The Criminalization of Offences against Cultural Heritage in Times of Armed Conflict: The Quest for Consistency

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.

This chapter looks at how international criminal law has become a crucial tool to foster the protection of cultural heritage. On the normative level, the main developments consisted in the introduction of rules criminalizing acts against cultural property in binding treaties dealing with the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict. Then, international criminal tribunals (ICTs) paved the way for implementing individual criminal responsibility. Three different and partially divergent approaches have characterized the criminalization of acts against cultural property. The first two—civilian use and cultural value—emerged in different moments and had a strong impact on the drafting of rules criminalizing acts against cultural property in times of armed conflict. The third one, the human dimension approach, developed from the jurisprudence of ICTs and characterizes both the qualification of acts against cultural property as crimes against humanity and their role in proving the mental element of genocide.

Objectives: This article examines the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict, arguing that the absence of a unified legal framework contributes to the failure of international law in protecting such property. Methodology: Using analytical and critical approach, this Article analyzes relevant legal provisions and assesses their impact on cultural property protection. Results: The article proposes three key approaches to enhance the understanding and implementation of international law in this context. First, it suggests that cultural property protection should be viewed from a humanitarian perspective rather than solely as a matter of regulating armed conflicts. Second, it advocates for the use of existing international legal mechanisms that have proven effective and widely accepted. Third, the article calls for a reassessment of the military necessity exception. Given recent developments, it argues that this exception should be refined, and a new legal concept for “crimes against cultural property” should be introduced to deter violations. Conclusion: Ultimately, the article concludes that the failure to protect cultural property stems not from a lack of legal provisions but from inadequate understanding and application of existing laws. Instead of drafting new laws, improving comprehension and interpretation of current regulations would enhance compliance and effectiveness. Implementing the proposed approaches would contribute to a more coherent and practical legal framework, ensuring better protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict.

Deterring a crisis or war requires the commitment of large forces and resources that may include armed forces, security services or other non-military defense elements. The entire crisis management system is organized by the public administration. A crisis and the threat of war necessitate the implementation of a wide range of tasks aimed at securing life, health and property. Cultural property is a special category of property protected under the Polish legal system. The Republic of Poland undertook to protect it upon accession to the Hague Convention of 1954 on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Time of an Armed Conflict. This international agreement, along with the Polish experiences of the Second World War, laid the foundations for building an efficiently functioning system for the protection of cultural property during an armed conflict. Recent years have brought an increase in global interest in this area. Asymmetric threats against cultural heritage objects forced the involvement of military entities in developing security mechanisms. The author will provide an overview of national institutions tasked with the protection of cultural property in times of peace, assess the quality of these institutions as well as propose de lege ferenda postulates that could improve their functioning.

"Chapter 6. Enhancing Individual Criminal Responsibility For Offences Involving Cultural Property – The Road To The Rome Statute And The 1999 Second Protocol" published on 01 Jan 2010 by Brill | Nijhoff.

Examples can be found from ancient times of concern for the protection of cultural artefacts and early legislation to protect monuments and works of art first appeared in Europe in the 15th century. Cultural heritage was first addressed in international law in 1907 and a body of international treaties and texts for its protection has been developed by UNESCO and other intergovernmental organisations since the 1950's. The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of UNESCO (henceforth the “Hague Convention”) is the earliest of these modern international texts and was developed in great part in response to the destruction and looting of monuments and works of art during the Second World War. It grew out of a feeling that action to prevent their deterioration or destruction was one responsibility of the emerging international world order and an element in reconciliation and the prevention of future conflicts. International law relating to the protection of cultural heritage thus began with comparatively narrow objectives, the protection of cultural property in time of war.

On 22 January 2025, an international conference titled “Patrimoine en péril?” was held at the Museum of Art and History in Geneva. It was organized by the UNESCO Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage (University of Geneva), the Museum of Art and History (MAH), and the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage (ALIPH) Foundation. This event was part of the eponymous exhibition at MAH,1 commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and coinciding with the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Swiss Cultural Property Transfer Act. The conference explored these two themes, bringing together international experts from academia, law, and heritage conservation and management, reflecting a cross-disciplinary perspective on the protection of cultural property in times of crisis. In his opening remarks, Marc-Olivier Wahler (Director of the MAH) highlighted the evolving role of museums in contemporary society. The conference was split into five sessions, each addressing various critical issues related to cultural property, and were moderated by Béatrice Blandin (MAH), Antoinette Maget Dominicé (University of Geneva), and Marc-André Renold (University of Geneva).

