Authors’ reply to Peter Bridgewater, ‘Australia resistant to World Heritage in Danger listing? Yes, but … a response to James, Hamman, and Hølleland (2025)’

A reply by the authors of the original article ‘The Fear of Losing National and Institutional Face: Exploring Australia’s Resistance to World Heritage In Danger Listing’. International Journal of Heritage Studies 31 (7): 918–34 to a response by Peter Bridgewater. The response is welcomed, but the scope of the original article should be noted, as should the following points in reply. The original understanding of the In Danger List has been superseded and what matters now is understanding how states respond, what that tells us about how they see World Heritage and why they see it in the way that they do. The comparison with the Ramsar Convention’s Montreux Record should be downplayed. Saving face can co-exist with – indeed was actuated through – Australia’s establishment of legal and policy frames. There is a lack of evidence for a loss of tourism revenue should the Great Barrier Reef be listed In Danger. The utility and practicality of the suggested ’Global Heritage Emergency Watchlist’ is far from clear. While unlikely to be explicitly acknowledged in participants’ accounts, face can be productively read alongside and indeed through the other factors as a consistent explanatory tool as Australia’s resistance to In Danger listing enters its fifth decade.