Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict and Occupation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Conflict and Security Law

  • 1713 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explains the basic provisions for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict and occupation. It first offers an overview of the history of plunder and destruction of cultural property until the time where there was a shift in attitude and this practice started to be considered unlawful. Then, it examines the legal framework currently applicable, including customary international rules enshrined in the 1907 IV Hague Regulations, the main provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention, its First Protocol, its 1999 Second Protocol, the 1977 Additional Protocols and relevant resolutions from the UN Security Council. Special emphasis is placed on individual criminal responsibility and the criminalization of offences against cultural property.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954.

  2. 2.

    Prott and O’ Keefe 1992, pp. 307‒320.

  3. 3.

    Gerstenblith 2006, 248‒59.

  4. 4.

    Warner 2016, 487.

  5. 5.

    Xenophon 1989, para 7.5.73.

  6. 6.

    Miles 2008, p. 14; Miles 2002, p. 42.

  7. 7.

    Gerstenblith 2006, pp. 248‒59.

  8. 8.

    Poulos 2000, p. 7.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    Guhl and Koner 1989, p. 586.

  12. 12.

    Burgess 1992, p. 22.

  13. 13.

    Wilson 1967, p. 57.

  14. 14.

    Choniates 1984, p. 67.

  15. 15.

    Gerstenblith 2006, p. 248.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Merryman and Elsen 1998, pp. 2‒5, O’Keefe 2006, p. 15.

  18. 18.

    Cited in Merryman 2005, p. 11.

  19. 19.

    Miles 2002, pp. 42‒43.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., p. 22; see also Egbert 1947, p. 282.

  21. 21.

    Grotius 2009, Book III, Ch. XII, Sect. V‒VII.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    de Vattel 1758, Book III, Ch. IX, para. 168 (emphasis added).

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    O’Keefe 2006, p. 9.

  27. 27.

    The Marquis de Somereules (1814) Stewart’s Rep. 482, Court of Vice-Admiralty, Nova Scotia, 1813. In: Stewart J, Reports of cases, argued and determined in the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Halifax, Nova Scotia, from the commencement of the war, in 1803, to the end of the year 1813 in the time of Alexander Croke, LL.D., Judge of that Court. J. Butterworth and Son, London, p. 483.

  28. 28.

    Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), Article 35 (24 April 1863) available at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/110 (last accessed on 27 July 2020).

  29. 29.

    International Conferences (The Hague), Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907.

  30. 30.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), para. 362; see also UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to para. 2 of UNSC Res 808’ (1993) UN Doc S/25704.

  31. 31.

    ICRC, ‘Customary IHL Rules’ Rule 38 available at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule38 (last accessed on 29 July 2020).

  32. 32.

    O’Keefe 2006, p. 44; Poulos 2000, p. 19.

  33. 33.

    Washington Pact of 15 April, 1935 for the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and of Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact).

  34. 34.

    Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, United States and Venezuela; see ICRC, ‘IHL Database’ <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/325?OpenDocument> accessed 4 January 2019.

  35. 35.

    Boylan 1993, pp. 33‒34.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Lambourne 2001, pp. 13, 43, 51‒6, 143. For example, the Cologne Cathedral (Germany) was bombed fourteen times as a consequence of the especially aggressive Allied “thousand-bomber” raid against Cologne in May 1942. This raid triggered, in turn, the bombing of Canterbury the day after.

  38. 38.

    Nicholas 1994, p. 226.

  39. 39.

    O’Keefe 2006, p. 101; UNESCO, ‘Records of the 7th Session’ (Paris, 2018) Doc. No. 7/PRG/7, 56.

  40. 40.

    O’Keefe 2006, p. 101.

  41. 41.

    UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed conflict 1954, 14 May 1954. The wording of the 1954 First Protocol suggests that states can ratify it independently of whether they are parties to the 1954 Hague Convention. Article 6 declared that “[t]he present Protocol […] shall remain open for signature by all States invited to the Conference which met at The Hague from 21 April, 1954 to 14 May, 1954” (emphasis added). Indeed, according to Article 7(a), the Protocol can be ratified by signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, meaning that any State that took part in the International Conference that led to the 1954 Hague Convention (and not necessarily that became a party to it) could sign and ratify the 1954 First Protocol.

  42. 42.

    For a comprehensive article-by-article analysis of the 1954 Hague Convention, see Toman 1996.

  43. 43.

    O’Keefe 1999, pp. 29-30. In addition, Forrest rightly contends that this feature of cultural property within the meaning of the 1954 Hague Convention resembles more the concept of “a collective heritage than a common heritage”, see Forrest 2010, p. 85.

  44. 44.

    O’Keefe 1999, p. 27. This can be inferred from the general nature of responsibility posited by the 1954 Hague Convention, which sees in Articles 3,6,10,16,17 and 26(2) the territorial State—not the opposing actor—as the entity with a primary responsibility for laying down the conditions for the Convention to be respected.

  45. 45.

    The updated list of State Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention and related instruments is available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/states-parties/.

  46. 46.

    For a more comprehensive overview of strategies employed to instruct the military, see Kristoffer and Rush 2017, pp. 107‒115.

  47. 47.

    Article 19(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention says: “In the event of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of the present Convention which relate to respect for cultural property.” The question is, what are the rules that relate to the respect of cultural property? The teleological (broad) view, represented by Forrest, argues that this would include all those clauses “that have a bearing on giving respect to cultural heritage” because the 1954 Hague Convention has the protection of cultural heritage as a general aim. By contrast, the literal (restrictive) view –espoused by this author—posits that “respect for cultural property” matches verbatim the heading of Article 4 and, although it might seem too restricted when compared to all that stated in the 1954 Hague Convention, the truth is that Article 19(1) is only looking for “minimum” standards. See Forrest 2010, p. 84.

  48. 48.

    UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999, 26 March 1999.

  49. 49.

    Gerstenblith 2008-2009, p. 693.

  50. 50.

    Syria has been a party to the 1954 Hague Convention since 1958 and was in the process of ratifying the 1999 Second Protocol when its armed conflict broke out.

  51. 51.

    Casana and Panahipour 2014, p. 129.

  52. 52.

    See Donald Trump’s original tweets at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1213593975732527112?lang=en (last accessed on 28 July 2020).

  53. 53.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74, Summary of Trial Chamber Judgment, 12.

  54. 54.

    The UNESCO World Heritage List describes the Old Bridge and the neighboring area as “an outstanding example of a multicultural urban settlement with its pre-Ottoman, eastern Ottoman, Mediterranean and western European architectural features.” See UNESCO, World Heritage List, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Doc. No. 946rev <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/946/> accessed 4 January 2019.

  55. 55.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74, Summary of Appeals Chamber Judgment, p. 5; Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74, Judgment Vol. I (Appeals Chamber), para. 426.

  56. 56.

    See ICTY, Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), paras 296, 312; Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), para. 605; Prosecutor v. Vladimir Đorđević, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), para. 1773; Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), para. 59; Prosecutor v. Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), para. 96; and Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), para. 278.

  57. 57.

    Bassiouni 1983, p. 312; and O’Keefe 2010, pp. 361‒362.

  58. 58.

    The periodic reports from State Parties where they include information on the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols can be accessed here http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/periodic-reporting/.

  59. 59.

    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3; and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609.

  60. 60.

    Additional Protocol I counts with 174 State Parties, and Additional Protocol II 169, in contrast to the 133 of the 1954 Hague Convention (information retrieved on 28 July 2020).

  61. 61.

    UNESCO, ‘Report by the Director-General on the Reinforcement of UNESCO's Action for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’, 140th Session (1992) UN Doc. No.140 EX/13, 3, 11. See also Boylan 1993.

  62. 62.

    The last accession dates from 30 June 2020 and is from Ukraine (information retrieved on 28 July 2020).

