International humanitarian law in the context of the chilean occupation of lima: the protection of movable cultural property

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Wilful destruction of cultural property in an armed conflict is justifiable only in cases of imperative military necessity. This chapter deals with the legal nature of the destruction of the Old Bridge, and aims to apply the specific provisions of the relevant International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to the destruction of the Old Bridge, with an emphasis on the question of targeting cultural property in armed conflict. The first part of the chapter examines whether the destruction of the Old Bridge was lawful, focusing on two major questions: (i) whether the Old Bridge was a protected object and (ii) whether the Bridge was a legitimate military target. The application of IHL to the Old Bridge case exposes certain weaknesses in IHL instruments concerned with protection of cultural property in armed conflict and raises a number of issues, which are the subject of the discussion in the second part of the chapter. Keywords:armed conflict; Internaltional Humanitarian Law (IHL); legitimate military target; Old Bridge; protected object

Cultural property can be damaged to varying degrees during armed conflicts, such as the devastating blows inflicted on cultural property during WWII. In reality, when a country is at war, its cultural property is exposed to unintended or purposeful damage. Cultural property has been protected by laws and regulations since the early twentieth century, and humanitarian law provides specific measures on the issue. This article will examine the causes of attacks on cultural property in the context of today's armed conflicts and analyze the inadequacies of the protection of cultural property in today's international humanitarian law. Despite the growing concern of the international community for cultural heritage, there is still a lack of clear procedures and penalties for crimes against cultural heritage in the context of regional armed conflicts, and the international legal system needs to be further improved.

"Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America" analyses legal and constitutional developments in all states or regions outside of Europe as well as their regional and international integration. Founded in 1968 and inspired by decolonization and the idea of a cooperative new beginning, the Journal also promotes a special interest in contributions on 'Law and development'. The journal aims to provide a forum for a variety of perspectives on these fields of interest, be they focused on one country or comparative, theoretical or methodological in nature.

During the last decade of the 20th century, it became evident that the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention and the First Protocol, needed to be updated and supplemented. After various meetings and several rounds of negotiations, the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention was adopted in The Hague in March 1999. The Netherlands took the lead, together with UNESCO, in introducing and developing this Protocol. This Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention is a major step forward in the protection of cultural property under international humanitarian law. This chapter gives an account of Dutch involvement in the Second Protocol: not only in the Protocols conclusion, but also in efforts to implement its provisions as effectively as possible and to keep it in the centre of international attention. Keywords: armed conflict; cultural property; Dutch involvement; Hague Convention; international humanitarian law; legal implementation; protection; second protocol; UNESCO

The Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) organized a Regional Expert Meeting for Latin American Countries on 13 and 14 May 2002 in Lima (Peru) on the subject “To protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict: implementation of international regulations in this field at national level”. The meeting was held with the support of the Peruvian authorities, the National Institute of Culture and the National Commission for the Study and Application of International Humanitarian Law. After a previous expert meeting on the protection of cultural property during hostilities, which took place in Chavannes-de-Bogis (Geneva) on 5 and 6 October 2000, this was the first decentralized meeting.

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

The debate on the topic of rules regarding the cultural property’s protection under International Humanitarian Law has renewed its significance in modern day armed conflicts. Since the latest technological and other advancements in the field of warfare the complexities regarding application of laws in warzone has also increased. Specifically, protection of cultural property during an armed conflict has posed serious challenges to both International Humanitarian Laws and International Criminal laws. Undoubtedly, United Nations does provide a multilayered model for protecting the property holding cultural value for states, however, the gaps in implementation makes it challenging for the parties to comply fully. This article undertakes an analysis of laws related to cultural property focusing principally on IHL particularly with the reference of current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Furthermore, it provides certain recommendations that may be adopted to protect property holding cultural importance and value while addressing the present gaps.

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.

Al Mahdi was the first case before the International Criminal Court (icc), which focused on the destruction of cultural property, and indeed, the first case before an international criminal tribunal which had the destruction of cultural property as the sole charge against a jihadist. This case note first addresses the international legal framework on the protection of cultural property in Section 2. Section 3 then assesses the concept of hisbah and its operation, including the reasons why the Hisbah in Mali destroyed cultural property. The next section considers the facts of the Al Mahdi case. Section 5 highlights the shortfalls in the Trial Chamber’s consideration of the rationales for the protection and destruction of cultural property, before the note concludes in Section 6.