Abstract
Abstract In the Al Mahdi case before the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Court raised the possibility of charging the accused with the crime of destroying or seizing the property included in 8(2)(e)(xii) of the ICC statute. A first look would suggest that this crime has different characteristics, or an alternative character, from the crime of attacking protected buildings included in article 8(2)(e)(iv) of which Al Mahdi was finally charged. But upon closer examination, it is also possible to conclude that the crime concerning the destruction or seizure of enemy’s property is supplementary to the criminalisation of the destruction of cultural property. Therefore, a wide and joint interpretation of the crimes could enhance the protection of human cultural legacy through criminal prosecution.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