  63. 63.

    Mainetti 2004, pp. 344‒345. For a comprehensive article-by-article analysis of the 1999 Second Protocol, see Toman 2009.

  64. 64.

    Battalions in State forces usually count ca. 500-600 soldiers, a number which armed non-State actors do not usually equal. Thus, the corresponded definition of battalion for non-State actors must be built in accordance with their command structure. See Lostal et al. 2018, p. 17.

  65. 65.

    The 1954 Hague Convention created the special protection regime in Article 8 for “a limited number of refuges intended to shelter movable cultural property in the event of armed conflict, of centers containing monuments and other immovable cultural property of very great importance”. Some States have cancelled the inscription of properties on the Register, except for Mexico which inscribed new properties in 2015. The International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection, updated to 23 July 2015, can be accessed at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Register2015EN.pdf.

  66. 66.

    Hausler 2014, pp. 371‒373.

  67. 67.

    Toman 2009, p. 190.

  68. 68.

    'Enhanced Protection, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization' (Unesco.org, 2019) <http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Enhanced-Protection-List-2019_Eng_04.pdf> accessed 28 July 2020.

  69. 69.

    UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), 17 July 1998, ISBN No. 92-9227-227-6.

  70. 70.

    For a discussion on the different approaches towards the war crime against cultural objects, see Frulli 2011, pp. 203‒217.

  71. 71.

    ICC, Trial Chamber VIII, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, Judgment and Sentence, 27 September 2016 (ICC-01/12-01/15-171).

  72. 72.

    The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud (ICC-01/12-01/18), see Case Information Sheet at https://www.icc-cpi.int/CaseInformationSheets/al-hassanEng.pdf.

  73. 73.

    This is in contrast with the obligation under Art. I.1 of the 1954 First Protocol to prevent any exportation, whether licit or illicit.

  74. 74.

    First Protocol (1954) to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 14 May 1954, entered into force 7 August 1956).

  75. 75.

    This Article codifies the practice followed after the Second World War where the Allied powers returned the stolen cultural objects to the several national committees that had been established for that purpose. See Nicholas 1994, pp. 409-415.

  76. 76.

    See Forrest 2010, pp. 104‒107.

  77. 77.

    Campfens 2017 p. 194.

  78. 78.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, [Amsterdam District Court] C/13/577586/HA ZA 14-1179 [ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:8264] (14 December 2016) para. 2.1. (‘District Court Judgment’).

  79. 79.

    Ibid para. 2.6.

  80. 80.

    Ibid para. 2.9.

  81. 81.

    Ibid paras 5.1‒5.15.

  82. 82.

    Ibid para. 2.1.

  83. 83.

    Lostal 2020.

  84. 84.

    For a full commentary on UN Security Council Resolutions concerning cultural heritage, see Hausler 2018.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    UNSC Resolution 2164 (2014) para. 14(b).

  87. 87.

    UNSC Resolution 2423 (2018).

References

  • Bassiouni MC (1983) Reflections on Criminal Jurisdiction in International Protection of Cultural Property. Syracuse J. Intl. L. Commerce 10(2):281‒322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boylan J (1993) Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: the Hague Convention of 1954. UNESCO Programme and Meeting Document, No. CLT.93/WS/12, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000100159. Accessed 31 July 2020.

