Prosecution for the Destruction of Cultural Property – Significance of the al Mahdi Trial

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 cultural property becomes objects of destruction in armed conflicts, such as Syria and Iraq, which were carried out by ISIS squads (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). For ISIS’s actions, the ICC should judge ISIS. However, new problems will arise regarding the jurisdiction of the ICC to judge ISIS. Based on the explanation of this background, the question will arise: How are humanitarian law regulations related to protecting cultural property during armed conflict? And what is the regulation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the protection of cultural property in armed conflict by ISIS? The research in this article is normative legal research with the statue approach. According to humanitarian law, the research results show that the regulations relating to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are contained in the 1954 Hague Convention, Additional Protocol I and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of 1977. The destruction of cultural property carried out by ISIS is included in war crimes, one of the Rome Statute material jurisdictions. In this case, the Rome Statute applied by the ICC has juridical power to uphold justice and punish, including war crimes committed by ISIS. For the destruction of various cultural property in Iraq and Syria, ISIS can be judge by the ICC through a referral by the UN Security Council based on the provisions stipulated in the 1998 Rome Statute.

Excavations in Search of Cultural Artifacts During Armed Conflict: A War Crime Under Customary International Law

This chapter is an assessment of the relevant provisions for prosecuting the destruction of cultural property in international criminal law. International criminal law distinguishes between offences that create grounds for criminal liability and defences, which rule out liability. Offences consist of a material element (actus reus) and a mental element (mens rea). The ad hoc tribunals have not developed a uniform rule applicable to all crimes under international criminal law concerning the required mens rea. Prosecuting the destruction of cultural property as a war crime is relatively unproblematic as can be deviated from the practice of the international tribunals, especially the ICTY. The prosecution of the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity has been a major step for the protection of cultural property during peacetime and for the development of international criminal law.Keywords:Crime against Humanity; Crimes under International Criminal Law; cultural property; Destruction; International Criminal Tribunals; Prosecution; War Crime

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.

Cultural Properties holds the rich heritage and is a matter of pride for the entire mankind and is considered as property of mankind and does not belong specifically to any religion, group or state. Despite this the cultural property has been attacked and destroyed a lot of times either deliberately or unintentionally during war. The instances of destruction of cultural property has been there in past also and such cases are still increasing. The destruction of cultural property of course creates a sense of divide among people from different communities and nations and not just make chances of compromise between communities and nations impossible but it also lead to long term discrimination and hatred.The legal system related to protection of cultural property is mostly a soft law mechanism in which the implementation body and implementation system is missing and there are many laws which show the importance of cultural property during peacetime and also during war. This paper will discuss in detail about the significance of cultural property, long term effect of destroying of cultural property, Iconoclasm, laws regulating the protection of cultural property during war and peacetime, international criminalization of wrongs against cultural property and suggestions of the authors for protection of cultural property.

This chapter unpacks the war crime of intentional attacks on cultural property. It does so through the lens of the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is a fruitful lens for a number of reasons. The ICC’s third conviction, that of Al Mahdi (Timbuktu, Mali), was solely on this charge. Al Mahdi pled guilty and received a nine-year sentence. The ICC also has awarded reparations for the destruction of the shrines for which Al Mahdi had been convicted. The Al Mahdi case, moreover, forms part of a broader effort by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to address cultural property crimes as detailed by policy papers and cooperation agreements between the OTP and UNESCO. This chapter, addressing each of these aspects, sets out details of the crime. It then assumes an interrogatory tone: What role, exactly, can international criminal law play in the protection of cultural property, in the definition of what is “culture,” and the scope (and beneficiaries) of “protection”? What is the interplay between criminalizing the destruction of cultural property, on the one hand, and transitional justice, on the other, predicated as it may be on resistance to cultures of oppression and impunity?

Cultural property may be under serious threat in the event of armed conflict. In the twentieth century, there were clear developments in international law aimed at preventing and punishing war crimes against cultural property. Despite this, the destruction of cultural property during armed conflict has continued. This article questions whether the existing international law standards with regard to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are satisfactory, and whether or not a new instrument could be valuable. Although considerable shortcomings remain, instead of pleading for a new instrument, this article advocates raising ratification rates, the enhancement of the implementation of existing instruments, and monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms.

Since the 1990s, situations in which culturally significant heritage sites serve as symbolic targets for intentional attacks, leading to the 'destruction of enemy communities,' have frequently occurred. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law within the former Yugoslav territories, addresses prominent cases of intentional attacks and destruction of cultural property during the armed conflict, specifically targeting the annihilation of ethnic identity. This article examines the implications and limitations of international legal norms regarding the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, focusing on the Dubrovnik Old Town shelling incident, a representative case of cultural property destruction prosecuted by the ICTY. Firstly, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is undeniably a significant violation of values that the international community must protect. The pursuit of individual criminal responsibility for the destruction of cultural heritage within the international criminal tribunal signifies a substantial advancement in international efforts to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts. The negative impact of the intentional destruction of cultural property on human dignity and universal human values is undeniable. However, ensuring effective protection of cultural property in the current normative context, where attacks on cultural property for military purposes may be justified, remains challenging. Secondly, military necessity, rooted in customary international law, limits attacks on enemy forces to military objectives, focusing on the centralization of enemy forces, balancing the military necessity of concentrated attacks on enemy forces with humanitarian considerations to protect civilian objects. However, determining what qualifies as a military objective can be challenging, as it depends on the circumstances of combat and operations. Regardless of whether the principle of proportionality is applicable, evaluating the military necessity from the perspective of cultural heritage protection is crucial. ICTY recognizes that even when military necessity justifies attacks on civilian objects, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage can have a significant impact on the psychological well-being of civilians and may upset the balance with military superiority. Thus, careful consideration is necessary when assessing the military necessity in cases where the protection of cultural property, with a higher need for protection than general civilian objects, is involved. Moreover, even if a target has dual-use, being considered a military objective, evaluating proportionality in the attack is essential to prevent harm to civilians, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In conclusion, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage should be treated as a threat to the common values of the international community, necessitating appropriate legal and policy responses in line with the actual circumstances of the armed coflict. Military commanders should not only view attacks on cultural heritage as inevitable collateral damage but also recognize the gravity of such acts as war crimes and consider them strategically within military operations.

