International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Cultural Property in Contemporary Armed Conflict: Current Issues and Challenges

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954 Hague Convention) remains the leading treaty on the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. After several decades of relative dormancy, eleven States have joined the 1954 Hague Convention in the last decade, including two major military powers: the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the 1954 Hague Convention, a host of laws touch on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as those under customary international law. Nonetheless, there are disagreements in interpretations of States’ obligations toward cultural property during armed conflict stemming from a variety of factors. These factors can include: whether States are Parties to the instrument that conveys the obligation or if the obligation is one of customary international law, which itself is often contested; the individual State’s interpretation; interpretation by tribunals; and a plethora of other factors. Given these discrepancies in interpretation, a review of States’ military manuals is useful to see if they shed any light on the State’s interpretation of their obligations toward cultural property under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and international obligations in LOAC more generally. This chapter will analyze and compare the military manuals of the United States and the United Kingdom to determine how they elucidate several key issues in the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, such as the definition of ‘cultural property’, requirements for ‘respect’, the doctrine of military necessity, and laws applicable in non-international armed conflicts.

Cultural values are part of human dignity and civilian life. Cultural property must be primarily protected during armed conflicts as well as during peacetime. Unfortunately, in armed conflicts, culture has often been one of the primary victims of conflict. As a matter of fact, the parties to the conflict usually target the cultural heritage militarily or politically in order to demoralize the targeted society and show their superiority. During the armed conflicts, many cultural heritages, many of them world heritage, have been destroyed or damaged. The destruction of cultural heritage fuels violence, hatred and revenge among people and undermines the foundations of peace by impeding reconciliation even when conflicts are over. The protection of cultural property in international law is regulated in many international documents. However, the first international regulation prepared by UNESCO on the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict, “The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict” has a special importance. International law requires the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflicts. Recent history, however, provides numerous examples of the deliberate destruction or its use to secure a military objective. This leads to questioning whether international law provides adequate protection to cultural heritage in times of armed conflict. The study aims to examine what should be understood from the concept of cultural property in terms of international law, what the international regulations are in this regard and whether these regulations are sufficient, on the basis of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Properties during Armed Conflicts, and to make some observations and comments.

Armed conflict is perhaps as old as humankind itself. Although the rules regulating the protection of persons are far more important than protection to property, it does not mean that the protection of property is of only modest significance. This chapter considers international law pertaining to the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. It first surveys the development of rules relevant to wartime protection of cultural property. In order to determine exactly which law, and how much of it, is relevant to the Old Bridge, the chapter then examines the nature of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croat-Muslim conflict in Mostar at the time of the destruction of the Old Bridge. This examination highlights the direct intervention and overall control tests. Finally, the chapter outlines the law applicable to the destruction of the Old Bridge, specifying the applicability of both customary and treaty international humanitarian law (IHL). Keywords:armed conflict; Croat-Muslim conflict; cultural property; international law; Mostar; Old Bridge; wartime protection

This article considers whether there are any gaps within the legal framework protecting cultural heritage from attacks conducted by non-state armed groups. It first looks at the existing obligations of states vis-a-vis non-state armed groups with regard to the protection of such heritage, in particular their obligations stemming from the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. It also examines the obligations of non-state armed groups with regard to cultural heritage, clarifying their obligations under international humanitarian law, including customary international norms, and other sources of international law. Finally, this article discusses accountability mechanisms, in particular with the application of international criminal law to prosecute the members of non-state armed groups who have conducted attacks against cultural property.

The protection of cultural property has long been recognised under international humanitarian law. Article 5 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property embodies three-pronged affirmative obligations specifically relating to occupied territory. With specific regard to occupied territory, Article 56 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 accord special protections to the property of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences. The occupying powers are absolutely prohibited from seizing, destroying or causing wilful damage to institutions of this character, historic monuments, and works of art and science. In occupied territory, the occupying power must prohibit, prevent and stop any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, the cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention. The application of rules on the conduct of hostilities in turn necessitates the occupying power to undertake careful appraisal of the applicable rules.Keywords: cultural property; Hague Regulations; international humanitarian law; occupied territory

The paper notes the attempts that are being made to doctrinally substantiate a broad approach, according to which the «international law of cultural property» was formed as a special (autonomous) legal framework. Without sharing such views, the author justifies the existence of an intersectoral institute for the international legal protection of cultural property, and also notes that the protection of cultural property in the actual situation of armed conflict is a branch institute of international humanitarian law (IHL), characterized by the presence of special principles and established scope of application (ratione materiae and ratione temporis). For the purposes of IHL, the definition of «cultural property» is formulated. It implies movable and immovable objects of the material world (objects) that are subject to identification and have no military purpose. They are of fundamental importance for the cultural heritage of not only a single people, but also the entire international community, included in the relevant register/list and under common, special or enhanced international legal protection, including their storage sites or concentration centers.A reasonable proposal has been made to introduce the concept of the «1954 Hague Convention system» into scientific circulation. The central part of it is formed by the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, including the Executive Regulations as an integral part of it, and additional Protocols to it (Optional Protocol I and the Second Protocol of 1999), as well as three resolutions attached to the Final Act of the 1954 Conference. It is emphasized that the Second Protocol of 1999, which Russia has not ratified, provided for the creation of institutional structures designed to complement the system of implementation of the Hague Convention of 1954. Based on the analysis of the «1954 Hague Convention system», three conventional regimes for the protection of cultural property in the actual situation of armed conflict (general, special and enhanced) have been established and their features have been analyzed.

