Intentional Destruction Of Cultural Heritage Research Articles

무력충돌시 문화재 파괴 행위에 대한 국제형사책임의 과제

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.

The Existence of The Blue Shield Emblem on Cultural Heritage Property in Armed Conflict

The intentional destruction of cultural heritage in armed conflict that is not used for military purposes causes the greatest losses of mankind. Lots of cultural properties have great value as the cultural heritage of mankind. Creating the distinctive emblem through the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols d become a crucial way in terms of the protection of cultural properties. Based on these instruments, three categories of distinctive emblem gave for cultural properties over general, special and enhanced protection. It could impact cultural property under unnecessary damage when armed conflict occurred. Therefore, this research d a crucial basic issue on how form, function, and assignation of the distinctive emblem should be, based on the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, as well as related International Humanitarian Law. As the result of this research, it can be said that the existence of a distinctive emblem is remained unclear in terms of its size form and assignation on cultural property. This research ed that the use of distinctive emblem shall be regulated by decisive provisions through a Convention or such a guideline of implementation so that distinctive emblem can be seen by the dispute parties to avoid unnecessary damage to cultural property.

The Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage as a Genocidal Act and a Crime Against Humanity

Lemkin originally envisaged the crime of genocide as encompassing not only physical and biological acts of genocide, but also the intentional destruction of cultural heritage. In fact, earlier drafts of the Genocide Convention proposed the criminalisation not only of physical and biological genocide, but also of cultural genocide, with the latter understood as involving the destruction of specific characteristics of the protected group. This was eventually left out of the final draft of the Convention, save for the prohibition of the forcible transfer of the protected group’s children. However, the destruction of a protected group can be brought about not only by physical or biological means, but also by systematically erasing its culture heritage and therefore its group identity, destroying the group from its very core, an act which is described by Chaumont as constituting ‘ethnocide’. In fact, the ad hoc criminal tribunals have considered the systematic and intentional destruction of cultural heritage as evidence of the specific intent to destroy a group. The aim of this paper is to analyse the intentional destruction of cultural heritage from a human perspective, considering it as a crime against persons, not solely against property, and to examine whether it is time to revise the definition of genocide to incorporate the intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a genocidal act, as it was originally conceived by Lemkin.

Heritage destruction and cultural rights: insights from Bagan in Myanmar

ABSTRACTRecently, the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has stated that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a violation of cultural rights. The Rapporteur examines a timely issue but bases her statement on narrow understandings ‘heritage’ as irreplaceable and ‘destruction’ as ideologically motivated and aggressive. This reinforces hegemonic ideas about heritage and what constitutes its destruction. In this article, I discuss the case of Bagan in Myanmar to illustrate the limitations of the Rapporteur’s statement. In Bagan, whether and how ‘heritage’ should be protected has been the topic of controversy. By implication what is – or is not – considered intentional destruction is contested. Ambiguity about the meaning of cultural rights, the dissonant nature of heritage, the subjectivity of destruction, and complex multi-layered motivations behind ‘destructive’ practices make overarching statement about the destruction of cultural heritage and cultural rights violations too bold and call for more nuance and contextualised research.

The Aftermath of Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Factoring In Cultural Rights in Post-Conflict Recovery Processes

This paper addresses the first three questions posed by the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights in the framework of the study of intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights: (1) What is the impact of the intentional destruction of cultural heritage on the enjoyment of human rights, and particularly, on cultural rights? What is the impact of destruction of tangible cultural heritage on intangible cultural heritage, on cultural practices and beliefs, and on the right of concerned persons to participate in cultural life? (2) What are examples of different situations illustrating the above? (3) What are examples of good practices, especially with regard to prevention and protection against destruction, as well as repatriation and reconstruction measures of cultural heritage, including through human and cultural rights education and awareness?

Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Towards an Evolutionary Interpretation of International Criminal Law

Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Towards an Evolutionary Interpretation of International Criminal Law

Terrorism, Conflicts and the Responsibility to Protect Cultural Heritage

Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a well-known phenomenon which has been particularly exacerbated in recent times. Its common denominator is represented by the intent to persecute the communities for which that heritage represents an essential element of their cultural identity and distinctiveness. In legal terms, it produces different implications, to the point that – depending on the circumstances in which it is perpetrated – it may be qualified as a war crime, crime against humanity, violation of internationally recognised human rights, or evidence of the existence of the intent to commit genocide. Since the whole international community is seriously affected by the destruction of cultural heritage, it is indispensable that the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) be put into practice seriously and effectively with the purpose of protecting humanity against the irreplaceable loss of its heritage.

