.E. Favorsky, SB RAS ; Irkutsk State University2025170120267812128147Copyright © Колобов Р.Ю., 20262026Колобов Р.Ю.Kolobov R.Y.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/4940

Анализируются общие закономерности взаимодействия национальных и международных территориальных подходов к охране природы. В качестве иллюстративного материала представлена практика охраны объектов всемирного природного наследия. Констатируется значительный исторический опыт в использовании территориальных мер охраны природы и неизбежность интернационализации их использования после формирования национальных государств. Обосновывается территориальный характер режима охраны всемирного природного наследия, демонстрируется необходимость его реализации в национально-правовых формах охраны природы. Показан генезис классификации современных особо охраняемых природных территорий на международном уровне, выявлены противоречия, связанные с признанием их социальной роли. Полученные выводы соотнесены с развитием системы охраны всемирного наследия, констатировано усиление дискурса прав местных сообществ на использование уникальных природных объектов, установлено преобладание особо охраняемых природных территорий как национальной формы правовой охраны объектов всемирного природного наследия. Исследовано международно-правовое понятие «другие эффективные природоохранные меры на порайонной основе», продемонстрирован его потенциал для сохранения биоразнообразия и оценены возможные риски, связанные с ослаблением режима охраны объектов всемирного природного наследия. Как пример сложного случая организации территориальных подходов к охране природы рассмотрен режим центральной экологической зоны Байкальской природной территории. Определено его место в системе анализируемых категорий, показаны способы совершенствования охраны объекта всемирного наследия «Озеро Байкал», критически оценивается предложение о создании федеральной территории в его границах. Отстаивается необходимость признания центральной экологической зоны Байкальской природной территории особо охраняемой природной территорией sui generis.

The general patterns of interaction between national and international territorial policies to nature protection are analyzed. The practice of protecting World Natural Heritage sites is used as a supporting material. Significant historical experience in the use of territorial nature protection measures and the inevitability of internationalization of their use after the formation of nation states are asserted. The territorial nature of the World Natural Heritage protection regime is substantiated, and the need for its implementation in national legal forms of nature protection is demonstrated. The genesis of the classification of modern specially protected natural territories at the international level is shown, and contradictions related to the recognition of their social role are revealed. The obtained conclusions are correlated with the development of the world heritage protection system, the strengthening of the discourse of the rights of local communities to use unique natural objects is noted, the predominance of specially protected natural territories as a national form of legal protection of World Natural heritage sites is established. The international legal concept of «other effective environmental protection measures on a district basis» is investigated, its potential for preserving biodiversity and possible risks associated with weakening the protection regime of World Natural Heritage Sites are demonstrated. The regime of the central ecological zone of the Baikal natural territory is considered as a complex case of the organization of territorial approaches to nature protection. Its place in the system of the considered categories is determined, ways of improving the protection of the Lake Baikal World Heritage Site are shown. The proposal to create a federal territory within its borders is critically evaluated. The necessity of recognizing the central ecological zone of the Baikal natural territory as a specially protected natural territory sui generis is defended.

всемирное наследиеособо охраняемые природные территориидругие эффективные природоохранные меры на порайонной основеозеро Байкалэкологическое правомеждународное правоБайкальская природная территорияКомитет всемирного наследияЮНЕСКОМеждународный союз охраны природыWorld Heritagespecially protected natural territoriesother effective environmental protection measures on a district basisLake Baikalenvironmental lawinternational lawBaikal Natural TerritoryWorld Heritage CommitteeUNESCOInternational Union for Conservation of NatureReferencesАнисимов А. П. Территориальная охрана природы в России и Республике Словакия: сравнительно-правовой аспект // Вестник Томского университета. Право. 2017. № 26. С. 91–99.Alekseev YaV, Korchagina DA, Kulikov DA, et al. Features of development, reproduction and forecast of development by 2040 of the raw material base of lead and zinc in Russia. Otechestvennaya geologiya. 2024;2:19- 37. (In Russ.).Особенности освоения, воспроизводства и прогноз развития по 2040 год сырьевой базы свинца и цинка России / Я. В. Алексеев, Д. А. Корчагина, Д. А. Куликов [и др.] // Отечественная геология. 2024. № 2. С. 19–37.Anisimov AP. Territorial nature protection in Russia and the Republic of Slovakia: Comparative legal aspect. Vestnik Tomskogo universiteta. Pravo. 2017;26:91-99. (In Russ.).Рыженков А. Я. О принципах охраны озера Байкал // Вестник Омской юридической академии. 2018. № 2. С. 137–141.Arrowsmith C, Mirksrimi SH. The history of the changing nature of protected area management objectives. Environmental Resources Research. 2017;5(1):73-87.Скрипник И. И., Солнцев А. М. Международный механизм соблюдения государствами обязательств по управлению охраняемыми природными территориями // Вестник РУДН. Серия «Юридические науки». 2012. № 2. С. 224–240.Boitani L, Cowling RM, Dublin HT, Mace M, Parrish J, Possingham HP, Pressey RL, Rondinini C, Wilson KA. Change the IUCN Protected Area Categories to Reflect Biodiversity Outcomes. PLoS Biology. 6(3):436-438.Тишков А. А. Сто лет методологии территориальной охраны природы России (к 100-летию заповедного дела) // Известия Российской академии наук. Серия географическая. 2017. № 1. С. 8–19.Carroll MB. SDRs — A Sui Generis Concept in International Monetary Law. International Lawyer. 4:(2):269-275.Чибилёв А. А., Ахмеденов К. М., Рамазанов С. К. Перспективы развития сети территориальной охраны природы Западного Казахстана // Бюллетень Оренбургского научного центра УрО РАН. 2018. № 4. С. 1–13.Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. A final report. Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. August. 1978. IUCN, Morges; 1978.A global record of annual terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018 / H. Mu, X. Li, Y. Wen [et al.] // Scientific Data. 2022. Vol. 9. Art. 176.Chibilev AA, Akhmedenov KM, Ramazanov SK. Prospects for the development of a network of territorial nature protection in Western Kazakhstan. Byulleten Orenburgskogo nauchnogo centra UrO RAN. 2018;4:1-13. (In Russ.).An introduction to «other effective area-based conservation measures» under Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Origin, interpretation and emerging ocean issues / D. Laffoley, N. Dudley, H. Jonas [et al.] // Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh Water Ecosystems. 2017. Vol. 27. No. S1. P. 130–137.Claudet J, Ban NC, Blythe J, Briggs J, et al. Avoiding the misuse of other effective area-based conservation measures in the wake of the blue economy. One Earth. 5(9):969-974.Arrowsmith C., Mirksrimi S. H. The history of the changing nature of protected area management objectives // Environmental Resources Research. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 73–87.Colten CE, Dilsaver LM. The Hidden Landscape of Yosemite National Park. Journal of Cultural Geography. 2005;22(2):27-50.Avoiding the misuse of other effective area-based conservation measures in the wake of the blue economy / J. Claudet, N. C. Ban, J. Blythe [et al.] // One Earth. Vol. 5. No. 9. P. 969–974.Dudley N, Parrish JD, Redford KH, Stolton S. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: The debate and ways forward. Oryx. 2010;44(4):485-490.Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding «other effective area-based conservation measures» in the context of the broader target / D. MacKinnon, C. J. Lemieux, K. Beazley [et al.] // Biodiversity Conservation. 2015. Vol. 24. P. 3559–3581.Fitzsimons JA, Partridge T, Keen R. Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Australia: Key Considerations for Assessment and Implementation. Conservation. 2024;4:(2):176-200.Carroll M. B. SDRs — A Sui Generis Concept in International Monetary Law // International Lawyer. 2008. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 269–275.Hirons S, Collins CM, Singh M. Assessing variation in the effectiveness of IUCN protected area categorization. What remotely sensed forest integrity and human modification reveals across the major tropical forest biomes. Ecological Indicators. 2022;143. Article 109337.Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. A final report / Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. August. 1978. IUCN, Morges, 1978. 26 p.Jackson TW. The Creation of Yellowstone National Park. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 1942;29(2):187- 206.Change the IUCN Protected Area Categories to Reflect Biodiversity Outcomes / L. Boitani, R. M. Cowling, H. T. Dublin [et al.] // PLoS Biology. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 436–438.Kopsieker L, Disselhoff T. The contribution of private land conservation to 30 × 30 in Germany. Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2024;4. Art. 1324928.Colten C. E., Dilsaver L. M. The Hidden Landscape of Yosemite National Park // Journal of Cultural Geography. 2005. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 27–50.Laffoley D, Dudley N, Jonas H, MacKinnon D, MacKinnon K, Hockings M, Woodley S. An introduction to «other effective area-based conservation measures» under Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Origin, interpretation and emerging ocean issues. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh Water Ecosystems. 2017;27:130-137.Dudley N., Parrish J. D., Redford K. H., Stolton S. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: the debate and ways forward // Oryx. 2010. Vol. 44. No. 4. P. 485–490.MacKenzie JM. The Empire of Nature, Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism. Manchester University Press; 1988.Fitzsimons J. A., Partridge T., Keen R. Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Australia: Key Considerations for Assessment and Implementation // Conservation. 2024. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 176–200.MacKinnon D, Lemieux CJ, Beazley K, Woodley S, Helie R, Perron J, Elliott J, Haas C, Langlois J, Lazaruk H, Beechy T, Gray P. Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: Understanding «other effective area-based conservation measures» in the context of the broader target. Biodiversity Conservation. 2015;24:3559-3581.Hirons S., Collins C. M., Singh M. Assessing variation in the effectiveness of IUCN protected area categorisation. What remotely sensed forest integrity and human modification reveals across the major tropical forest biomes // Ecological Indicators. 2022. Vol. 143. art. 109337.Mallarach JM, Morrison J, Kothari A, Sarmiento F, Atauri JA, Wishitemi B. In defense of protected landscapes. A reply to some criticisms of category v protected areas and suggestions for improvement. Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Dudley N, Stolton S. editors. IUCN. Gland; 2008. P. 31–37.In defence of protected landscapes. A reply to some criticisms of category v protected areas and suggestions for improvement / J. M. Mallarach, J. Morrison, A. Kothari [et al.] // Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007 / N. Dudley, S. Stolton (eds). IUCN. Gland, 2008. P. 31–37.McNeely JA, Miller KR. IUCN, National Parks, and Protected Areas: Priorities for Action. Environmental Conservation. 1983;10(1):13-21.Jackson T. W. The Creation of Yellowstone National Park // The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 1942. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 187–206.Minin E, Leader-Williams N, Bradshaw CJA. Banning Trophy Hunting Will Exacerbate Biodiversity Loss. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016;31(2):99-102.Kopsieker L., Disselhoff T. The contribution of private land conservation to 30×30 in Germany // Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2024. Vol. 4. Art. 1324928.Mu H, Li X, Wen Y, Huang Y, et al. A global record of annual terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018. Scientific Data. 2022;9. Art. 176.MacKenzie J. M. The Empire of Nature, Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism. Manchester University Press, 1988. 340 p.Osei-Tutu JJ. Emerging Scholars Series: A Sui Generis Regime for Traditional Knowledge: The Cultural Divide in Intellectual Property Law. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. 2011;15 (1):147-215.McNeely J. A., Miller K. R. IUCN, National Parks, and Protected Areas: Priorities for Action // Environmental Conservation. 1983. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 13–21.Oxley I. Towards the Integrated Management of Scotland’s Cultural Heritage: Examining Historic Shipwrecks as Marine Environmental Resources. World Archaeology. 32(3):413-426.Minin E., Leader-Williams N., Bradshaw C. J. A. Banning Trophy Hunting Will Exacerbate Biodiversity Loss // Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 99–102.Paterson A. Scoping the Potential Influence of Law on Terrestrially Located Other Effective Area Based Conservation Measures. Law, Environment and Development Journal. 2023;18(1):32-50.Osei-Tutu J. J. Emerging Scholars Series: A Sui Generis Regime for Traditional Knowledge: The Cultural Divide in Intellectual Property Law // Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. 2011. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 147–215.Phelan W. What Is Sui Generis About the European Union? Costly International Cooperation in a Self-Contained Regime. International Studies Review. 2012;14(3):367-385.Oxley I. Towards the Integrated Management of Scotland’s Cultural Heritage: Examining Historic Shipwrecks as Marine Environmental Resources // World Archaeology. Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 413–426.Phillips A. A short history of the international system of protected areas management categories. Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Dudley N, Stolton S, editors. IUCN. Gland; 2008. P. 13–17.Paterson A. Scoping the Potential Influence of Law on Terrestrially Located Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures // Law, Environment and Development Journal. 2023. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 32–50.Phillips A. Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New Paradigm for Protected Areas. The George Wright Forum. 2003;20(2):8-32.Phelan W. What Is Sui Generis About the European Union? Costly International Cooperation in a Self-Contained Regime // International Studies Review. 2012. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 367–385.Prendergast DK, Adams WM. Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914). Oryx. 2003;37(2):251-260.Phillips A. A short history of the international system of protected areas management categories // Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007 / N. Dudley, S. Stolton (eds). IUCN. Gland, 2008. P. 13–17.Ryzhenkov AYa. On the principles of protection of Lake Baikal. Vestnik Omskoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2018;2:137-141. (In Russ.).Phillips A. Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New Paradigm for Protected Areas // The George Wright Forum. 2003. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 8–32.Shafer CL. Arguments for and against IUCN protected area management category VI with a review of state versus community governance. Journal for Nature Conservation. Vol. 53. art. 125697.Prendergast D. K., Adams W. M. Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914) // Oryx. 2003. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 251–260.Sheppard D. The New Paradigm for Protected Areas: Implications for Managing Visitors in Protected Areas. Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13–17 September 2006. Siegrist D, Clivaz C, Hunziker M, Iten S, editors. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland; 2006. P. 33–45.Shafer C. L. Arguments for and against IUCN protected area management category VI with a review of state versus community governance // Journal for Nature Conservation. 2013. Vol. 53. Art. 125697.Skripnik II, Solntsev AM. The international mechanism of states’ compliance with obligations to manage protected natural territories. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya «Yuridicheskie nauki» [RUDN Journal. Legal Sciences Series]. 2012;2:224-240. (In Russ.).Sheppard D. The New Paradigm for Protected Areas: Implications for Managing Visitors in Protected Areas // Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13–17 September 2006 / D. Siegrist, C. Clivaz, M. Hunziker, S. Iten (eds.). University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 2006. P. 33–45.Smith A. East Rennell World Heritage Site: Misunderstandings, inconsistencies and opportunities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2011;17:(6):592-607.Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation / O. Venter, E. W. Sanderson, A. Magrach [et al.] // Nature Communications. 2016. Vol. 7. Art. 12558.Tishkov AA. One hundred years of methodology of territorial nature protection of Russia (on the 100th anniversary of nature conservation). Izvestiya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Seriya geograficheskaya. 2017;1:8-19. (In Russ.).Smith A. East Rennell World Heritage Site: misunderstandings, inconsistencies and opportunities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands // International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2011. Vol. 17. No. 6. P. 592–607.Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications. 2016;7. Art. 12558.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.