A Case Study on the Protection of Cultural Property Under the Law of Armed Conflict: Russia-Ukraine War

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive examination of impacts and repercussions of Russian-Ukranian war on the protection of cultural property under international humanitarian law. In this regard, the study first analyzes the significance of cultural property prior to outlining how states identify these properties. Thereafter, it evaluates the role and enforceability of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, which governs the protection of cultural property in international humanitarian law. Since the 1949 Geneva Convention IV classifies cultural properties as civilian objects, they are therefore entitled to the protective regime offered by the Convention—not as cultural properties, but as civilian objects. Following that, the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol I’s regime for protecting cultural property to the Russian-Ukranian war in the context of an international armed conflict is also discussed herein. The underlying reason is that the 1954 Hague Convention is the first in international law to provide exclusive protection for cultural property. The principle of military necessity is included as an exception in the 1954 Hague Convention and constitutes the weakness of the Convention. By addressing this exception, it was concluded that Russia damaged and destroyed the cultural property of Ukraine in violation of the requirements of the principle of military necessity. Last but not least, the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention has undergone an examination herein with a focus on settling issues with the Convention’s military necessity exception.

Keywords

• Cultural property
• International humanitarian law
• Protection
• Safeguarding
• Russian-Ukraine War
• International armed conflict

Silahlı Çatışmalar Hukukunda Kültürel Varlıkların Korunmasına Dair Vaka İncelemesi: Rusya Ukrayna Savaşı

Abstract

Bu çalışmada uluslararası insancıl hukukta Rusya-Ukrayna savaşı sırasında kültürel varlıkların korunması incelenmiştir. Çalışmada bu bakımdan öncelikle kültürel varlıkların önemi ortaya koyulmakta olup, ardından devletler tarafından kültürel varlıkların nasıl saptandığına değinilmektedir. Daha sonra uluslararası insancıl hukukta kültürel varlıkların korunmasına ilişkin öncelikle 1949 Cenevre Sözleşmeleri’nden Sivillerin Korunması konusunun düzenlendiği IV. Cenevre Sözleşmesi ele alınmıştır. Kültürel varlıkların 1949 IV. Cenevre Sözleşmesi kapsamında sivil varlıklar olarak kabul edilmeleri nedeniyle Sözleşme’nin tanıdığı koruma rejiminde kültürel varlıklar olarak değil sivil varlıklar olarak yararlandıkları belirtilmektedir. Ardından Rusya-Ukrayna savaşının uluslararası bir silahlı çatışma olması nedeniyle 1977 tarihli I No.lu Ek Protokol’de kültürel varlıklar bakımından öngörülen koruma rejimine değinilmiştir. Askeri gereklilik ilkesine 1954 Lahey Sözleşmesi’nde bir istisna olarak yer verilmiş olup Sözleşme’nin zayıf yönünü oluşturmaktadır. Söz konusu istisna ele alınarak Rusya’nın askeri gereklilik ilkesinin gerekliliklerine aykırı şekilde Ukrayna’nın kültürel varlıklarına zarar verdiği ve yok ettiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Son olarak, 1954 Lahey Sözleşmesi’nin 1999 tarihli İkinci Protokolü, Sözleşme’nin askeri gereklilik istisnası ile ilgili sorunların çözümüne odaklanan bir incelemeye tabi tutulmuştur.

Keywords

• Kültürel varlık
• Uluslararası insancıl hukuk
• Koruma
• Muhafaza etme
• Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşı
• Uluslararası silahlı çatışma

References

1. Bennoune K, ‘The Human Rights Based Approach to The Protection of Cultural Heritage’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property’ (UNESCO 2020) 21-24. google scholar
2. Brammertz S, ‘From Dubrovnik to Palmyra: Criminal Prosecutions of the Destruction of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 97-100. google scholar
3. ‘Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions’ (ICRC, 1987) 636 accessed 21 March 2024. google scholar
4. Desch T, ‘The Second Protocol Supplements The 1954 Hague Convention’s General Provisions Regarding Protection’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 31-33. google scholar
5. Gill TD, ‘Legal Basis of the Right of Self-Defence Under the UN Charter and Under Customary International Law’ in Terry Gill, Dieter Fleck (eds), The Handbook of International Law of Military Operations (2nd edn, Oxford 2015) 223. google scholar
6. Gottlieb Y, ‘The Protocol at 20: Observations on Legal Challenges and Inter-Disciplinary Partnerships’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 34-36. google scholar
7. Handbook on International Rules Governing Military Operations (ICRC 2013). google scholar
8. ‘Historical Perspectives: Relevance and The Added-Value of The 1999 Second Protocol’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020). google scholar

9. Marco S, Antonie B AND Anne Q, How Does Law Protect in War?, (3rd edn, ICRC 1999). google scholar
10. Kleffner JK, ‘Human Rights and International Humanitarina Law’, in Terry Gill, Dieter Fleck (eds), The Handbook of International Law of Military Operations (2nd edn, Oxford 2015). google scholar
11. Melzer N and Gaggioli Gasteyger G, ‘Conceptual Distinction and Overlaps between Law Enforcement and the Conduct of Hostilities’, in Terry Gill, Dieter Fleck (eds), The Handbook of International Law of Military Operations (2nd edn, Oxford 2015). google scholar
12. Melzer N, International Humanitarian Law (ICRC 2019). google scholar
13. Melzer N, ‘Targeted Killings in Operational Law Perspective’, in Terry Gill, Dieter Fleck (eds), The Handbook of International Law of Military Operations (2nd edn, Oxford 2015). google scholar
14. Melzer N ‘The Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants’, in Andrew Clapham and Paola Gaeta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford 2014). google scholar
15. M0İler M, ‘Opening Speech ’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 19-20. google scholar
16. O’Keefe R, ‘The Application of The Second Protocol to Non-International Armed Conflicts’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 40-43. google scholar
17. O’Keefe R, Peron C, Musayev T and Ferrari G, Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual, (UNESCO 2016) accessed 22 June 2023. google scholar
18. O’Keefe R, The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict (Cambridge 2006) 405. google scholar
19. Pocar F, ‘Cultural Property and Military Necessity Under The 1999 Second Protocol’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 101-103. google scholar
20. Rosen F, ‘Cultural Property and the International Protection Gap’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 75-77. google scholar
21. Toman J, ‘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 ofArmed Conflict’ (UNESCO 2009) accessed 21 March 2024. google scholar
22. Toman J, ‘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 ofInternational Law Concerning Such Protection’, (UNESCO 1996). google scholar
23. Türkay Kahraman FŞ, ‘Kültürel Varlık Kavramı ve Uluslararası Hukukta Kültürel Varlıkların Korunması: Karabağ’a Dair Bir İnceleme’ in Ali Samir Merdan (eds), 2020 Karabağ Savaşı İlhan Aliyev: Karabağ Azerbaycan’dır! (Nobel 2022). google scholar
24. Woudenberg N, ‘ 1999 - 2019: New Security Threats for Cultural Property’ in International Conference on the 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention: Protecting Cultural Property Conferance Proceedings, Protecting Cultural Property (UNESCO 2020) 110-112. google scholar
25. Büyük ME, ‘Machiavelli’den Grotius’e Egemenlik Kuramının ve Modern Devletler Hukukunun Gelişimi’ (2022) 80(1) İHM 299-356. google scholar
26. Forrest CJS, ‘The Doctrine of Military Necessity and The Protection of Cultural Property During Armed Conflicts’ (2007) 37(2) CWILJ 177-219. google scholar
27. Jawad A and Bokhari M, ‘Measuring the Protection of Cultural Property Under International Humanitarian Laws: Analysis ofRussia-Ukraine Conflict’ (2022) 4(3) JLSS 469-480. google scholar
28. Karaoğlu AO, ‘Libya’ya Askeri Müdahale ve Uluslararası Hukukta Yeniden İnşa Sorumluluğu’ (2019) 6(1) İMÜHFD 199-223. google scholar
29. Kravchenko A, Kyzymenko I, Husieva N and Krasilnikova O, ‘Crime Against Memory or Cultural Genocide? On The Destruction of The Cultural Heritage of Ukraine During Russian Aggression in TheXXI Century’ (2022) 10(2) EJTS 206-234. google scholar
30. Moldovan TH, ‘The Russian Invasion in Ukraine and Cultural Heritage Protection’ (2022) 9(2) JAHA 231-240. google scholar
31. Hladik J, ‘Marking of Cultural Property with the Distinctive Emblem of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’ (2004) 86(854) IRRC 379-386. google scholar
32. Tarsis I, ‘Ukraine on My Mind: Cultural Heritage and the Current Armed Conflict’ (2023) 33 (3) FIPMELJ 566-594. google scholar
33. Commentary of 1958 to the 1949 Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 accessed 19 March 2024. google scholar
34. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (UNESCO 1954) accessed 20 May 2023. google scholar
35. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 18 August 1949, antered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 970 accessed 20 March 2024. google scholar
36. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 971 accessed 20 March 2024. google scholar
37. Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 972 accessed 20 March 2024. google scholar
38. Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 accessed 19 March 2024. google scholar
39. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts [1977] ICRC. google scholar
40. Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict [1999] UNESCO. google scholar
41. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols (ICRC) accessed 12 September 2023. google scholar
42. United Nations Charter [1945] accessed 12 September 2023. google scholar
43. Prosecutor v Prlic (2017) ICTY- IT-04-74-A. google scholar
44. Prosecutor v Strugar (2008) ICTY-IT-01-42-A. google scholar
45. Prosecutor v Karadzic (2019) RMCT-MICT-13-55-A. google scholar
46. Prosecutor v Jokic (2004) ICTY-IT-01-42/1-S. google scholar
47. Prosecutor v Dordevic (2011) ICTY-IT-05-87/1-T. google scholar
48. Prosecutor v Al Mahdi (2016) ICC-01/12-01/15. google scholar
49. Acer Y, ‘Ermenistan’ın Savaş Suçları Uluslararası Hukuk ve Ermenistan’ın Karabağ’a Dair Askeri Faaliyetleri’ (SETA, 2020) accessed 23 March 2024. google scholar
50. Baghdassarian A, ‘The History Behind the Violence in Nagorno-Karabakh’ (Lawfare, 19 October 2020) accessed 22 June 2023. google scholar
51. Hausler K, ‘How Does International Law Protect Ukrainian Cultural Heritage in War? Is It Protected Differently Than Other Civilian Objects?’ (BIICL, 2022) accessed 5 June 2023. google scholar
52. Herman A, ‘Russian Invasion of Ukraine and The International Legal Protection of Cultural Property’ (Institute of Art and Law, 2022) 20 May 2023. google scholar
53. Kirchmair L and Schaffer C, The War of Aggression Against Ukraine, Cultural Property and Genocide: Why it is Imperative to Take a Close Look at Cultural Property’ (EJIL:Talk!, 21 March 2022) accessed 20 May 2023. google scholar
54. Jackson D, ‘Ukiraine Symposium - Cultural Property Protection In The Ukraine Conflict’ (Articles of War, 14 April 2022) accessed 31 May 2023. google scholar
55. Seymour T and Kishkovsky S, ‘Is Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage Under Coordinated Attack?’ (The Art Newspaper, 10 June 2022) accessed 15 May 2023. google scholar
56. “Creating Our Future: Creativity and Cultural Heritage as Strategic Resources for a Diverse and Democratic Europe’ Declaration on The Russian Federation’s Aggression Against Ukraine” (Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Culture, 31 March 2022) accessed 5 June 2023. google scholar
57. Campfens E and Busol K, ‘Protecting Cultural Heritage from Armed Conflicts in Ukraine and Beyond’ (EP, 2023) accessed 15 May 2023. google scholar
58. ‘Cultural Heritage: 7 Successes of UNESCO’s Preservation Work’ (UNESCO, 2023) accessed 22 June 2023. google scholar
59. Cultural Rights and The Protection of Cultural Heritage, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/RES/33/20, (2016). google scholar
60. ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law:Rule 38’ (ICRC, 2005) accessed 12 September 2023. google scholar
61. ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law:Rule 40’ (ICRC, 2005) accessed 12 September 2023. google scholar
62. ‘ICOM Launches the Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk - Ukraine, International Council of Museums’ (ICOM, 24 November 2022 accessed 22 June 2023. google scholar
63. Portala J, ‘U.N. Cultural Agency Moves to Protect Ukraine’s Heritage Sites’ (Reuters, 8 March 2022) accessed 15 May 2023. google scholar
64. ‘Practice Relating to Rule 39, Use of Cultural Property for Military Purposes Russian Federation Military Manuals (ICRC) accessed 7 March 2023. google scholar
65. Protection of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflicts, European Parliament, Briefing (EP March 2016) accessed 7 March 2023. google scholar
66. Psikowska-Schnass M, ‘Russia’s War on Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage’ (EPRC, 22 April 2022) accessed 1 June 2023. google scholar
67. ‘Targeted Destruction of Ukraine’s Culture Must Stop: UN Experts’ (UNHROHC, 22 February 2023) accessed 7 March 2023. google scholar
68. ‘UNESCO Statement’ (UNESCO, 8 March 2022) accessed 12 September 2023. google scholar
69. ‘When Cultural Heritage Becomes Collateral Damage in War’ (Swissinfo, 15 April 2022) accessed 5 June 2023. google scholar
70. ‘nepenİKnm’nmoK KynbmypHol cnad^uHu Ha^oHanbHoro 3HaueHm, 3aHeceHux do ffepw:aBHoro peecmpy HepyxoMux naM’amoK yKpaiHu’ (The Ministry of Culture and InformationPolicy of Ukraine) accessed 10 April 2023. google scholar