Cultural property has been destroyed, looted and trafficked throughout history, particularly during conflict situations.2 In many instances, the property that is destroyed belongs to, and / or represents, minority groups and its destruction impacts significantly on minority culture. ISIS, and related jihadist groups, have, in recent times, actively engaged in the deliberate destruction of cultural property in numerous States, including Iraq, Syria, and Mali. This has been described as ‘cultural cleansing’ by the Director-General of UNESCO,3 as jihadist groups aim to eradicate all signs of ‘other’ cultures within its newly formed State. The destruction of cultural property is now a strategy of war, with the objective being to eliminate cultural diversity and pluralism, ‘erase all sources of belonging and identity, and destroy the fabric of society.’4 The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently (2016) heard the case of Prosecutor v Al Mahdi, which focused specifically on the destruction of cultural property in Mali during a non-international armed conflict. The defendant was charged, under Article 8 of the ICC Statute, with the war crime of directing attacks against cultural property.5 Mr Al Mahdi, a member of the fundamentalist Islamic group, Ansar Dine, had been in charge of the Hisbah, the morality brigade set up in Timbuktu. One of his roles was to oversee the destruction of a number of religious monuments and mausoleums in the city...

Intentional destruction and theft of cultural property during armed conflicts are now prohibited by international law. In line with international regulations, deliberate attacks against cultural property, both during international and non-international armed conflicts, may constitute serious violations of the norms of humanitarian law and their perpetrators should be tried and penalized. At the international level, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the most appropriate body to take action to protect cultural property during armed conflicts. The International Criminal Court (ICC), on the other hand, has the jurisdiction to prosecute and penalize perpetrators of crimes against cultural property, classified as war crimes. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to answer the question of the extent to which the cooperation between the ICC and UNESCO may affect the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. In order to answer this question, analysis was performed of the scope of the protection of cultural property by the ICC and UNESCO, as well as of the legal basis for cooperation between these institutions.

The images of the destroyed Buddha statues of Bamiyan, of the ancient city of Palmyra lying in ruins, and of destroyed World Heritage sites in Timbuktu have received much attention from the international public. At the same time, these cases also reflect a new dimension in the conduct of armed hostilities today, which is increasingly aimed at destroying cultural identities or heritage. Therefore, in addition to the issue of preserving the world's cultural heritage, especially in the context of human rights protection and international humanitarian law, the protection of cultural property is seen as an increasingly important task for the United Nations and its institutions. Pieces of Art, significant written documents, memorials, and places of worship are deliberately destroyed in conflicts by armed or terrorist groups, such as the so-called Islamic State, as they represent core elements of cultural identity. The increasing number of reports on the loss of priceless cultural assets in Syria, Iraq and Mali exemplify this. Increasingly, violent non-state actors are deliberately using the destruction of cultural property as a means of warfare and even "ethnic cleansing." For the international community, this makes the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts and in the field of restoring statehood at the same time increasingly significant. The preservation of this global human memory is one of the greatest challenges of modern social, political, and legal discourses. Although the use of the destruction of cultural property to divide societies, even to erase a collective memory or destroy social structures, has long been part of warfare, this aspect has been insufficiently considered by the media public and especially in academic discourse. With contributions by Frederik Becker, Dr. Manuel Brunner, Paul Fabel, Dr. Martin Gerner, Dario Haux, Ruth Lechner, Prof. Dr. Antionette Maget Dominicé and Vincent Widdig.

International law protects cultural property in armed conflict from damage and destruction and from all forms of misappropriation against belligerents who have always looked to raze or plunder the enemy’s cultural heritage. ‘Cultural property’ may include buildings and other monuments of historic, artistic or architectural significance, as well as artworks, antiquities, manuscripts, books, archaeological sites, and archives. This chapter focuses on the relevant bodies of international law and international humanitarian law designed to protect cultural property during armed conflict, including multilateral treaties such as the Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (also known as the Roerich Pact) and the Hague Convention of 1954 and its two Protocols. It also examines international human rights law, international cultural heritage law, and international criminal law under the respective rubrics of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The destruction of cultural property is present in almost every armed conflict and the destruction of valuable cultural property occurs during peacetime as well. This chapter analyzes one example of the destruction of Buddhist institutions during the Khmer Rouge or the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) regime. It descrIbes the main events in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. The Khmer Rouge, removed the Prime Minister of the then so-called Khmer Republic, Lon Nol,2 after a five-year-long internal armed conflict from power and renamed the country Kampuchea. The most suitable provision of the ECCC Statute for the prosecution of the Khmer Rouge's destruction of cultural property during Democratic Kampuchea seems to be Article 5, which deals with crimes against humanity. It has to be hoped, though, that the ECCC Trial Chamber will decide that the nexus requirement is not in conformity with customary international law.Keywords:Cambodia; Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK); crimes against humanity; cultural property; Democratic Kampuchea; ECCC Trial Chamber; Hague Convention; Khmer Rouge

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.