The organization of the protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict as a factor in ensuring the norms of inter-strike humanitarian law by the Russian Federation

Introduction. For thousands of years, historical and cultural monuments have been damaged or destroyed as a result of armed conflicts and acts of vandalism. Given the role that these sites play in the development of humanity, international humanitarian law (IHL) establishes the basis for the international legal protection of religious, cultural and scientific sites. At the beginning of the 20th century. the situation was complicated not only by the absence of a universal international treaty that would be devoted exclusively to the international legal protection of these objects, but also by an international intergovernmental organization that would develop appropriate norms and standards. These problems led to the creation in 1945 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Thanks to the activities of this specialized UN agency, as well as the activities of a number of non-governmental international organizations, it was possible to form an international legal regime for the protection of cultural property both in peacetime and during armed conflicts.As a result of changes in the strategy of conducting armed conflicts, as well as improving the methods and means of conducting them in the 21st century, cultural objects are in great danger. In this regard, the analysis of current international legal norms and principles for the protection of cultural property in the context of international humanitarian law is of particular relevance.Materials and methods. As for the materials, we were talking about legal acts, Russian and cultural information based on the cultural traditions of international law. methodological basis based on scientific methods of lysis and synthesis, comparative legal method, scientific method of delivery.Research results. The evolution of the system of international legal protection of cultural property and world cultural heritage allows us to draw a conclusion about the comprehensive level of such protection, applied both in peacetime and in armed conflicts. The international legal responsibilities of states in this area are associated, first of all, with assessing the significance of cultural objects and giving them the appropriate legal status through national legislation or inclusion in the registers of international organizations.Discussion and conclusion. At the same time, the activities of states and international organizations related to the special designation of cultural objects in armed conflicts, the training of civilian and military personnel, and taking into account the specifics of the placement and maintenance of such objects are of particular importance. The general body of knowledge and skills for the protection and protection of cultural objects is formed by UNESCO as a specialized agency of the United Nations, which strives to preserve the universal heritage as the highest achievements of art and science.

Since the 1990s, situations in which culturally significant heritage sites serve as symbolic targets for intentional attacks, leading to the 'destruction of enemy communities,' have frequently occurred. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law within the former Yugoslav territories, addresses prominent cases of intentional attacks and destruction of cultural property during the armed conflict, specifically targeting the annihilation of ethnic identity. This article examines the implications and limitations of international legal norms regarding the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, focusing on the Dubrovnik Old Town shelling incident, a representative case of cultural property destruction prosecuted by the ICTY. Firstly, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is undeniably a significant violation of values that the international community must protect. The pursuit of individual criminal responsibility for the destruction of cultural heritage within the international criminal tribunal signifies a substantial advancement in international efforts to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts. The negative impact of the intentional destruction of cultural property on human dignity and universal human values is undeniable. However, ensuring effective protection of cultural property in the current normative context, where attacks on cultural property for military purposes may be justified, remains challenging. Secondly, military necessity, rooted in customary international law, limits attacks on enemy forces to military objectives, focusing on the centralization of enemy forces, balancing the military necessity of concentrated attacks on enemy forces with humanitarian considerations to protect civilian objects. However, determining what qualifies as a military objective can be challenging, as it depends on the circumstances of combat and operations. Regardless of whether the principle of proportionality is applicable, evaluating the military necessity from the perspective of cultural heritage protection is crucial. ICTY recognizes that even when military necessity justifies attacks on civilian objects, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage can have a significant impact on the psychological well-being of civilians and may upset the balance with military superiority. Thus, careful consideration is necessary when assessing the military necessity in cases where the protection of cultural property, with a higher need for protection than general civilian objects, is involved. Moreover, even if a target has dual-use, being considered a military objective, evaluating proportionality in the attack is essential to prevent harm to civilians, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In conclusion, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage should be treated as a threat to the common values of the international community, necessitating appropriate legal and policy responses in line with the actual circumstances of the armed coflict. Military commanders should not only view attacks on cultural heritage as inevitable collateral damage but also recognize the gravity of such acts as war crimes and consider them strategically within military operations.

In the article, significant issues related to the protection of cultural heritage such as the development of the human rights factor, the interplay between of cultural heritage and human rights and new international legal trends in this direction are analyzed based on a diverse array of opinions in the legal literature, international documents and court practice. At this time, as the first direction, the mutual relations of cultural heritage and cultural rights, and as the second direction, the issues of determining the international legal bases of cultural heritage protection in international documents are defined. In the first direction, it is emphasized that the protection of cultural heritage in the modern era is assessed through the lens of cultural rights. This establishes a direct connection between the protection of cultural heritage and the provision of cultural rights. Strengthening the links between human rights and cultural heritage is crucial, particularly for safeguarding cultural heritage objects from real threats arising during armed conflicts. Damage or destruction of cultural heritage is a fundamental violation of human rights. Furthermore, the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage should be recognized as a violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, particularly cultural rights. In the second direction, it is noted that the inseparable relationship between cultural heritage and cultural rights has broadened the normative framework for ensuring the legal protection of cultural heritage. The basics of ensuring the legal protection of cultural heritage, including international obligations in this field, are determined in general international normative documents on human rights. In those international documents, the provision of legal protection of cultural heritage is evaluated in the context of human rights. Then, by referring to specific international documents in this field, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the development trends of these relations are determined.

This article considers whether there are any gaps within the legal framework protecting cultural heritage from attacks conducted by non-state armed groups. It first looks at the existing obligations of states vis-a-vis non-state armed groups with regard to the protection of such heritage, in particular their obligations stemming from the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. It also examines the obligations of non-state armed groups with regard to cultural heritage, clarifying their obligations under international humanitarian law, including customary international norms, and other sources of international law. Finally, this article discusses accountability mechanisms, in particular with the application of international criminal law to prosecute the members of non-state armed groups who have conducted attacks against cultural property.

Метою статті є аналіз праць українських вчених, присвячених питанням правової охорони та збереження культурної спадщини, їх систематизація і виділення основних напрямків дослідження.
 Наукова новизна полягає в комплексному аналізі стану дослідження питань правової охорони культурної спадщини українськими вченими з часу здобуття незалежності України. Проаналізовані наукові праці систематизовано за проблемним принципом і виділено основні напрямки досліджень. Доведено, що питання правової охорони культурної спадщини досліджувалися не лише вченими-правознавцями, а й представниками суміжних галузей науки – фахівцями з державного управління, міжнародних відносин, історії, культурології, політології та ін.
 Висновки. Аналіз праць українських вчених дає підстави стверджувати, що питанням охорони та збереження культурної спадщини за роки незалежності України присвячено кілька десятків монографій і дисертаційних досліджень, кількість наукових статей вже перелічується сотнями, ще більше оприлюднених наукових повідомлень і тез виступів на міжнародних і всеукраїнських наукових конференціях, семінарах та інших наукових і експертних форумах. При цьому проблематика правової охорони культурної спадщини досліджувалася не лише вченими-правознавцями, а й представниками суміжних галузей науки – фахівцями з державного управління, міжнародних відносин, історії, культурології, політології та ін.
 Аналіз наукових праць дав змогу виокремити такі основні напрямки наукових досліджень:
 1) узагальнюючі й теоретичні праці з питань охорони культурної спадщини;
 2) праці, присвячені міжнародно-правовій охороні культурної спадщини; діяльності міжнародних організацій та інституцій; питанням реституції об’єктів культурної спадщини;
 3) праці, присвячені зарубіжному досвіду законодавчого забезпечення та політиці держав/держави у сфері охорони культурної спадщини; порівняльні дослідження зарубіжного й українського законодавства;
 4) праці з конституційного й адміністративного права України, пов’язані із забезпеченням культурних прав людини, політикою держави та діяльністю національних інституцій у сфері охорони культурної спадщини;
 5) праці, присвячені проблемі відповідальності (адміністративної, кримінальної, цивільної) за порушення законодавства у сфері охорони культурної спадщини;
 6) праці, які висвітлюють регіональні особливості правової охорони культурної спадщини в Україні.

No Longer Lost in the Wilderness:

Метою статті є аналіз становлення та розвитку пам’яткоохоронного законодавства в Україні.
 Наукова новизна статті полягає в аналізі основних законодавчих і підзаконних актів України, завдяки яким відбулося реформування сфери охорони культурної спадщини в Україні та приведення її у відповідність до міжнародних норм і стандартів.
 Висновки. У законодавчому забезпеченні охорони культурної спадщини України можна до певної міри умовно виділити кілька етапів. Перший розпочався із прийняттям Декларації про державний суверенітет України від 16 липня 1990 р., яка започаткувала зміну державних підходів до культурної спадщини України, задекларувавши культурне відродження українського народу й необхідність повернення національних, культурних та історичних цінностей України, що знаходяться за її межами. Водночас базовим актом стали Основи законодавства України про культуру від 14 лютого 1992 р. Саме Основи законодавства України про культуру визначили правові засади діяльності органів публічної влади у сфері охорони культурної спадщини, а також започаткували процес формування Державного реєстру національного культурного надбання. Конституція України від 28 червня 1996 р. більш послідовно, у порівнянні з Конституцією УРСР, забезпечила гарантії культурних прав громадян та обов’язки держави щодо охорони культурної спадщини. На цьому етапі було ратифіковано ряд міжнародних актів у сфері охорони культурної спадщини, а також прийнято національні законодавчі й підзаконні акти, спрямовані на імплементацію цих норм у національне законодавство України, зокрема Закон України «Про вивезення, ввезення та повернення культурних цінностей» від 21 вересня 1999 р. Другий етап розпочався з ухваленням Закону України «Про охорону культурної спадщини» від 8 червня 2000 р., в якому враховані основні тенденції міжнародно-правового забезпечення охорони культурної спадщини, зокрема положення Конвенції ЮНЕСКО про охорону всесвітньої культурної і природної спадщини 1972 р. Законом урегульовані права та обов’язки суб’єктів охорони культурної спадщини, а також порядок формування Державного реєстру нерухомих пам’яток України за категоріями національного й місцевого значення. На цьому етапі ухвалені й такі важливі нормативні акти, як Закон України «Про охорону археологічної спадщини» від 18 березня 2004 р. і Загальнодержавна програма збереження та використання об’єктів культурної спадщини на 2004–2010 роки, затверджена Законом України від 20 квітня 2004 р. Третій етап розпочався з ухваленням Закону України «Про культуру» від 14 грудня 2010 р. і триває донині. На цьому етапі ухвалено ряд важливих змін до законодавства, спрямованих на приведення українського пам’яткоохоронного законодавства до міжнародних норм і стандартів, зокрема щодо збереження пам’яток культурної спадщини, включених до Списку всесвітньої спадщини ЮНЕСКО.

The article is devoted to the study of topical problems of the history of the formation of international legal mechanisms in the field of protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict and of modern measures in this area. The authors consistently analyze the relevant norms of both general and special nature of all major international legal acts relating to these issues, starting with the 1874 Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War as the earliest relevant document. The issue of the relationship between the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is considered. A conclusion is drawn about the subsidiary nature of the special norms of the 1977 Additional Protocols in relation to the norms of the 1954 Convention. The resulting coincidence of the scope of the definition of cultural property for the purposes of the 1954 Convention and its Protocols, on the one hand, and of the corresponding special rules of the 1977 Additional Protocols, on the other, is substantiated. The shortcomings of the individual international legal acts mentioned are indicated, including those related to the virtually non-functioning “special protection” regime enshrined in the 1954 Convention. The lack of norms directly protecting intangible cultural heritage is discussed as a shortcoming of the entire array of international legal norms in the field of protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict.

