The protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict: Ethics, gender, and coloniality

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.

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.

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.

Preparation of present article was aiming to try to answer the following questions: why the responsible business conduct in the Republic of Kazakhstan needs to include the protection of tangible cultural heritage. Authors consider legal aspects of protection of cultural heritage of Kazakhstan, its international obligations in it to the sphere and the status of objects of material cultural heritage in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. At the level of UNESCO, the Republic of Kazakhstan has numerous official international obligations in protection of material cultural and natural heritage, which both the state and private organizations need to observe strictly. This system of the international obligations is complemented with the local legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan directed to preservation of objects of cultural and natural heritage. Additionally, this work will list the basic recommendations, following of which is going to guarantee the protection and conservation of tangible cultural heritage sites, as well as save the representatives of the business sphere from various risks and associated financial losses related to the damaging and destruction of tangible cultural heritage sites. In addition to compliance with Kazakhstani and international legislative bases in the field of protection and use of tangible cultural heritage, the most socially responsible organizations can also organize their own events to raise awareness of their employees about the need to protect tangible cultural heritage.Key words: responsible business conduct, cultural heritage, protection, conservation, legislation.

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the two main international legal instruments providing for offences against cultural property and cultural heritage in times of armed conflict in order to assess existing gaps and lacunas, and to make suggestions on how better to advance the protection of cultural property through international criminal law. The International Criminal Court Statute takes a very retrograde attitude to this kind of crime – which the author calls the civilian-use approach – whereas the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in Times of Armed Conflict seems far more innovative, preferring a cultural-value oriented approach. The author concludes that the latter approach is more appropriate and that, at present, the most effective tool for pursuing war crimes against cultural property is Protocol II to the 1954 Hague Convention. It is thus crucial to promote ratification by a large number of states and to encourage states to adopt implementing legislation that may allow domestic judges to prosecute the most serious crimes against cultural heritage on the basis of jurisdictional criteria provided for in Protocol II to the 1954 Hague Convention.

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.

Perishing Heritage:

The relevance of studying the legal foundations of the organization of the protection of cultural property in the context of armed conflict is increasing against the background of recent international events, as well as the aggravation of relations between the Russia and a number of foreign states, including the Baltic states. These circumstances require not only theoretical understanding, but also practical application of the norms of international law. The object of the study is the protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict. The subject of the study is the regulation and implementation of international legal protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict. The purpose of the article is to develop proposals for improving the international legal mechanism for the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, enshrined in the law of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the research presented in the article is a systematic approach and a doctrinal method. The following methods were used in the research: analysis, synthesis, generalization, deduction, formal legal analysis, and others. The paper examines the legislative, institutional and practical aspects of the legal framework for the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict. The main international and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regulating these issues are given. The author suggests possible ways to improve the national legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law. The position is argued on the need not only to inform, but also to test military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the protection of cultural property and responsibility for violations of international law (including the destruction, misappropriation and vandalism of cultural heritage). The novelty of the research lies in a comprehensive approach to analyzing the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, identifying shortcomings in existing norms and offering specific recommendations for their improvement.

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.

International Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Achievements and Developments

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.

Patrimony for Peace:

The role of the archeological and cultural heritage sites in the process of urban regeneration in UNESCO’s protected areas becomes more and more important for the natural and cultural heritage protection in the touristic cities with urban expansion. However, there is no clear methodological approach for the inclusion of these important natural and cultural heritage sites in the process of urban regeneration of the cities. The purpose of this study is to analyze how two contemporary urban planning tools, sustainable urban mobility plans and heritage impact assessments, contribute to the protection and sustainable use of archeological sites. The methodology that is used in this study is dual, theoretical, through literature review, and empirical, through the appliance of the case study method and expert observation and mapping of the most valuable archeological sites in Boka Bay. The results of this study show that practical usage of the two proposed tools in the process of urban regeneration could help in cultural and natural heritage protection and their inclusion as drivers of sustainable urban planning and cultural heritage management. The results of the study confirm the authors’ hypothesis that the role of the archeological sites in the process of urban regeneration is evident in the touristic cities in the coastal area of Montenegro, concluding that urban mobility principles and heritage impact assessment studies must be considered in the process of urban regeneration while at the same time cultural (archeological) heritage management is an integral part of this process.

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.

Pastarasis dešimtmetis paveldo apsaugos srityje yra susijęs su 2005 m. įsigaliojusiu Nekilnojamojo kultūros paveldo apsaugos įstatymu. Ryškiausi pokyčiai vyko archeologinio paveldo apskaitos, apsaugos reikalavimų įteisinimo bei archeologinių tyrimų reglamentavimo srityse. Apskaitos problematika aptariama vertinimo, paveldo objektų gradacijos ir paveldosauginių apribojimų taikymo aspektais. Straipsnyje taip pat nagrinėjamos šios archeologinio paveldo apsaugos priemonės: informavimas apie žemės plotui taikomusarcheologinio paveldo apsaugos apribojimus; galimų veiklų ir sąlygų archeologinio paveldo objekto teritorijoje ir apsaugos zonoje nustatymas; archeologinių tyrimų privalomumo atvejų apibrėžimas. Aptariamas rcheologinių tyrimų reglamentavimas, archeologinio paveldo apsaugos in situ klausimas.