With the enactment of ʻthe Basic Law on National Heritageʼ in Korea, The ʻCultural Property Protection Actʼ will be renamed ʻthe Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Cultural Heritageʼ(acronym: the Cultural Heritage Act) from May 17, 2024. The Cultural Heritage Act shall serve as the basic law related to the cultural heritage legislation. The Cultural Heritage Act includes such as contents; the establishment and promotion of the protection of cultural heritage as defined in the Basic Law on National Heritage, the creation of a foundation for cultural heritage protection, and the nationally designated cultural heritage, general movable cultural heritage, and municipal-designated cultural heritage. In the Basic Law on National Heritage, cultural heritage refers only to tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage is separately classified as intangible cultural heritage. But both tangible and intangible cultural heritage should be considered as the subject of the cultural heritage legislation. Korea had a representative comprehensive cultural property protection legal system in the past, but government recently divided the Intangible Cultural Property Act, the Buried Cultural Property Act, and the Cultural Property Repair Act from the previous Cultural Property Protection Act. Furthermore, Matters related to the preservation and management of natural monuments and scenic spots will be stipulated in newly enacted the “Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Natural Heritage” (acronym: Natural Heritage Act). Although the laws was divided from previous Cultural Property Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Administration remains the same. In order for an effective cultural heritage policy to be activated under the changed legal environment, it is necessary to analyze and examine international agreements related to the globalization of cultural heritage and related legal systems of major countries. And these analysis and examination will be contributed to make legislative and policy improvements to the issues that have been problematic domestically. In this regard, this paper aims to draw implications by examining the German cultural heritage legal system which the federal and state cooperate while maintaining a dual system. In Germany, the protection and management of domestic cultural heritage is protected by the State(Land) in the form of monument protection laws, and the federal government operates the cultural property protection law, which aims to prevent cultural property from being lost by controlling the export, import, and distribution of cultural property. I think it will be a great reference for improving legislation for the globalization of cultural heritage in Korea. In particular, the regulations related to the return of cultural properties illegally leaked abroad and the international exchange of cultural properties are worth referring to. Germany's Cultural Property Protection Act as a federal law has detailed regulations that control the export, import, and distribution of cultural properties, so I think it will be a great reference for improving legislation to globalize Korea's cultural heritage. In particular, regulations related to the return of illegally leaked cultural properties overseas, the guarantee of return of international loans, and the international exchange of cultural properties are worth referencing in Korea's legislative improvement.

All military involvement in the protection of cultural property in the Netherlands is a direct consequence of legal obligations laid down in international humanitarian law (IHL). The 1954 Hague Convention was supplemented by Protocol I, which imposed further obligations on occupying forces in control of hostile territory and on other High Contracting Parties to take into custody and to return cultural property coming from occupied territories at the close of the hostilities. However, the eruption of armed conflict in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s demonstrated the very limited effect of IHL protection. As a result of this, Protocol II to the 1954 Convention sought to impose even tighter restrictions on the impact of military operations on cultural property. This chapter discusses the role of the Dutch armed forces in protecting cultural property. Keywords: armed conflict; cultural property; Dutch armed forces; Dutch Ministry of Defence; Hague Convention; international humanitarian law (IHL); military operations; protection

Perishing Heritage:

Contents: Introduction Bibliography and further reading. Part I Foundations: The Concept of Cultural Heritage: Cultural property internationalism, John Henry Merryman On defining the cultural heritage, Janet Blake The Politics of Cultural Heritage Rights: The expanding purview of cultural properties and their politics, Rosemary J. Coombe The politics of preservation: privileging one heritage over another, Jonathan S. Bell. Part II Types of Cultural Heritage Rights: Natural Heritage as Cultural Heritage: Nature and culture: a new World Heritage context, Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo and Frits Pannekoek World Heritage and rights-based approaches to nature conservation, Gonzalo Oviedo and Tatjana Puschkarsky Urban Landscapes as Cultural Heritage: Informal settlements and urban heritage landscapes in South Africa, Lindsay M. Weiss Artefactual Cultural Heritage Rights: Sir, how much is that Ming vase in the window? Protecting cultural relics in the People's Republic of China, Michael L. Dutra Underwater Cultural Heritage Rights: 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Sarah Dromgoole Intangible Cultural Heritage Rights: Heritage trouble: recent work on the protection of intangible cultural property, Michael F. Brown The UNESCO concept of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: its background and Marrakchi roots, Thomas M. Schmitt Indigenous Cultural Heritage Rights: Indigenous cultural heritage in development and trade: perspectives from the dynamics of cultural heritage law and policy, Rosemary J. Coombe with Joseph F. Turcotte Indigenous cultural landscapes and the politics of heritage, Melissa F. Baird. Part III Contemporary Issues in Cultural Heritage Rights Law: Repatriation of Cultural Heritage: Resolving material culture disputes: human rights, property rights and crimes against humanity, Robert K. Paterson Illicit Trade in Cultural Heritage: Controlling the international market in antiquities: reducing the harm, preserving the past, Patty Gerstenblith Armed Conflict and Cultural Heritage Protection: The protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict: the practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Hirad Abtahi The obligation to prevent and avoid destruction of cultural heritage: from Bamiyan to Iraq, Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini Tourism, Economic Development and Cultural Heritage Protection: Posta Econflict heritage and tourism in Cambodia: the burden of Angkor, Tim Winter. Part IV Future Directions in Cultural Heritage Rights Law: Cultural Heritage Protection and the Challenge of Climate Change: Changing climate, changing culture: adding the climate change dimension to the protection of intangible cultural heritage, Hee-Eun Kim Cultural Expressions as Cultural Heritage: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions: building a new world information and communication order?, Rachael Craufurd Smith The Human Genome and Cultural Heritage: The human genome as common heritage: common sense or legal nonsense?, Pilar N. Ossorio Beyond Rights? Rethinking the Cultural Heritage Protection Paradigm: Cultural heritage rights: from ownership and descent to justice and well-being, Ian Hodder. Name index.

Syrian Cultural Property in the Crossfire:

The relevance of studying the legal foundations of the organization of the protection of cultural property in the context of armed conflict is increasing against the background of recent international events, as well as the aggravation of relations between the Russia and a number of foreign states, including the Baltic states. These circumstances require not only theoretical understanding, but also practical application of the norms of international law. The object of the study is the protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict. The subject of the study is the regulation and implementation of international legal protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict. The purpose of the article is to develop proposals for improving the international legal mechanism for the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, enshrined in the law of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the research presented in the article is a systematic approach and a doctrinal method. The following methods were used in the research: analysis, synthesis, generalization, deduction, formal legal analysis, and others. The paper examines the legislative, institutional and practical aspects of the legal framework for the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict. The main international and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regulating these issues are given. The author suggests possible ways to improve the national legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law. The position is argued on the need not only to inform, but also to test military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the protection of cultural property and responsibility for violations of international law (including the destruction, misappropriation and vandalism of cultural heritage). The novelty of the research lies in a comprehensive approach to analyzing the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, identifying shortcomings in existing norms and offering specific recommendations for their improvement.

55 on the protection of cultural property.The challenges and threats to Ukraine's cultural heritage in the context of russia's aggression against Ukraine and the existing mechanisms for the protection of cultural property that can be used are analyzed.It is proposed to apply the mechanisms of enhanced protection under the Protocols of 1954 and 1999 to protect the cultural property of Ukraine.The content of the provisions of international humanitarian and international criminal law on criminal liability for crimes against cultural property is characterized.The peculiarities of qualification of crimes against cultural property of Ukraine under the Criminal Code of Ukraine are indicated.Amendments to the legislation of Ukraine on the protection of cultural property are recommended.

This chapter provides an overview on the development of the international legal framework protecting cultural property from destruction during armed conflict and peacetime. First, a short overview on the historical development is presented. Then, the main treaties of international humanitarian law and international cultural property law are discussed. The focus of the analysis lies on the scope of application, the definition of cultural property, the protection of cultural property as well as violations or breaches of the respective treaty. The chapter discusses the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the 1948 Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1954 Hague Convention, 1972 World Heritage Convention, 1977 Additional Protocols, the 1999 Second Hague Protocol, and the 2003 UNESCO Declaration. Keywords:1948 Genocide Convention; 1949 Geneva Conventions; 1977 Additional Protocols; 2003 UNESCO Declaration; cultural property; Hague Conventions; international cultural property law; international humanitarian law; World Heritage Convention

This paper deals with the use of military or militarized experts for cultural property protection (CPP) during times of conflict. CPP activities generally take place within a juridical framework that gives obligations for all parties involved, primarily the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and attention is paid to various implications and challenges that occur when implementing military CPP obligations within this framework. To illustrate matters, the paper details a specific case study from the author’s own field experience in the safeguarding of the archaeological site of Uruk in Iraq. Aspects, including economic, legal, financial, and educational implications, are presented and these are especially relevant since they apply (to an extent) to other situations, such as the recent cultural disasters in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The Uruk case study is used to suggest a number of key elements that are vital for the implementation of an effective CPP strategy in the context of military operations. Overall, the importance of international cooperation, training, and education, along with the assistance of civil reach-back capabilities, is emphasized. The paper argues that an effective way to protect Cultural Property during armed conflicts is through military channels and with military logistics and tools. To fulfil CPP in agreement with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) joint preparations in peacetime are necessary. The handover of military initiated CPP projects to civil authorities has to take place as soon as the situation permits. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations.