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.

Contents: Introduction Bibliography and further reading. Part I Foundations: The Concept of Cultural Heritage: Cultural property internationalism, John Henry Merryman On defining the cultural heritage, Janet Blake The Politics of Cultural Heritage Rights: The expanding purview of cultural properties and their politics, Rosemary J. Coombe The politics of preservation: privileging one heritage over another, Jonathan S. Bell. Part II Types of Cultural Heritage Rights: Natural Heritage as Cultural Heritage: Nature and culture: a new World Heritage context, Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo and Frits Pannekoek World Heritage and rights-based approaches to nature conservation, Gonzalo Oviedo and Tatjana Puschkarsky Urban Landscapes as Cultural Heritage: Informal settlements and urban heritage landscapes in South Africa, Lindsay M. Weiss Artefactual Cultural Heritage Rights: Sir, how much is that Ming vase in the window? Protecting cultural relics in the People's Republic of China, Michael L. Dutra Underwater Cultural Heritage Rights: 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Sarah Dromgoole Intangible Cultural Heritage Rights: Heritage trouble: recent work on the protection of intangible cultural property, Michael F. Brown The UNESCO concept of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: its background and Marrakchi roots, Thomas M. Schmitt Indigenous Cultural Heritage Rights: Indigenous cultural heritage in development and trade: perspectives from the dynamics of cultural heritage law and policy, Rosemary J. Coombe with Joseph F. Turcotte Indigenous cultural landscapes and the politics of heritage, Melissa F. Baird. Part III Contemporary Issues in Cultural Heritage Rights Law: Repatriation of Cultural Heritage: Resolving material culture disputes: human rights, property rights and crimes against humanity, Robert K. Paterson Illicit Trade in Cultural Heritage: Controlling the international market in antiquities: reducing the harm, preserving the past, Patty Gerstenblith Armed Conflict and Cultural Heritage Protection: The protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict: the practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Hirad Abtahi The obligation to prevent and avoid destruction of cultural heritage: from Bamiyan to Iraq, Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini Tourism, Economic Development and Cultural Heritage Protection: Posta Econflict heritage and tourism in Cambodia: the burden of Angkor, Tim Winter. Part IV Future Directions in Cultural Heritage Rights Law: Cultural Heritage Protection and the Challenge of Climate Change: Changing climate, changing culture: adding the climate change dimension to the protection of intangible cultural heritage, Hee-Eun Kim Cultural Expressions as Cultural Heritage: The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions: building a new world information and communication order?, Rachael Craufurd Smith The Human Genome and Cultural Heritage: The human genome as common heritage: common sense or legal nonsense?, Pilar N. Ossorio Beyond Rights? Rethinking the Cultural Heritage Protection Paradigm: Cultural heritage rights: from ownership and descent to justice and well-being, Ian Hodder. Name index.

No Longer Lost in the Wilderness:

Perishing Heritage:

This article brings together the findings of two separate studies in Britain and Australia that sought to examine the experiences of teachers of ethnic difference. Drawing on qualitative data, we examine how early‐career and mid‐career minority ethnic teachers in Britain and Australia, respectively, understand and take up the role of ‘cultural expert’, a position generated through expectations that they will be mentors and role models for ethnic minority students as well as curriculum and pedagogy leaders within schools. The newly qualified British teachers were generally positive about their positioning as cultural experts because the recognition of their knowledge about minority ethnic cultures, traditions and languages enabled them to develop self‐esteem and, in turn, led them towards self‐actualisation. The experienced Australian teachers, however, perceived their role as ‘cultural expert’ as problematic because the demands and associated increase in workload led to disenchantment and burn‐out and reduced opportunities for their career development on a broader level. We conclude by raising issues around teacher education and the recruitment of minority ethnic teachers.

