Safeguarding public collections: A new approach to the recovery of cultural objects unlawfully removed from state ownership

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.

"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.

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 ongoing armed conflict in Syria has severely impacted human lives. More than 250,000 Syrians have lost their lives and more than 11 million were displaced from their homes. The impact of the conflict has been extended to the invaluable cultural property of Syria. The Syrian exceptional rich and unique cultural property was in the middle of hostilities, which took various forms including bombing; fighting in or near the archaeological sites; looting and illicit trafficking of invaluable objects and artefacts. As per Public International Law rules, cultural property is protected against unlawful acts, further, these unlawful acts are prosecutable before international tribunals as war crimes. Though, with regard to the conflict in Syria, the legal regime for the protection seems unfit for its purpose and the prosecution seems to be unattainable at least for the current time. To this end, this Article aims to examine the application of the international law rules with respect to the protection of cultural property and their effectiveness in protection and prosecution with regard to the armed conflict in Syria. Therefore, this Article is divided into four parts. Part I introduces an overview on the current conflict in Syria and its implication on the cultural property. Part II exposes to the protection of cultural property in international law with relation to the conflict in Syria. Part III examines the criminalization of the unlawful acts against cultural property as per International Criminal Law. Part IV suggests possible venues for prosecuting unlawful acts against cultural property in Syria. The Article concludes with remarks on the effectiveness of current provisions of international law with respect to the protection of cultural property and suggests possible ways for enhancement.

This chapter provides a commentary on the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts, which covers recent developments in treaty law and international practice. The Second World War spurred the eventual conclusion of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the Regulations for its execution, along with a separate optional Protocol, now known as the First Protocol. The preamble to the former declares that ‘damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world’. While the 1954 Convention applies during international armed conflict (whether or not a legal state of war exists between the belligerents, as well as to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a party), its provisions relating to respect for cultural property also apply to non-international armed conflict occurring within the territory of one of the parties. Meanwhile, the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, too, embody brief provisions specifically relating to respect for cultural property. In parallel with these treaty regimes, a body of customary international law has developed over the years to protect cultural property in armed conflict.

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.

Objective. The aim of the study is to analyze the state of implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property in national criminal legislation. Methodology. The methodology includes the analysis of individual scientific works, provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the draft law and the Nicosia Convention, synthesis of scientific knowledge and drawing of reasonable conclusions on the subject of the study. The following methods of scientific cognition were used in the study: analysis, synthesis, formal and dogmatic, comparative legal, systemic, logical and semantic, and systemic and structural. Results. In the course of the study, it was recognized that the improvement of legislation on the protection of cultural property should be guided by the provisions of the Nicosia Convention. The analysis of the draft law «On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of Ukraine in connection with the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Offenses relating to Cultural Property» of December 12, 2024, No. 12310, allowed to establish its constructive and terminological flaws and inconsistency with the provisions of the Nicosia Convention. It is proposed to use the universal term «cultural property» in the process of improving Ukrainian criminal legislation. The author substantiates the need to harmonise the content of the term ‘cultural property’ with the Nicosia Convention and suggests that the term «cultural heritage object» should be clarified in the Law of Ukraine «On Protection of Cultural Heritage» of 8 June 2000. Originality. The study established that when updating criminal legislation on the protection of cultural property, one should be guided not only by the provisions of the Nicosia Convention, but also by the ongoing developments in the doctrine of criminal law. It is established that the draft law № 12310 and the Nicosia Convention do not take into account the current Russian aggression against Ukraine. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law-making activities in the course of improving national legislation in the field of protection of cultural property.

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

Syrian Cultural Property in the Crossfire:

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.

