Abstract
International cultural property law has significantly developed at the level of standard-setting and to some extent at the level of ‘secondary rules’ concerning the individual criminal responsibility for the damage and destruction of cultural objects (in particular when it is intentional). But a gap remains as to State responsibility, an issue carefully shunned in treaties concerning the conservation of cultural property (especially during peacetime). This article addresses the question of how this lacuna can be filled by the application of general principles governing State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. The analysis highlights that in this field there is a constant interplay between the conduct of States and private actors, with the consequent need to devise some form of shared responsibility for cultural offences, especially when they affect properties of outstanding value. Although no peremptory norm has yet emerged in this field, practice has shown the tendency to make a distinction between ordinary and serious breaches entailing international crimes. This affects the question of who may invoke the responsibility for destruction of cultural objects of great importance to humanity, and raises the question of the applicability of the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine to prevent and suppress crimes against cultural property. Keywords: Cultural Property, Destruction, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, State Responsibility, Shared Responsibility, Responsibility to Protect
Accepted Version (Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have