International Legal Regimes for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

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.

Introduction. For thousands of years, historical and cultural monuments have been damaged or destroyed as a result of armed conflicts and acts of vandalism. Given the role that these sites play in the development of humanity, international humanitarian law (IHL) establishes the basis for the international legal protection of religious, cultural and scientific sites. At the beginning of the 20th century. the situation was complicated not only by the absence of a universal international treaty that would be devoted exclusively to the international legal protection of these objects, but also by an international intergovernmental organization that would develop appropriate norms and standards. These problems led to the creation in 1945 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Thanks to the activities of this specialized UN agency, as well as the activities of a number of non-governmental international organizations, it was possible to form an international legal regime for the protection of cultural property both in peacetime and during armed conflicts.As a result of changes in the strategy of conducting armed conflicts, as well as improving the methods and means of conducting them in the 21st century, cultural objects are in great danger. In this regard, the analysis of current international legal norms and principles for the protection of cultural property in the context of international humanitarian law is of particular relevance.Materials and methods. As for the materials, we were talking about legal acts, Russian and cultural information based on the cultural traditions of international law. methodological basis based on scientific methods of lysis and synthesis, comparative legal method, scientific method of delivery.Research results. The evolution of the system of international legal protection of cultural property and world cultural heritage allows us to draw a conclusion about the comprehensive level of such protection, applied both in peacetime and in armed conflicts. The international legal responsibilities of states in this area are associated, first of all, with assessing the significance of cultural objects and giving them the appropriate legal status through national legislation or inclusion in the registers of international organizations.Discussion and conclusion. At the same time, the activities of states and international organizations related to the special designation of cultural objects in armed conflicts, the training of civilian and military personnel, and taking into account the specifics of the placement and maintenance of such objects are of particular importance. The general body of knowledge and skills for the protection and protection of cultural objects is formed by UNESCO as a specialized agency of the United Nations, which strives to preserve the universal heritage as the highest achievements of art and science.

The protection of cultural property constitutes one of the fundamental domains of international humanitarian law. However, the advent of modern era of cyber warfare and the digital technologies has generated novel legal challenges. This article examines the applicability of existing international legal frameworks, primarily the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its additional protocols, to three categories of heritage: physical, digitized, and digitally created cultural property. A historical-legal analysis demonstrates that cultural property has consistently been a deliberate target of destruction and looting during armed conflicts, prompting the gradual evolution of international law from the Lieber Code to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. While the digital transformation has significantly increased the accessibility of cultural heritage, it has simultaneously created heightened risks of cyber-threats, manipulation, and data destruction. The article argues that, notwithstanding the 1954 Hague Convention does not explicitly address “digital” or “digitized” property, an evolutionary interpretation allows such assets to be considered analogous to archives and repositories of cultural memory, thereby subjecting them to the existing regime of international legal protection. This approach is consistent with state practice, UNESCO initiatives, and the principle established in international law that cultural heritage constitutes a common value of humankind. In conclusion, the study reflects that the protection of digital and digitized cultural heritage has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges of contemporary international law. While existing treaties provide a foundational framework, effective 139 guram Rvinjilia, revaz berulava samarTlis kultura, 2025, № 1 safeguarding requires not only interpretative development of current norms and state practice but also the creation of new, universal, and binding legal standards to ensure the preservation of humanity’s cultural identity in the digital age.

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.

This article discusses how the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts is far from being complete, and how the enforcement of existing international law rules is ineffective. Although it is certainly unavoidable that not every cultural property can be protected, one category is missing, namely, the property which constitutes the cultural heritage of a particular population or even a minority group. The protection of cultural property in non-international conflicts is particularly unsatisfactory. Not only is it questionable whether the 1954 Hague Convention is binding upon rebels; it is even more problematic to ensure its enforcement. Another weakness of the existing international regime on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict stems from its lack of coherency. The possibility to waive the protection of cultural property under the 1954 Hague Convention on the basis of military necessity makes the respective objects a prey of military considerations. Keywords:armed conflict; cultural property; Hague Convention; international instruments; military necessity; obligation; protection

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.

The article is devoted to the analysis of international and national laws on criminal liability for infringements on cultural values in the event of an armed conflict. According to statistical data, 54 armed conflicts happened in the world in 2021, and resulted not only in the loss of human life and destruction, but also in the loss of cultural property. The objects of research are international treaties of the Russian Federation and the norms of national legislation: the Hague Convention On the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907; the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and its protocols; Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of 1949; Manual on International Humanitarian Law for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors analyze the legal conceptual apparatus used in these documents, as well as the theoretical approaches to understanding it, and give their own assessment of the quality and specifics of terminology. The article presents the characteristics of the historical development of the international legal protection mechanism for the abovementioned objects, as well as the implementation of these norms in the national criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The conducted research revealed some drawbacks in establishing liability within the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the inclusion of formal elements of crimes under different chapters, and the absence of necessary features in the description of crimes. Special attention is paid to the analysis of Art. 356 of the CC of the RF within the context of using it for crimes against cultural property in the event of an armed conflict. According to the authors, such legal recognition could have a negative impact on the possibility of bringing the guilty persons to justice. As a result of their research, the authors put forward a suggestion to divide infringements on cultural property in the event of an armed conflict into war crimes committed by combatants, and crimes committed by civilians. The authors use this classification to describe the specifics of the possible inclusion of corpus delicti within the criminal law.

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.

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 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 author stresses the importance of protecting cultural property from the effects of armed conflict as its damage or destruction destroys a community’s identity and its links with its past, present and future, as well as diminishes the cultural heritage of humankind. The author draws attention to the recent destruction of cultural property in the civil war in Syria and the activities of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL) in Iraq. This chapter analyses the provisions of the principal legal instruments dealing with the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, namely the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The 1954 Hague Convention), the 1954 Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1999 Second Protocol to The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, as well as other relevant instruments of international law. While the existing legal instruments may be adequate, the problem, as with international law generally, lies in their effective enforcement, particularly in situations of non-international armed conflict where the parties to the conflict have no regard for the dictates of international humanitarian law. But once hostilities have come to an end, it will be possible to bring offenders to justice, if necessary before the International Criminal Court. In the meantime, it is important that there should be widespread adherence to The 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols.

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.

The article presents the experience of the Naval Academy in Gdynia in disseminating the principles of the protection of cultural property within the framework of the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (IHLCHC). The author reviewed the Naval Academy’s educational, scientific and popularization activities in the area of IHLC. In addition to the traditional dissemination of the principles of the protection of cultural property as part of education with IHLCHC (including members of the Polish Armed Forces), the Naval Academy additionally boasts two of its own scientific ventures, which have a dimension unique within the country: the annual IHLCH conference (14 editions) and the yearbook “International Humanitarian Law” (11 volumes). In 2020–2022, the Naval Academy participated in an EEA grant dedicated to the multi-sectoral challenges of protecting cultural heritage in the event of crisis or war. As a result, 4 publications under the collective title “Protection of Cultural Property in Crises and Armed Conflicts” (a 2-volume monograph, case studies and manuals, and collections of national and international source texts) were published by the Naval Academic Publishing House, and an interdisciplinary program of postgraduate studies in the above area was developed. In July 2022, the studies in question were established at the Academy. Currently, work is underway to raise funds for the implementation of further projects to improve the national system for the protection of cultural property in situations of special threats, including armed conflict.