본 논문에서는 2004년 북한과 중국내 고구려 유적들이 유네스코 세계문화유산으로 등재된 과정과 이 과정에서 북한 고구려 고분군이 한 번 반려된 원인에 대한 몇 가지 쟁점들을 검토해보았다. 그 결과 중국은 당초 고구려 유적을 세계유산으로 신청할 계획이 없었지만, 북한이 고구려 고분군을 신청하자 이에 대응하기 위해 세계유산 신청서를 제출했으며, 동북공정 초기이던 2002년 이미 세계유산 신청서에 고구려를 중국의 고대 소수민족 지방정권으로 규정함으로써 고구려사에 대해 정치적으로 접근하고 있었음을 알 수 있었다. 한편 북한은 초기 준비 단계부터 유네스코 세계유산 전문가들의 도움을 받아 북한 내 고구려 고분군을 세계유산으로 신청하였으나, 평가기구인 국제기념물유적협의회(ICOMOS)는 북한과 중국 간 고구려 유적 공동 등재를 전제로 두 나라 유적 사이의 비교 연구 부족, 일부 고분 미개방, 유적의 진정성 훼손 등을 이유로 신청을 반려하도록 세계유산위원회에 권고하였다. 그러나 이 반려 의견은 북한을 지원했던 다른 세계유산 전문가들의 견해 및 세계유산 사업의 일반 관례와 다르고, ICOMOS 스스로 2차 평가에서 대부분 번복한 점 등을 볼 때, 객관성에 의문의 여지가 있다. 북한 고구려 고분군을 현지 조사한 ICOMOS 전문가가 중국인이라는 점도 논란이 되었으나 당시 규정상 이것이 세계유산협약 운영지침을 위반했다고 보기는 어렵다. 고구려 유적 등재 사례는 중국의 확고한 고구려사 편입 의도와 외교력, 북한의 고구려사 수호 의지, 같은 유적의 가치에 대해 상당히 다른 판단을 내릴 수 있는 세계유산 평가제도의 문제점, 그리고 세계유산 공동 등재의 현실적 어려움을 보여준다. 또한 고구려 사례에 비추어볼 때 향후 중국은 정치적 상황 변화에 따라 최근 정비하고 있는 발해 유적도 세계유산으로 신청할 가능성이 높다. 다만 중국이 발해 주요 유적 대부분을 보유하고 있어 서두르지는 않을 것으로 보인다. 중국이 발해 유적을 세계유산으로 신청하더라도 이것을 다른 국가가 방해할 수는 없으며, 관련국들이 감정적 대립을 하기 보다는 서로 다른 관점을 인정하고, 다양한 학자들이 참여하는 동북아 고대사 논의의 틀을 마련하는 일과 함께 북한내 발해 유적 발굴 및 연구를 지원하는 것이 필요하다.

The review of the registration process of Koguryo relics in North Korea and China in 2004 on the UNESCO World Heritage List as well as the causes of the deferral of North Korea’s Koguryo nomination in 2003 yields two points to consider: (1) China may have submitted its nomination of Koguryo relics to World Heritage Committee as a reaction to North Korea’s nomination; (2) China already made a political statement in the beginning of ‘Northeast Project’by claiming Koguryo as one of the ethnic groups and local powers of ancient Northeast China through its 2003 nomination of Koguryo to the World Heritage List. Regarding the controversy over the deferral of North Korea’s nomination of Koguryo, the objectivity of ICOMOS’s (International Council on Monuments and Sites) first evaluation in 2003, which recommended the deferral of North Korea’s nomination in favor of a joint nomination with China, is doubtful. ICOMOS’s reasoning was based on the lack of comparative studies on Koguryo relics in China and the damaged authenticity and closure of several tombs in the nomination list. However, ICOMOS’s evaluation was quite different from the opinions of World Heritage experts who aided North Korea’s nomination. ICOMOS also overturned its opinion in the following year’s evaluation of the North Korea’s identical nomination. The Koguryo case shows China’s will to include Koguryo history as part of ancient Chinese history. It also reveals North Korea’s independent understanding on Koguryo apart from China. Lastly, the case shows that the evaluation of ICOMOS is likely to be subjected to political circumstances and can produce considerably different evaluation results on a same property. It is highly possible that China will nominate Balhae relics to the World Heritage List according to the political situation after current excavating and restoring works. However, given the facts that China has the most Balhae relics of any of its neighboring countries, it seems unlikely that China will hurry the nomination of Balhae relics on the List. In order to cope with China’s possible nomination of Balhae relics, sufficient studies on Balbah should be carried out. It is not possible for other states to prevent China’s nomination of the Balhae relics under the World Heritage Convention. A joint network for discussion and research on historical issues of East Asia, comprised of scholars from various continents, is necessary. Assistance for excavation and research of Balhae of North Korea could also be considered.

The review of the registration process of Koguryo relics in North Korea and China in 2004 on the UNESCO World Heritage List as well as the causes of the deferral of North Korea’s Koguryo nomination in 2003 yields two points to consider: (1) China may have submitted its nomination of Koguryo relics to World Heritage Committee as a reaction to North Korea’s nomination; (2) China already made a political statement in the beginning of ‘Northeast Project’by claiming Koguryo as one of the ethnic groups and local powers of ancient Northeast China through its 2003 nomination of Koguryo to the World Heritage List. Regarding the controversy over the deferral of North Korea’s nomination of Koguryo, the objectivity of ICOMOS’s (International Council on Monuments and Sites) first evaluation in 2003, which recommended the deferral of North Korea’s nomination in favor of a joint nomination with China, is doubtful. ICOMOS’s reasoning was based on the lack of comparative studies on Koguryo relics in China and the damaged authenticity and closure of several tombs in the nomination list. However, ICOMOS’s evaluation was quite different from the opinions of World Heritage experts who aided North Korea’s nomination. ICOMOS also overturned its opinion in the following year’s evaluation of the North Korea’s identical nomination. The Koguryo case shows China’s will to include Koguryo history as part of ancient Chinese history. It also reveals North Korea’s independent understanding on Koguryo apart from China. Lastly, the case shows that the evaluation of ICOMOS is likely to be subjected to political circumstances and can produce considerably different evaluation results on a same property. It is highly possible that China will nominate Balhae relics to the World Heritage List according to the political situation after current excavating and restoring works. However, given the facts that China has the most Balhae relics of any of its neighboring countries, it seems unlikely that China will hurry the nomination of Balhae relics on the List. In order to cope with China’s possible nomination of Balhae relics, sufficient studies on Balbah should be carried out. It is not possible for other states to prevent China’s nomination of the Balhae relics under the World Heritage Convention. A joint network for discussion and research on historical issues of East Asia, comprised of scholars from various continents, is necessary. Assistance for excavation and research of Balhae of North Korea could also be considered.

, , , , , , , ,

World Heritage, Koguryo relics, North Korea, China, ICOMOS, Deferral, Joint nomination, Comparative studies, Authenticity, Balhae relics.