We present a comprehensive analysis of the concept of cultural heritage and the institutionalisation of its protection by the international law in various historical contexts of involved states, i.e., during peace, conflict, social and/or political crisis. Furthermore, we discuss the human dimension of the protection of cultural heritage at an international level under the public international law. In particular, we first investigate whether states remain central actors at national and international level as far as the protection of cultural property within their territory is concerned. Subsequently, we examine the limitations imposed on the action range of a state due to primary and secondary legislation of international organizations where the state participates. Apart from this form of external pressure on the state jurisdiction, we also examine whether the action range of a state is further limited by the action of individuals and groups. Furthermore, we discuss on the potential role of international human rights law in such situations, the interdependence between the protection of individuals and cultural goods as well as whether the individual is transformed into an active actor of international law. Our analysis clearly suggests that international organizations play a catalytic role in cultural protection at an international level, with UNESCO holding a leading position. UNESCO forms a central processing mechanism for international protection standards and seems to be the main forum for monitoring compliance of states with international protection standards. However, an issue that certainly deserves further investigation is whether UNESCO can be actually efficient in the absence of ratification mechanisms regarding cultural protection. Our approach and methodology involves thorough analysis of concepts, review of historical developments in international law regarding the protection of cultural heritage, review of the activities of international organizations as well as the description of the existing legal framework. Results of our study suggest that the issue of cultural heritage protection is multidimensional and involves not only states but also individuals who are holders of rights and obligations regarding cultural heritage protection. In addition, our results clearly imply that there is still room for improvement in the continuously evolving international law towards the establishment of a more satisfactory framework for the protection of cultural heritage.

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.

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.

Perishing Heritage:

The paper notes the attempts that are being made to doctrinally substantiate a broad approach, according to which the «international law of cultural property» was formed as a special (autonomous) legal framework. Without sharing such views, the author justifies the existence of an intersectoral institute for the international legal protection of cultural property, and also notes that the protection of cultural property in the actual situation of armed conflict is a branch institute of international humanitarian law (IHL), characterized by the presence of special principles and established scope of application (ratione materiae and ratione temporis). For the purposes of IHL, the definition of «cultural property» is formulated. It implies movable and immovable objects of the material world (objects) that are subject to identification and have no military purpose. They are of fundamental importance for the cultural heritage of not only a single people, but also the entire international community, included in the relevant register/list and under common, special or enhanced international legal protection, including their storage sites or concentration centers.A reasonable proposal has been made to introduce the concept of the «1954 Hague Convention system» into scientific circulation. The central part of it is formed by the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, including the Executive Regulations as an integral part of it, and additional Protocols to it (Optional Protocol I and the Second Protocol of 1999), as well as three resolutions attached to the Final Act of the 1954 Conference. It is emphasized that the Second Protocol of 1999, which Russia has not ratified, provided for the creation of institutional structures designed to complement the system of implementation of the Hague Convention of 1954. Based on the analysis of the «1954 Hague Convention system», three conventional regimes for the protection of cultural property in the actual situation of armed conflict (general, special and enhanced) have been established and their features have been analyzed.

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.

Правова охорона культурної спадщини в Україні хоча й не така давня як, приміром, у Франції, проте має власну столітню історію. За цей час сформувалася досить значна джерельна база, яка істотно збагатилася за роки державної незалежності України. Разом із тим спостерігається певна тяглість не лише політики у сфері охорони культурної спадщини, а й відповідних правових джерел. Як наслідок, увесь масив правових джерел з питань охорони культурної спадщини потребує не лише докладного вивчення, систематизації та узагальнення, а й, зрештою, критичного переосмислення.Метою статті є здійснення класифікації джерельної бази правової охорони культурної спадщини в Україні та стислий аналіз окремих видів джерел.Наукова новизна полягає у виділенні й аналізі основних джерел правової охорони культурної спадщини в Україні, передусім міжнародно-правових документів та національних актів законодавства. Розглянуто як джерела права охорони культурної спадщини, так і джерельну базу дослідження. Здійснено класифікацію джерельної бази правової охорони культурної спадщини в Україні. За результатами дослідження виділено чотири основні види джерел.Висновки. Класифікація джерельної бази правової охорони культурної спадщини в Україні базується на поширених класифікаціях джерел права і виділенні основних видів писемних джерел, які застосовуються у джерелознавстві. У нашому дослідженні виділено такі види джерел: 1) національні нормативно-правові акти; 2) міжнародно-правові акти; 3) довідкову літературу, зокрема енциклопедії та словники, путівники та довідники, каталоги та бібліографічні покажчики тощо; 4) аналітичні записки, звернення, заяви, інформаційні повідомлення, листування органів, уповноважених на вироблення та здійснення політики у сфері охорони культурної спадщини, а також пам’яткоохоронних громадських організацій, товариств тощо.