INTRODUCTION. In recent decades, there has been an escalation of armed clashes in the territories of African states, the states of the Middle East and Central Asia with the participation of military formations, international terrorist groups that everywhere use the practice of attacking and looting cultural property as a military strategy. In this regard, of scientific and practical interest is a comprehensive study of the legal and organizational foundations of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts, evaluation of their effectiveness and identification of promising tasks for the development of additional measures and strategies for the preservation of cultural heritage, taking into account new challenges and threats.MATERIALS AND METHODS. This paper examines the provisions of key international treaties, decisions of the main bodies and specialized agencies of the UN, which together form the existing international legal regime for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. The author also analyzes the jurisprudence of international criminal justice bodies on bringing individuals to justice for deliberate attacks on cultural sites as part of hostilities. Special attention is paid to the study of scientific works of both domestic and foreign scientists, within which international legal concepts are formed, designed to resolve existing problems in the current international legal regulation of the issue under study, as well as to form promising concepts in the framework of the development of the doctrine of international law. The methodological basis is made up of general scientific and special research methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. According to the results of the study, it was found that during the XX century states have consistently developed norms for the protection of cultural property from threats associated with armed conflicts, while the XXI century was marked by best practice in the application of the rules on liability for attacks on cultural property in situations of armed conflict in the activities of international justice bodies. In addition, it was determined that for the first time in the history of UN peacekeeping, the UN Security Council tested the mandate of the Multidisciplinary Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, in which the peacekeeping contingent, among other things, performed the tasks of protecting, safeguarding and restoring cultural heritage sites together with UNESCO. It seems significant to identify and generalize the prospects for the development of new international legal measures for the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations, taking into account the changing nature of armed conflicts, the intensification of the activities of international terrorist groups and the growing practice of destroying the centuries-old cultural heritage of peoples in the framework of the so-called “cultural cleansing". The topical aspect of the study was the establishment of new approaches of states to the protection of cultural heritage as a means of ensuring international peace and security.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The publication presents the author's objective assessments of the established international legal framework, judicial practice of international criminal justice bodies, as well as doctrinal approaches of both domestic and foreign scientists on the issue of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. Separately, the forms of international legal cooperation of states at the UN site within the framework of the UNESCO profile organization for the development of modern regulatory and organizational foundations for the interaction of the competent authorities of states to prevent and suppress the destruction of cultural heritage, as well as the looting and illegal export of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, especially terrorist groups.

UNESCO, Palestine and Archaeology in Conflict

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.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

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 analyzes the contribution of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Guidelines) to better protection of cultural property in peacetime and in times of armed conflict. The first part of the article introduces the Guidelines within the context of the implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1999 Second Protocol) and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and provides examples of UNESCO's other standard-setting instruments such as the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural or Natural Heritage, the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, as well as bodies providing for guidelines for these instruments. The second part underscores the most important advances of the Guidelines in the implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol. The third part focuses on the contribution of the Guidelines as subsequent practice in the application of the 1999 Second Protocol establishing the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation in the framework of Article 31(3)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Finally, the fourth part concludes by highlighting the main advantages of the Guidelines in providing better protection for cultural property.

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.

The article examines the content of terms ‘cultural property’ and ’cultural heritage’. It illustrates the continual development in the protection of cultural property that evolved into the concept of cultural heritage. The first part of the article describes differences between the two notions and explains why the term ’cultural heritage’ is more suitable for the current approach to protection of cultural expressions. The second part of the article deals with possible consequences that the conceptual shift from cultural property to cultural heritage can bring to protection under International Criminal Law. It argues that despite the wording of relevant legal documents, it does not explicitly work with the term ’cultural heritage’. The author notes that jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals has already been recognizing this concept and reflecting upon the extent of the term in some of their decisions.

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 chapter analyses some tools that can overcome the practical difficulties a court may face when the need for cultural expertise arises in a trial. The tools proposed are: a cultural test that systematizes the questions to be answered by cultural experts and by judges, thus avoiding the current random approach to each cultural dispute; a handbook on cultural practices written by anthropologists, which can be consulted and used by judges and lawyers when practical conditions prevent the appointment of a cultural expert; a database of cultural expertise to share anthropological knowledge; and continuing training courses to educate judges in the basics of anthropology. The chapter acknowledges that recourse to cultural expertise is not always possible for reasons such as cost (cultural expertise may be expensive, and the justice system may lack resources), organization of the anthropological domain (not all jurisdictions have a state board of anthropologists), and lack of available experts on a specific cultural group in the relevant country. Although the presence of a cultural expert in each case is crucial for introducing anthropological knowledge into the trial, the chapter suggests other realistic ways in which anthropology can significantly contribute to legal reasoning when an expert is not available. Seeking systematization and ‘democratization’ of anthropological knowledge, the chapter endorses recognition of the figure of an ‘anthropologist judge’, with greater capacity to call upon and manage, autonomously when needed, the tools provided by anthropology.