Protection of cultural property during hostilities: Meeting of experts in Latin America

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 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.

Executive summary•Cyber operations have become a reality in contemporary armed conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is concerned by the potential human cost arising from the increasing use of cyber operations during armed conflicts.•In the ICRC's view, international humanitarian law (IHL) limits cyber operations during armed conflicts just as it limits the use of any other weapon, means or method of warfare in an armed conflict, whether new or old.•Affirming the applicability of IHL does not legitimize cyber warfare, just as it does not legitimize any other form of warfare. Any use of force by States – cyber or kinetic – remains governed by the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant rules of customary international law, in particular the prohibition against the use of force. International disputes must be settled by peaceful means, in cyberspace as in all other domains.•It is now critical for the international community to affirm the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of cyber operations during armed conflicts. The ICRC also calls for discussions among governmental and other experts on how existing IHL rules apply and whether the existing law is adequate and sufficient. In this respect, the ICRC welcomes the intergovernmental discussions currently taking place in the framework of two United Nations General Assembly mandated processes.•Events of recent years have shown that cyber operations, whether during or outside armed conflict, can disrupt the operation of critical civilian infrastructure and hamper the delivery of essential services to the population. In the context of armed conflicts, civilian infrastructure is protected against cyber attacks by existing IHL principles and rules, in particular the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack. IHL also affords special protection to hospitals and objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, among others.•During armed conflicts, the employment of cyber tools that spread and cause damage indiscriminately is prohibited. From a technological perspective, some cyber tools can be designed and used to target and harm only specific objects and to not spread or cause harm indiscriminately. However, the interconnectivity that characterizes cyberspace means that whatever has an interface with the Internet can be targeted from anywhere in the world and that a cyber attack on a specific system may have repercussions on various other systems. As a result, there is a real risk that cyber tools are not designed or used – either deliberately or by mistake – in compliance with IHL.•States’ interpretation of existing IHL rules will determine the extent to which IHL protects against the effects of cyber operations. In particular, States should take clear positions about their commitment to interpret IHL so as to preserve civilian infrastructure from significant disruption and to protect civilian data. The availability of such positions will also influence the assessment of whether the existing rules are adequate or whether new rules may be needed. If States see a need to develop new rules, they should build on and strengthen the existing legal framework – including IHL.

The Colonial Testing Ground: The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Violent End of Empire Fabian Klose (bio) Introduction In a memorandum issued in October 1962, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed its great concern that torture and other excessive acts of violence were becoming more prevalent worldwide despite the expanded application of international humanitarian law to internal conflicts by way of Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.1 Authorities in Geneva were particularly troubled by the trend that, due to a new “fight against terrorism,” torture was depicted as being in the best interest of society and in accord with the law. Under the guise of special laws on combating terrorism, methods of “interrogation under torture,” which had been universally outlawed by civilized society, were now being reinstated more or less secretly. In the opinion of the ICRC, the widespread strategy of fighting terrorism by its own means was not only an unequivocal violation of international law but also a “devastating abdication of humanity.”2 The main reason for this alarming evaluation of the situation lay in the numerous incidents that the ICRC had experienced during its missions in the wars of decolonization. Following the end of World War II, many violent uprisings shook European colonial empires. Because these conflicts between a European colonial power and an anticolonial rebellion movement were not considered international conflicts according to the definition of international law, the ICRC attempted, especially in the Mau Mau War in Kenya (1952–56) and the Algerian War (1954–62), to push through minimum humanitarian norms on the basis of the new provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The “wars of national liberation” in the 1950s and 1960s posed new challenges to the International Committee in Geneva, because the humanitarian objective was repeatedly overlaid and endangered by realpolitik. On one side, the colonial powers feared unwelcome intervention in their colonial interests and therefore fought any expansion of international humanitarian law and the ICRC work in this area. On the other, liberation movements like the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) instrumentalized the revised international humanitarian law for purposes of propaganda in their struggle to win public opinion. The Geneva Conventions were increasingly bounced back and forth in the tough political confrontations of decolonization, so that the original issue of securing minimum humanitarian protections in wartime threatened to pale or even perish in the skirmishes. [End Page 107] It is against this backdrop that this essay uses the case studies of Kenya and Algeria to examine the role of the International Red Cross in the process of violent decolonization. In the course of its attempt to develop an international humanitarian regime, two key questions arose for the ICRC. First, to what degree could the norms of the 1949 Geneva Conventions withstand the realities of colonial war? Second, how much influence could international organizations like the ICRC exert in these violent scenarios? Appealing to evidence mostly made available only recently by the archives of the International Red Cross in Geneva, I argue that the wars of decolonization became the first serious testing grounds for the revisions to international humanitarian law and had an impact on its future development.3 The New Geneva Conventions of 1949 World War II and the immediate postwar period represented a major turning point for the protection of international human rights. The massive violations of humanitarian norms during the war had shown the world community in an all too drastic way just how great the need was for codified universal basic rights. Thus, human rights were to be institutionalized as a legacy of the war within the postwar order. With the founding of the United Nations in 1945 and the passage of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950, the cornerstones were laid for the international human rights regime, a topic that began to assert its permanent place on the political agenda for the entire world.4 In conjunction with these precedent-setting documents, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are also a good example of this brief dawn in the history of international human rights protection.5 As...

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 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.

Introducing International Humanitarian Law to Judicial and Quasi Judicial Bodies.- Applicability Test of Additional Protocol II and Common Article 3 for Crimes in Internal Armes Conflict.- The Role of the U.S. Judicial Branch During the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.- International Humanitarian Law in the Maritime Context: Conflict Characterization in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Contexts.- Domestic Humanitarian Law: Developing the Law of War in Domestic Courts.- The Interaction of the International Terrorism Suppression Regime and IHL in Domestic Criminal Prosecutions: The UK Experience.- Beyond Life and Limb: Exploring Incidental Mental Harm under International Humanitarian Law.- Armed Conflict and the Inter-American Human Rights System: Application or Interpretation of International Humanitarian Law? The European Court of Human Right's Engagement with International Humanitarian Law.- The Interaction between Domestic Law and International Humanitarian Law at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.- Applying the Laws of Armed Conflict in Swiss Courts.- International Humanitarian Law in the Courts of Australia.- Aut Deportare Aut Judicare: Current Topics in International Humanitarian Law in Canada.- International Humanitarian Law in Indian Courts: Application, Misapplication and Non-Application.- Interpretations of IHL in Tribunals of the United States.- The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur and the Application of International Humanitarian Norms.- The Mavi Marmara Incident and the Application of International Humanitarian Law by Quasi-Judicial Bodies.

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.

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.

Since armed conflicts are based increasingly on politics of identity, the protection of cultural property is likely to become continuously more important during peace operations. The extent to which peace operations are obligated to protect cultural property is, however, not always clear. This article explains why and to what extent peace operations ought to be required to protect cultural property. It first explores the way that the protection of cultural property can contribute to the overall aim of an operation. Second, the extent, from a legal standpoint, to which peace operations must respect cultural property is elaborated – and whether peace operations must refrain from damaging cultural property. Finally, the article analyses whether peace forces are obligated by international law to actively protect cultural property. Thus, whether they are responsible for the protection of cultural property from the depredations of others is questioned. The study contends that, on the one hand, the protection of cultural property is needed because it contributes to the overall aim of a peace mission, but that, on the other hand, a coherent legal framework is lacking.

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.

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

Questions of the applicability and application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to multinational forces are of central interest to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO, also referred to as ‘the Alliance’ or ‘the Organisation’). Far from being incidental, multinational military coordination is the Organisation's raison d’être and the driving concept behind its methods, history and operations. Since the end of the Cold War, it has conducted a series of major multinational military operations – in and around the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere – in which questions of the application of IHL have inevitably arisen.

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.

This article provides an in-depth examination of the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) multifaceted role in promoting the applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). With a unique and distinctive nature, the ICRC, which has been in existence for 150 years, plays a crucial role in encouraging compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It functions as a direct advocate for the Conventions in various conflicts around the globe. Before the establishment of the Conventions, the ICRC has been instrumental in the development of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) since the mid-1800s. The author also examines how historical influence continues to shape the ICRC's obligations under the Conventions. Despite the Conventions' limited function for the ICRC, its actual operations differ greatly from its authorised duties. States and non-state actors recognise the ICRC's unique status as a Swiss NGO with an international presence and accept its actions. The ICRC's history of using discretion and flexibility to navigate a treaty with a weak mandate supports this acceptance.