Cultural heritage rests on imaginings of a shared humanity transcending national dividing lines. However, cultural heritage sites are frequently targeted in war. In this article I show that the politics of cultural protection is marked by tensions and contestations. A key argument is that the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict is a militarised practice that is informed by notions of protection that are broadly western-centred and masculinised. Therefore, I suggest that they are insensitive to the gendered and colonial power relations that undergird the protection of cultural property. Informed by critical heritage studies, cosmopolitanism, and feminist IR scholarship, I elucidate the claims of this article through a feminist narrative analysis of protection. I identify what is said and what is silenced in heritage protection narratives. First, I focus on the wider storytelling that surrounds heritage protection, unpacking the ethical, gendered, and colonial assumptions employed. Second, I turn to the narration of military protection in the UNESCO military manual, attending to its ethical underpinnings, protection logics, and privileging of distinctively western military knowledge. I conclude by calling for a more nuanced approach to cultural protection.

No Longer Lost in the Wilderness:

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.

The paper demonstrates the intrinsic connection between the Roerich Pact - the first international treaty on the protection of cultural property in peace-time and in time of armed conflicts, and the philosophic system of the Living Ethics. The Pact was initiated by the outstanding Russian thinker, artist, scholar and public figure Nicholas Roerich whereas the Living Ethics was created by Helena Roerich and Nicholas Roerich in cooperation with the spiritual Teachers of the East, and it represents a synthesis of the Eastern philosophy and the Russian cosmism. According to the Living Ethics, culture is the foundation and the driving force of the evolution of humanity, it is also the basis for lasting peace in the world. Nicholas Roerich’s concept of culture-which is based on the ideas of the Living Ethics-not only draws a clear line of distinction between culture and civilization, it also substantiates the necessity of according priority to culture in its interrelation with civilization. The principle of priority of culture is implemented in the Roerich Pact: this international treaty provides for unconditional protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict (priority of culture over military necessity), and in peacetime it accords priority to culture (education, science, arts and spirituality) in the internal policies of the countries, which means in particular priority of funding of the cultural, scientific and educational institutions. The main objective of the Roerich Pact is the preservation of cultural property. According to the Living Ethics the preservation of the material objects of culture means the preservation of the energy of culture (the latter is the foundation for the evolution of mankind), for energy does not exist without matter. Cultural heritage which has accumulated in itself the creative luminiferous power of thought of its great creators is of paramount importance for improvement of society and for overcoming the deep-running contemporary crises and particularly the main one of them - the moral crisis. The destruction of cultural objects and consequently of the very space wherein culture exists inevitably brings about the domination of pseudoculture which resonates with the low instincts of the human being and leads to the swelling of egotism, aggression and mass predatory consumption. True culture, true art, and science elevated by ethics contribute for the development of the inner spiritual strength of the human being, for the flowering of her/his creative potential and therefore for the advancement of humanity on the ladder of its cosmic evolution.

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.

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 idea of cultural heritage as an ‘international public good’ can be traced back to the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, according to which ‘damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind’. How this idea of cultural heritage as a global public good can be reconciled with the effective enforcement of protection norms is the subject of this study. This book examines the different ways that cultural heritage property can be protected, including protection at the international level, enforcement in domestic courts, and the role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The book is divided into three sections. The first section assesses international law and analyses the interaction between international and domestic norms of public and private law. It discusses the different methods of international enforcement, the role of international and mixed criminal tribunals and courts, and the means for protecting cultural heritage in times of armed conflict. The second section addresses the role of national courts, discussing such topics as: barriers to domestic enforcement of international norms, the refusal to enforce foreign law, the difficulty of territorial boundaries in relation to underwater heritage, and the application of criminal sanctions by domestic courts. The final section of the book surveys alternatives to the legal enforcement of the norms protecting cultural heritage, including arbitration, soft law, and diplomacy.

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.