The Colour of Copyright

On 23 November 2011, Palestine became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”), and acceded to and ratified a number of UNESCO’s Conventions. Some observers view this membership as decisive, or at least significantly dispositive, in the debate on the international recognition of Palestinian statehood. UNESCO is characterized as a springboard by which Palestine can further recognition of its international sovereignty, which, at the present time, is inexorably stalled. However, this recognition is not without challenge – for example, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has not recognized Palestine’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. UNESCO has, in turn, descended into a budgetary crisis with the withdrawal of funding from the U.S. and other states, which represent twenty-two percent of its budget. In February 2012, UNESCO responded to this crisis with a plan to “re-engineer” the organization, implicitly confirming that it will not allow any revocation of the Palestinian membership vote, despite a campaign to “un-admit” Palestine. This paper analyzes the legal consequences of Palestine’s membership in UNESCO and its ratification of UNESCO conventions through an examination of the protections afforded by the UNESCO treaty framework governing cultural, amongst other forms of, heritage. This is particularly relevant as Palestine’s application for UNESCO membership took place in the context of what are termed the Palestinian U.N. initiatives, intended to further Palestine’s status and activate its rights as a state in the international legal order. The initiatives manifested in a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 29 November 2012 “upgrading” Palestine’s observer status.For more than a century, Palestinian cultural heritage and property has been the subject of capture and destruction by other states. Palestine’s accession to various UNESCO conventions testifies to the effect that no other sovereign controls its cultural heritage and property. Palestinians have habitually asserted internationally-recognized principles as a point of departure in “final status” negotiations on what is termed the “archaeology file,” yet have been unable to maintain complete control of such property. Ahmad A. Rjoob of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities describes Palestinian cultural heritage as “one of the most intensively abused, excavated and subsequently disturbed worldwide,” a result of more than a century of management from different administrations, each with its own methods of research and distinct political purpose. “The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Israeli sources estimate that between 1967 and 1992 about 200,000 artifacts were removed from the occupied Palestinian territory annually,” with approximately 120,000 removed each year since 1995. This hemorrhaging of Palestinian cultural property is occurring in a context where archaeology has been used by Israel “as a pretext to gain territorial control” and exercise sovereign rights “over Palestinian lands [in order] to further its settlement enterprise” and exploit natural resources.Section II traces the history of archaeological laws and practices in Palestine, from the Ottoman era to contemporary Israeli military orders. Section III examines the rules governing the protection of cultural property during military occupation under the aegis of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and the consequences of future Palestinian ratification of the Convention and its 1999 Second Protocol. Section IV tracks the illicit trade in antiquities from Palestine, and the potential effects that ratification of two instruments would have on regulation and restitution – particularly, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. Section V focuses on the underwater cultural heritage off the coast of Gaza and the maritime zones of legal control granted by the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the first international treaty that Palestine has ratified. Finally, Section VI assesses the consequences of UNESCO membership, including whether membership of a U.N. agency means that Palestine can ratify instruments outside of UNESCO’s competence.

This chapter looks at the protection of cultural property in non-international armed conflicts in the light of the adoption of Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in Event of Armed Conflict. The preamble to the 1999 Second Protocol indicates the intention of Protocol that the rules governing the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict should reflect developments in international law. These developments include the increasing regulation of non-international armed conflicts, both in treaty law and in customary law. The chapter focuses on three elements of this historic development: 1. the extension of the application of rules protecting cultural property to non-international armed conflicts; 2. the extension of the rules on conduct of hostilities to non-international armed conflicts and their application to cultural property; and 3. the enforcement of the rules applicable to cultural property in non-international armed conflicts. Keywords: cultural property; customary law; Hague Convention; international law; non-international armed conflicts; protection; second protocol; treaty law

During the past years, numerous and recurrent disasters have damaged an important part of the cultural heritage. Wars and ethnic or religious conflicts have also haphazardly or voluntarily destroyed it, hence the necessity of launching information campaign so as to safeguard and protect, as far as possible, the cultural property in order to pass it on to future generations.BR This paper consists of five sections. The introduction (Chapter 1) shows the feature of cultural property(Chapter 2). It is followed by a brief overview of the historical background to the international legal regime on the protection of cultural property (Chapter 3). The World Wars have destroyed the widespread destruction and pillage of European cultural property. It was these ‘cultural tragedies’ that ultimately provided the impetus for the international community to draft a set of laws specifically aimed at the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. In 1954, the Hague Convention was drafted aspiring to provide and improve protection of cultural property during war. The Convention is supplemented by two protocols. The first of 1954, deals with the prevention and export of cultural property from occupied territory, its safeguard and return. The second, of 1999, is more comprehensive to improve the implementation of the Convention.BR It is further discussed on the implementation scheme of the Convention and its two Protocols, including technical measures, periodic report and the penal measures. It remains to be seen, however, whether States would be willing to nominate cultural property for enhanced protection given their reluctance to do so under the original regime. Highly important constitutional issues need to be addressed at the national level, such as the extension of the principle of international jurisdiction for the most serious new ‘cultural war crimes’, in order for this Protocol to execute effectively. In conclude, the effective respect for cultural property in the event of armed conflict by States Parties will ultimately be reliant upon the proper national implementation of the Hague Convention. An international exchange of information is a key element in the improvement of the compliance with the Convention by each State Party (Chapter 4, 5).

To realize good and accountable asset management, the Ministry of Finance as CFO (Chief Financial Officer) sets the revenue center paradigm in asset management. This is a new breakthrough from before that just as an asset administrator turns into asset manager without thinking about the potential revenue from asset management. The Directorate General of State Assets (DJKN) as the state asset manager with vertical institutions is implementing National Working Meeting (Rakernas) as the milestone of the beginning of the birth of this new paradigm with the stipulation of Circular Letter (Surat Edaran) Number 2/KN/2016 about the Following of the National Working Meeting DJKN 2016. Based on the mandate, The State Property and Auction Office of Surabaya (KPKNL Surabaya) continues to internalize this paradigm shift in order to realize the optimization of revenue through the management of state assets. The purpose of this study is to understand how the institutionalization process of this new paradigm by using new institutionalism theory. The methodology used in this research uses qualitative method with case study approach which is discussed with deep descriptive analysis. The results indicate the existence of institutional isomorphism symptoms that occur in the internalization process of this new paradigm, thus providing an overview of the influence and reaction to the establishment of a new paradigm that encourages organizational change.