Different legal Issues Related to the Protection of Cultural Property in Peacetime and Wartime

The topic of Confronting Complexity in Preservation of Cultural Property: Monuments, Art, Antiquities, Archives, and History is pertinent, because cultural property throughout world is constantly threatened by a large variety of factors ranging from armed conflicts and natural disasters different peacetime human activities which, regrettably, do not take into account need safeguard and respect it. My remarks are divided into three parts: In first part, I will discuss 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage (the Declaration); then I will cover issue of sanctions under 1954 Hague Convention for Protection of Cultural Property in Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) and its Second Protocol; finally, I will compare protection provided by Hague Convention and its Second Protocol with that provided under 1972 World Heritage Convention. Let me start with 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning Intentional Destruction of Cultural It is a legal instrument aimed at protecting cultural heritage including that linked natural sites both in peacetime and wartime, and it was unanimously adopted by 32 C/Resolution 33 of thirty-second session of General Conference of UNESCO. (1) In March 2001, international community helplessly witnessed destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan--an enormous tragedy that impoverished cultural and spiritual heritage not only of Afghanistan, but of all humanity. (2) This mindless act of destruction took place despite massive efforts by international community including United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) persuade Taliban regime not destroy statues. (3) As a reaction destruction of Buddhas, Executive Board of UNESCO adopted at its one hundred and sixty-first session (Paris, May 28-June 13, 2001) 161 EX/Decision 3.1.1 (III) which, among other things, resolutely condemned the acts of destruction committed against historical and cultural monuments, in particular in Afghanistan, described by Director-General as crimes against culture' and invited Member States tirelessly pursue their efforts ensure full application of principles of Convention for Protection of Cultural Property in Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954), Convention on Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), Convention for Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and other relevant international legal instruments. The decision finally resolved include item Acts constituting a crime against common heritage of in agenda of its 162rid session and in provisional agenda of 31st session of UNESCO's General Conference. (4) The issue of acts constituting a crime against common heritage of humanity was further discussed during one hundred and sixty-second session of Executive Board of UNESCO (Paris, Oct. 2-31, 2001) and thirty-first session of General Conference of UNESCO (Paris, Oct. 15-Nov. 3, 2001). The latter considered this issue extensively and adopted 31 C/Resolution 26 on Acts constituting a crime against common heritage of (5) which, among other things, invited Director-General to formulate, for 32nd session of General Conference, a Draft Declaration concerning Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. Let me take this opportunity explain that in UNESCO's standard-setting terminology, conventions are international legally binding instruments defining rules that, not binding ex se, except for those states which accept, accede, approve, ratify, or succeed them. They are adopted by a two-thirds majority of states which attend General Conference of UNESCO. …

The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law

Throughout history, destruction and loss of cultural heritage have frequently occurred as a consequence of fanatic iconoclasm or as 'collateral' effects of armed conflicts. The devastation of the great rock sculptures of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by military and para-military forces of the Taliban Government of Afghanistan in March 2001 presents some unprecedented features. The discriminatory intent, reflected in the sheer will to eradicate any cultural manifestation foreign to the Taliban ideology, and the deliberate defiance of the United Nations and international public opinion make this destruction a very dangerous precedent. The authors try to assess the adequacy of international law in dealing with acts of this kind, and to identify gaps as well as relevant principles and rules applicable in the context of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage. They conclude that extreme and discriminatory forms of intentional destruction of cultural heritage of significant value for humankind constitutes a breach of general international law applicable both in peacetime and in the event of armed conflicts, entailing international responsibility of the acting state and the possibility to make recourse to international sanctions against it, as well as criminal liability of the individuals who materially order and/or perform the acts of destruction.

THE UNESCO DECLARATION CONCERNING THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: ONE STEP FORWARD AND TWO STEPS BACK

THE UNESCO DECLARATION CONCERNING THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: ONE STEP FORWARD AND TWO STEPS BACK