  • Burgess RW (1992) From Gallia Romana to Gallia Gothica: the view from Spain. In: Drinkwater J, Elton H (eds) Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19‒27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campfens E (2017) Whose Cultural Heritage? Crimean Treasures at the Crossroads of Politics, Law and Ethics. J. of Art, Antiquity and Law 22(3):193‒212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casana J, Panahipour M (2014) Satellite‐Based Monitoring of Looting and Damage to Archaeological Sites in Syria. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2:128‒151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choniates N (1984) Annals (WSUP) CXIX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbert LD (1947) Judicial Decisions: International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) Judgment and Sentences. Am. J. Intl. L. 41:172‒333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest C (2010) International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Routledge, Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frulli M (2011) The Criminalization of Offences against Cultural Heritage in Times of Armed Conflict: The Quest for Consistency. European Journal of International Law 22(1):203‒2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenblith P (2006) From Bamiyan to Baghdad: Warfare and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Geo. J. Intl. L. 37:248‒59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenblith P (2008-2009) Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Looking back, Looking Forward. Cardozo Pub. L., Pol’y & Ethics J., 7:677‒708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius (2009) On the Law of War and Peace. Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guhl E, Koner W (1989) Everyday Life of the Greeks and Romans. Crescent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausler K (2014) The protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict. In: Casey-Maslen S (ed) The War Report. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 361‒387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausler K (2018) Cultural Heritage and the Security Council: Why Resolution 2347 matters. Questions of International Law 48:5‒19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristoffer M, Rush L (2017) Integration of Cultural Property Protection into a Decisive Action Training Exercise. Military Review, November-December:106‒116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambourne N (2001) War Damage in Western Europe: The Destruction of Historic Monuments During the Second World War. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lostal M, Hausler K, Bongard P (2018), ‘Culture under Fire: Armed Non-State Actors and Cultural Heritage in Wartime’, Geneva Call report. https://genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cultural_Heritage_Study_Final.pdf. Accessed on 31 July 2020.

  • Lostal M (2020) Islamic State and the Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property. In: Jørgensen NHB (ed) The International Criminal Responsibility of War's Funders and Profiteers. Cambridge University Press, pp. 122-147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainetti V (2004) De Nouvelles Perspectives Pour La Protection Des Biens Culturels En Cas De Conflit Armé: L'entrée En Vigueur Du Deuxième Protocole Relatif À La Convention De La Haye De 1954. Intl. Rev. Red Cross 86(854):337‒366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH (2005) Cultural Property Internationalism. Intl. J. Cultural Prop. 12:11‒39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH, Elsen A (1998) Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles M (2002) Cicero's Prosecution of Gaius Verres: A Roman View of the Ethics of Acquisition of Art. Intl. J. Cultural Prop. 11:28‒49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles M (2008) Art as Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas LH (1994) The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe R (1999) The Meaning of ‘Cultural Property’ under the 1954 Hague Convention. Netherlands Intl. L. Rev. 46:26‒56.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe R (2006) The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe R (2010) Protection of Cultural Property under International Criminal Law. Melbourne Journal of International Law 11: 339‒392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulos AH (2000) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Even of Armed Conflict: An Historic Analysis. Intl. J. Legal Info. 28:1‒44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prott L, O’ Keefe R (1992) Cultural Heritage or Cultural Property? Intl. J. Cultural Prop. 1:307‒320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toman J (1996) The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: Commentary on the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Its Protocol, Signed on 14 May 1954 in The Hague, and on Other Instruments of International Law Concerning Such Protection. Darmouth/UNESCO, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toman J (2009) Cultural Property in War: Improvement in Protection: Commentary on the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1758) Le Droit Des Gens. Apud Liberos Tutior, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner M (2016) The Last Poor Plunder from a Bleeding Land: The Failure of International Law to Protect Syrian Antiquities. Brook. J. Intl. L. 42:481‒523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson N (1967) The Libraries of the Byzantine World. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 8:53‒80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xenophon (1989) Cyropaedia [430-354 B.C.] (Miller W (translator)). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, volume VI.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Marina Lostal

Authors
  1. Marina Lostal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Lostal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

  2. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Rustam Atadjanov

  3. National Law School of India, Pune, India

    Umesh Kadam

  4. Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK

    Gerhard Kemp

  5. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar

  6. Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Noëlle Quénivet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lostal, M. (2022). The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict and Occupation. In: Sayapin, S., Atadjanov, R., Kadam, U., Kemp, G., Zambrana-Tévar, N., Quénivet, N. (eds) International Conflict and Security Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-514-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-515-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation