SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT

Transcription

1 12 COM C54/17/12.COM/6 Paris, 8 November 2017 Original : English SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT TWELFTH MEETING UNESCO Headquarters November 2017 Item 6 of the provisional agenda: Report on the Blue Shield on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation This document provides background information on the preparation of the report on situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation. The report and its Action Plan herein annexed, were prepared by the International Council of Museums on behalf of the International Committee of the Blue Shield. Draft decision: paragraph 6

2 C54/17/12.COM/6 page 2 1. The Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( the Committee ) by its Decision 10.COM 9 adopted at its 10 th meeting (Paris, December 2015), invited the Chairperson of the Committee, with the assistance of the Secretariat, to continue the dialogue with the International Committee of the Blue Shield with a view to drafting a report on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict including occupation. At its 11 th meeting (Paris December 2016), the Committee also requested the Secretariat, by its Decision 11.COM 8, to present the report and its Action Plan to its 12 th meeting. 2. As a follow-up to the above-mentioned decisions, the Secretariat commissioned the International Council of Museums ( ICOM ) on behalf of the International Committee of the Blue Shield, to prepare such report on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation. 3. The Secretariat presented the final draft of the report and its Action Plan, both in English and French, to the Bureau of the Committee on 21 September 2017 for consideration. At the invitation of the Bureau, States Parties and relevant international organizations were invited to provide observations on the final draft of the report and its Action Plan. 4. As of 25 October 2017, a total of 8 observations had been received by the Secretariat, from Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland and from the International Committee of the Red Cross ( ICRC ). 5. The Secretariat transmitted all the observations to ICOM and the final report, in English and in French, was shared with the Secretariat on 8 November The Committee may wish to adopt the following decision: DECISION 12.COM 6 The Committee, 1. Having considered document C54/17/12.COM/6, 2. Takes note of the report on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation and its Action Plan; 3. Thanks Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross for providing their observations concerning the report and its Action Plan; 4. Also thanks the ICOM and the International Committee of the Blue Shield for finalizing and presenting the report and its Action Plan; 5. Calls upon the States Parties to support the implementation of the report s Action Plan as a contribution to the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Cultural and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict.

3 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 3 Annex 1 Report on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation November 2017 Report commissioned by UNESCO on decision of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict M

4 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 4 M M M This report, commissioned by UNESCO following a decision of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, was researched, written and published under the sole responsibility of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), one of the four founding institutions of the International Committee of the Blue Shield. UNESCO does not represent or endorses the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in the report. Although ICOM has largely consulted with the Secretariat of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols in the process of drafting this report, the views and opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein are those of ICOM, and do not reflect neither partially nor totally the official views or opinions of UNESCO or of any other Organisation or State.

5 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 5 Table of contents Acronyms and abbreviations... 6 Abstract... 7 Proposed Action Plan for the Committee (timeline )... 9 Introduction General background Importance of cultural property protection Challenges of cultural property protection in conflict Legal background Introduction Historical Context The 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols Cultural property protection within general IHL Supporting international instruments and institutions Future Challenges Proposed Action Plan Capacity building / awareness-raising Ratification Enhanced protection Safe Havens References ANNEX A. Excerpts of the Heritage Passport of Mali ANNEX B. Blue Shield reflections on Palmyra ANNEX C. UNESCO s Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of an Armed Conflict... 50

6 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 6 Acronyms and abbreviations 1954 Hague Convention Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention (1954) CPP Cultural Property Protection IACs International Armed Conflicts ICA International Council on Archives ICBS International Committee of the Blue Shield ICC International Criminal Court ICCROM International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property ICOM International Council of Museums ICOM-DRMC International Council of Museums Disaster Risk Management Committee (formerly known as ICOM-DRTF Disaster Relief Task Force) ICOMOS-ICORP International Council on Monuments and Sites International Committee on Risk Preparedness ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IFLA International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions IHL International Humanitarian Law MENA Middle East and North Africa region MINUSMA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali MOD Ministry of Defense NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NGO Non-governmental organization NIACs Non-International Armed Conflicts PCNA Post Conflict Needs Assessment PSCs Private security companies Second Protocol Second Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention (1999) The Committee UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO s Action Plan UNESCO s Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict VNSA Violent Non-State Actor

7 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 7 Abstract Preamble In accordance with Decision 10.COM 9 adopted by the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( the Committee ) at its Tenth Meeting in December 2015, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) has been commissioned to prepare, on behalf of the Blue Shield, a report on situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including in occupation. In compliance with the terms of reference of the agreement between ICOM and UNESCO, the report includes a proposed Action Plan for the Committee. It aims at recommending, to the Committee, a concrete set of actions that are coherent with the strategy on the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict adopted by the General Conference at its 38 th Session. Report and Action Plan Aiming at assisting the Committee in its mandate as defined by Article 27 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the present report proposes realistic and practical solutions and tools for the Committee in improving the protection of cultural property affected by conflict, including occupation. The authors of the report would like to draw attention to the fact that the current multiplication of initiatives in the field of cultural property protection (CPP) confirms the urgency of the topic, while necessitating a greater dialogue and improved coordination between concerned actors in order to maximise efficiency 1. The protection of cultural property in times of conflict requires a legal framework within which synergies should be facilitated. International law is consistent in this matter, both in regard to International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions, International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute, and texts created at the initiative of the United Nations, such as UNESCO s 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols. The texts and initiatives mentioned in the report play their supporting role in the defence of the right for all to enjoy their cultural rights, in spite of or following conflict. The effective protection of cultural property in times of conflict, including occupation, is threatened by several issues, such as the multiplication of new wars and asymmetrical conflicts that prompt destructions of immovable cultural heritage, as well as the looting and illegal trafficking of movable cultural property. The report evaluates these elements and concludes that certain concrete measures could be taken by the Committee to try to hinder tragic destructions and detrimental traffics of cultural heritage. In this perspective, the following Proposed Action Plan is brought to the attention of the Committee, in coherence with the strategy outlined in the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for 1 The present report refers to situation and facts as of November 2017.

8 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 8 the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict (in Annex C of the present report).

9 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 9 Proposed Action Plan for the Committee (timeline ) 2 Name Actors Area of Actions Type of Actions Proposed Activities CAPACITY BUILDING and AWARENESS RAISING 1.1. Disseminate military training materials in all relevant UN languages and encourage States Parties to translate them into their official languages. Build on these existing materials to develop new training methods and tools for national and regional military forces. Action 1 UNESCO Member States/ The Committee Military forces Building capacity and raising awareness of military forces to protect cultural property 1.2. In collaboration with other culture Conventions, in particular 1970, 1972, 2003, and in cooperation with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, invite the Security Council to incorporate the protection of cultural property into peacekeeping processes, and more specifically mainstream (through training and awareness raising programmes) the principles of protection of cultural property into military training of the UN Peacekeeping forces Develop training programmes for trainers at national level Organise a high-level event attended by representatives from military institutions and military experts with the aim to outline effective strategies on mainstreaming the principles of protection of cultural property into best military practices. 2 The proposed timeline for the implementation of the Committee s Action Plan takes into consideration current limited resources within the UNESCO Secretariat.

10 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 10 Action 2 UNESCO Member States/ The Committee Legislative and normative instruments Promoting the 1954 Hague Convention and legal transposition of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999) into national legislation RATIFICATION 2.1. Develop country specific strategies, with particular focus on Africa and SIDS, highlighting the importance of ratifying and implementing at the national level the 1954 Hague Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols, in times of peace and through appropriate legal and institutional measures Organise specific ratification seminars or workshops, with particular focus on Africa and SIDS, in collaboration with UNESCO regional offices and civil society Increase synergies between actors and between texts with a view to increasing ratification and other relevant actions. Support a study on the optimisation of synergy between all UNESCO legal instruments pertaining to CPP. ENHANCED PROTECTION Action 3 The Committee/ Civil Society Emergency preparedness and response measures Guidelines on recommendations of cultural properties for enhanced protection 3.1 Develop guidelines to assist the Blue Shield and other NGOs (Article 11.3 of the 1999 Protocol), in their function as experts in recommending to the Committee specific cultural properties for the granting of enhanced protection. Action 4 UNESCO Member States/ The Committee/ Civil Society Protection measures Documenting and inventorying cultural property 4.1 Publish guidelines summing up the international standards and practices for documenting and inventorying cultural property, to be circulated among ministries, museums and heritage institutions worldwide. 4.2 Integrate internationally listed cultural properties into geographic information system (GIS). Action 5 The Committee/ Emergency preparedness and Post-Conflict 5.1 In the framework of UN-wide RPBA, strengthen culture component and build capacity of staff from relevant international and non-governmental organisations as well as from

11 Civil Society response measures governments in the implementation of response measures in emergency. C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 11 SAFE HAVENS 6.1 In compliance with the 1954 Hague Convention, undertake a comprehensive review of legal and policy framework for the implementation of Safe Havens, in cooperation with other culture Conventions, particularly the 1970 Convention, as well as ICOM, to ensure compliance with international law and ethical museum practice. More specifically: Action 6 The Committee/ Civil Society Emergency preparedness and response measures Safe Havens Modify the existing guidelines to include standardised check-list and contract for reference by Parties for the creation and establishment of inventory of Safe Havens Promote training and capacity building programmes at national levels to operationalise the above, in collaboration with other culture Conventions.

12 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 12 Chapter 1 Introduction Over the centuries humanity has witnessed the relentless destruction and damage of cultural property in conflict and occupation zones around the world. Of late, there is evidence of increasing threats to cultural property from conflict and terrorism. With the view to improve efforts by Member States in promoting the safeguarding and protection of cultural property in conflict and in occupation, the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict adopted Decision 10. COM 9, commissioning ICOM (on behalf of the International Committee of the Blue Shield) to prepare a report on the situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of an armed conflict, including occupation. With a foward-looking approach and taking into consideration historical context of the issue, this report will explore in depth the international legal background articulating the technical aspect of safeguarding cultural property, as well as the work of the Committee related to situations where cultural property is at risk in the context of armed conflict, including occupation. Actions to ensure increased protection of cultural heritage will be identified. The proposed actions, presented in the form of an Action Plan will provide the Committee with clear and concrete guidelines to effectively shape initiatives by the Committee itself, Member States, as well as civil society, so as to respond in a coordinated and standardized manner, to the endangerment of cultural property in the context of armed conflict, including occupation, worldwide. The proposed Action Plan thematically presents the priority areas of action for the Committee, identifies concerned actors and proposes a realistic set of activities to be addressed. Moreover, the proposed actions are coherent and streamlined to take into consideration the Strategy on the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict. This strategy was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 38 th Session of November 2015 in the Resolution 38C/48 3. To further ensure coherence of actions by different UNESCO entities, systematic reference has been made to the activities highlighted in the framework of the Strategy as examples of practical measures to promote good practices for safeguarding and protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Seeing the number of recent high-level initiatives and responses pertaining to the protection of cultural heritage, it is clear that protecting cultural property is currently high on the agenda of States and international organisations. Such global events have included political, diplomatic as well as financial initiatives. Among notable examples, mention can be made of the First G7 for Culture hosted in Florence under the presidency of Italy on March Ministers of Culture of the G7 gathered for the first time in history on the sole purpose of discussing the challenges of cultural property protection. The relevance of the role of UNESCO in CPP was recognised in the final Declaration. On 20 September 2016, on the occasion of United Nations General Assembly Week, French President François Hollande announced a new French-Emirati initiative to establish a global fund of 3 < accessed on 6 November 2017.

13 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 13 US$100 million to safeguard endangered heritage and cultural sites threatened by armed conflict or terrorism around the world. The initiative aims at increasing donor mobilisation amongst governments and private individuals, and creating instruments to give existing initiatives greater visibility and scientific credibility. An international conference on this subject took place in Abu Dhabi in December 2016 and an International Alliance for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Zones (ALIPH) has been created in March The Abu Dhabi Conference also discussed the creation of a network of safe havens for movable cultural heritage. On 24 March 2017, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2347 focusing solely on the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage. At the national level, the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) created a 30 million Fund for the protection of cultural heritage in conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The Cultural Protection Fund was initiated in June 2015 with the primary objective of creating opportunities for economic and social development through building capacity to foster, safeguard and promote cultural heritage in conflict-affected regions overseas 5. Such initiatives clearly illustrate the existence of a strong consensus, worldwide, on the need to develop new response mechanisms and on the urgency to reinforce coordinated cooperation in order to effectively address threats to cultural property, and to prevent what could be an irreversible loss to humanity. 4 In the earliest stage of this French-Emirati initiative, a Fund was launched with US$30 million donated by France, US$20 million by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and US$15 million by the United Arab Emirates who also hosted the Abu Dhabi Conference. Other confirmed contributors include Switzerland, Luxemburg, Morocco as well as private donors. 5 < accessed on 6 November 2017.

14 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 14 Chapter 2 General background The right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage is a human right. As stated by the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. 6 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 7 states, in its Article 27, the right of all to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Furthermore, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 8 recognises the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. Armed conflicts have a detrimental impact both on intangible and tangible cultural heritage. Destruction of cultural heritage undermines the foundation of the history and identity of groups and individuals, and can potentially violate their cultural rights and hence compromises their human rights. Without the tangible evidence of the past that constitutes movable and immovable cultural property, this relationship becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. When cultural property is lost, it is impossible to replace. Nevertheless cultural property, and cultural heritage, can be key factors in political, social, and economic post-conflict stabilisation and reconciliation, with the potential to foster intercultural dialogue and provide a stable base for economic development. 9 Cultural property provides the stage for, and tangible evidence of, the wider cultural heritage; without cultural property it becomes significantly more difficult to conserve cultural heritage. Its destruction therefore must be fought against and prevented by all means. By recognising this, the 1954 Hague Convention is the first treaty to be exclusively devoted to the protection of cultural property during conflict, including occupation, and ever since has had an important impact in shifting international norms with regards to the protection of cultural property. Chapter Three of this report will discuss the legal framework applicable to the protection of cultural property in relation to armed conflict Importance of cultural property protection Culture is the expression of how we perceive the world, how we interpret our environment and assess the people we meet. Our personal interpretation of what we perceive is guided by such diverse factors as affections, convictions, preconceived notions, beliefs and values. 10 Culture constitutes what defines human societies, allowing them to act, interact and dictate their actions. Conservation of cultural heritage responds to the necessity of preserving tangible evidence of the memory of human societies. It plays a social, cultural and political role in their development, continuance and cohesion. The preservation of cultural heritage bears economic advantages too. It 6 < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November HILGERT M., Why Culture Matters: Fostering Identity Through Cultural Heritage, 2017, The Globalist, < accessed 7 November 2017.

15 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 15 is also indispensable for the pursuit of academic work and research on the evolution of humans and their environment. Control over cultural heritage has symbolic implications which made it, throughout history, a military target. At the same time, culture and cultural heritage are powerful instruments for rehabilitation in post-conflict societies. 11 This is the reason why a large part of the legal framework surrounding cultural heritage protection originates in international humanitarian law Cultural, social and political importance Cultural heritage is a crucial component of a person or a social group s identity, as it is a tangible manifestation of its culture and history. 12 It allows for a social group to define itself in relation to others, which is why it is so often targeted in the asymmetrical conflicts that represent, since 2011, most of the ongoing armed conflicts around the world. The symmetric conflict of the past, where two or more opposing armies in uniform fought each other, has been largely replaced by asymmetric conflict where the enemy is almost invisible and fights with an entirely different set of capabilities. 13 Indeed, the new generation of armed conflict, also known in military terms as fourth generation warfare 14, often encompasses ethnical and nationalistic conflicts, during which groups usually attempt at diminishing their opponent s identity by directly striking populations and cultural property. Ideological motivations, propaganda and financial and recruitment purposes could all be mentioned as motives for the destruction of cultural property in conflict, including occupation. However, what is perhaps the most common aspect at the root of such actions is the will to destroy the foundation of the enemy s identity, with the aim of ensuring total control over the invaded territory and population, and sometimes creating a new, less diversified, society. 15 Numerous examples relating to this kind of cultural property destruction have taken place in recent history: the shelling of the Dubrovnik s Old Town in Croatia in 1991, the 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan and the cultural destruction recently led by Daesh in Iraq and in Syria. Cultural heritage is inseparable from a State s self-definition, as this very notion often builds upon shared values, customs and history, which are all parts of the concept of heritage. Therefore, the meaning that people give to their heritage reinforces the feeling of belonging to their nation. This partly explains why countries take many initiatives to protect what they regard as their national treasures. It also enlightens the motives behind the disputes that occasionally arise among sovereign states for the ownership of art works, and their related sensitive claims for returns. While cultural heritage has often been instrumentalised to support intolerant and ethnocentric views, because it can crystallise national identities, promoting the knowledge of other cultures has shown to be an efficient tool to bolster tolerance towards other indigenous or ethnic groups. 11 Ibid. 12 < accessed on 6 November PAULUS A., VASHAKMADZE M. Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict a tentative conceptualization, 2009, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 91 Number 873 March < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November 2017.

16 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Economic importance Preserving and promoting cultural heritage can be an effective tool to boost a country or a region s economic activity. The steadily growing popularity of natural and cultural heritage sites included on the UNESCO s World Heritage List demonstrates that there clearly is interest and value in safeguarding and promoting tangible traces of culture. In such cases, the positive economic impacts of culture are varied and can come from employment and investment of the tourism industry, from qualified heritage workers required to manage and preserve the sites, etc. It has been estimated that, in 2016, tourism accounted for 10% of the world s GDP, and represented 7% of the world s exports in services 16. In this regard, the protection of cultural property in developing countries can foster economic growth of States and help alleviate poverty rates Academic importance Understanding and promoting cultural heritage stimulates the desire to protect and preserve it, and further enables its transmission to future generations which will be able to grasp and appreciate its meaning. This permanent virtuous cycle is known as the heritage cycle 17. It highlights the necessity of present preservation for future exploitation and meaningful interpretation. Museum professionals, curators, archaeologists, librarians, archivists, and art history specialists have a great role to play in passing this heritage to future generations. Studying cultural heritage today is the only way to be able to pass on the knowledge that stems from it to future generations. The preservation of the diversity of cultural property, from archaeological sites to museum objects and documentary heritage is necessary to studying and understanding our common past. Similarly, it is necessary to improve, through research, the understanding of the regional, national and transnational criminal practices generated by the destruction of cultural property during conflict, including occupation. As an example, UNESCO sought to underscore the difficulties of collecting valid information regarding the nature and extent of illegal trade of antiquities. Grasping the depth of the phenomenon, through research and cooperation, is what motivated the International Council of Museums (ICOM) to create the first International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods in On 2 July 2015, UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova made an appeal for deeper cooperation with think tanks during her participation in a Roundtable under the theme Fighting Terrorist Financing: The Threat of Cultural Destruction and ISIS, organised by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and its Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies. 19 Furthering research on the importance of cultural heritage and the necessity for its protection, with the aim of informing the development of future policy, should be high on all concerned stakeholders agenda. 16 < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November 2017.

17 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Military importance The handling of cultural property by the military in times of armed conflict has been an issue in both ancient and remote historical conflicts, and in current military operations. Plundering the cultural property of an enemy can be traced back as far as the sacking of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 597 BC 20. Yet, such plundered cultural property, and in particular religious artefacts, already benefited from a distinct treatment, illustrated by the example of the Roman Empire which usually refrained from expropriating religious artefacts 21. Plundering of cultural property, in particular of religious artefacts was a common military strategy in the most remote Antique time. Tangible evidences of such practices have been found. Precise descriptions of redistribution of spoils of war among officers as a salary or award after a military victory have been unearthed, which date back to the Neo-Assyrian Empire ( BC) 22. The distinction between civilians and the military is implied in the 1868 Saint Petersburg Declaration 23, which states in its preamble that the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy. Since then, a diverse legal framework has been developed to ensure cultural property protection (CPP). Many of the rules constituting the said legal framework are addressed directly to military personnel, because of their role at the front line, where they can try to protect cultural property, or be responsible for its destruction. This is why the Article 25 of the 1954 Convention 24 aims at guiding military conduct during conflict through the establishment of particular training programs Challenges of cultural property protection in conflict The recent events that put cultural property at different and amplified risk in times of conflict include new asymmetrical types of conflicts 25, but also other under-regarded issues such as management and safety of movable cultural property in times of occupation. Challenging the existing mechanisms of protection, these developments amplify the need for structured intervention plans Asymmetrical conflicts and expansion of cultural property targeting The new and asymmetrical conflicts that are taking place worldwide raise new challenges for cultural property protection and implementation of international humanitarian law (IHL) during battles. Although the legal framework of IHL must apply to all parties, its already-difficult operationalisation faces even more obstacles with the transformation of warfare. Implementation tools of IHL designed under an international/non-international-armed-conflicts setting have to be 20 COOGAN, M, 1999.The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 350 p. 21 HARDY, S, The Conflict Antiquities Trade: A Historical Overview, in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: International Council of Museums, pp HOLLOWAY, S.W., Assur is King! Assur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Leiden: Brill, 559 p. 23 < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November PAULUS A., VASHAKMADZE M. op. cit. < accessed 6 November 2017.

18 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 18 adapted to situations mixing opposition between States and transnational armed groups, at the same time as a disparity in military capabilities. This fourth generation warfare also took advantage of a renewal in the use of culture as a strategic target and weapon. Although specific targeting of cultural property because of its status existed in the past, its strategic military use has known a dramatic expansion in the 1990s with the war in the Balkans, as shown by the destruction of numerous mosques and by the burning of the National and University Library of Sarajevo. 26 Combined with the return of religious discourse within military strategies of some armed groups or armies, dated back to the Afghanistan war in the 1980 s 27, such destructions of idols and monuments have been prompted, in recent years, by the revival of iconoclasm. The latter has increasingly been used as a tactic by armed groups or States involved in asymmetrical conflicts. One significant example of icon-targeting during such a conflict is the 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. 28 Several forces fighting in asymmetrical conflicts have included the targeting of culture in their strategy as a way to alleviate their lack of military capacity. The destruction of cultural heritage has ideological implications that serve specific propagandistic objectives. Such objectives conceive cultural property as the materialised symbol of an enemy and can participate in various ways in undermining the opponent 29. Recent years have witnessed a multiplication of conflicts, asymmetrical or traditional, involving parties which do not respect basic rules of IHL, including the principle of distinction 30. This has resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, and has also impacted the protection of culture. As the number of refugees and internally displaced populations increases, growing parts of these populations cannot access their tangible cultural heritage nor engage in the practice of their intangible heritage. 31 This leads to an inability to communicate intangible cultural heritage to future generations, which can spawn an irreversible loss making the return of local people to their home country infinitely more difficult. Therefore, protecting cultural property is paramount in order to facilitate the peace-building process in the aftermath of a conflict Cultural property trafficking and armed conflicts In the context of an armed conflict, including occupation, cultural property is at risk not only of destruction due to combats, but is also subject to looting as a result of instability and insecurity. While immovable cultural property is endangered during combat, as it risks destruction for ideological or military reasons, movable cultural property is particularly vulnerable in the immediate aftermaths of fights or in situations of occupation as it creates opportunities for theft. Such instable situations are favourable conditions facilitating extensive and organised looting capable of financing criminal networks. Movable cultural property can therefore be linked to the financing of terrorist groups, feeding the worldwide black market while draining culture out of a region < 27 KEPEL G., 2002, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 454 p. 28 < accessed 24 October < accessed 24 October See ICRC s Study on customary international humanitarian law: Rules of customary IHL, Chapter I: The Principle of Distinction. accessed 24 October < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November 2017.

19 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 19 Looting is an endemic problem worldwide and is frequently controlled by established criminal networks. These gangs are well-funded and well-organised and thrive during conflict when normal controls are absent. This is a complex issue that is covered by researchers in looted antiquities 33. However, there are some tentative general observations that can be drawn from recent conflicts in Northern Africa and in the Middle East. In the case of the looting of archaeological sites, a significant proportion of the looting can be carried out by local individuals who have lost their normal livelihoods. This was seen in Iraq following successive conflicts over decades, including the 2003 invasion. Farmers who cannot sell, or in some situations even grow, their normal produce turn, where the option is available, to harvesting antiquities instead - usually selling them to dealers for a fraction of their final value. The looting of museums, libraries, archives, and galleries can be a complex phenomenon. During the looting of the National Museum in Iraq there were a number of very different parallel activities going on, including: the search for information about family members and others who had disappeared under the Saddam Hussein regime, since the museum was seen as a potential source of information as a government building; the looting of computers, electrical appliances, furniture, and other items; the removal by some of artefacts, either as genuine acts of safekeeping or in the heat of the moment, that were returned later; opportunistic looting; and organised professional looting 34. To combat looting we need to understand its compound nature. Professional, specific and targeted looting is discussed below but three general conclusions can be drawn. First, as noted above, some looting of archaeological sites by locals comes from economic necessity, and is facilitated by the loss of regular income for example when site guards no longer receive their salary. In some recent conflicts both could have been addressed by an increased awareness in the occupying force s response. In conflict, if ways can be found to compensate farmers for their produce and archaeological site guards for their work, a part of the looting might be avoided. Finally, looting reveals a difficult and uneasy reality: if there were no market, licit or illicit, for antiquities, there would be no looting. We need to engage with dealers and their clients describing the damage done by the trade and how evidence exists to prove it contributes to the war chests of belligerents. As long as the market exists, the looting will continue Specific case of UN peacekeeping operations Chapters VI and VII of the United Nation Charter 36 define several types of peacekeeping missions assigned to the Organisation. These missions enable the Security Council to mandate peacekeeping operations in areas where the situation is likely to endanger or constitute a threat to international peace and security. Neither the Geneva Conventions nor their Additional Protocols the main instruments of international humanitarian law have elaborated upon peacekeeping forces activity. The United Nations Secretariat published on 6 August 1999 an Observance by United Nations forces of international humanitarian law that states that damage to civilian property and attacks on Civilians 33 DANIELS, B, and HANSON, K, Archaeological site looting in Syria and Iraq: a review of the evidence, in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Cultural Goods, The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: ICOM publication, pp GEORGE, D, The Looting of the Iraq National Museum, in STONE, P, and FARCHACK, B (eds.), The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq, Woodbridge: Boydell, pp DESMARAIS, F, An Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: International Council of Museums, pp. vii-x. 36 < accessed 24 October 2017.

20 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 20 or civilian objects is prohibited. 37 More generally, peacekeeping forces are prohibited to attack civilian objects, like any other arm bearer, regardless of the applicable legal framework or the applicable policy. However, UN-led peacekeeping forces have specific impartial missions, which contrast with the goals of other armed forces party to a conflict 38. Further than respecting IHL pertaining to armed conflicts, such operations are dedicated to peace-enforcement, peace-making, peace-keeping or post-conflict reconstruction. Consideration for the social, political and military importance of cultural heritage described above is increasingly present within mandates of UN-led peacekeeping operations. For instance, provisions regarding respect of cultural property, but also support for cultural preservation in Mali and collaboration with UNESCO are mentioned in the mandate of the MINUSMA 39. Peacekeeping operations can take place in context of armed conflict including occupation as well as before a conflict appears or in the immediate aftermath of an armed conflict. In all cases, they operate in highly instable political or military situations where cultural property faces similar threats as those encountered during armed conflicts and occupation. They are thus in good position to assist and protect CPP professionals when their work is made difficult due to conflict situations. Although it is not always possible or appropriate to include a cultural component in all peacekeeping operations, peacekeeping forces can, within the limit of their mandate and according to the situation, play a specific role in CPP. 37 < accessed 24 October About the identification of the parties to a conflict involving multinational operations conducted under the command and control of an international organisation, see ICRC Commentary to Article 2 of Geneva Convention I, , < C1257F7D0036B518>, accessed 24 October Security Council Resolution 2364, 22. (c) and 41. < accessed 24 October 2017.

21 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Introduction Chapter 3 Legal background The protection of cultural property (CPP) from the damaging and often destructive effects of war is regulated by a comprehensive international legal framework. This framework, which governs both international (IAC) and non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), is the product of various legal instruments and customary rules having developed over many years into legally-binding multilateral treaties which, with the support of a diverse group of international institutions, codify CPP as a legal obligation which must be observed by all parties to a conflict, either States, non-state groups or international organisations. This legal regime is part of international humanitarian law (IHL): the body of international law which regulates the conduct of armed conflict Historical Context The first instrument to codify a set of rules prohibiting intentional damage to cultural property in times of war was the Lieber Code of 1863 (also known as General Order No. 100). Published as a pamphlet to be carried and used by Union soldiers during the American Civil War, the Code reversed the hitherto uncontested presumption that property (including cultural property) could be confiscated from the enemy as part of the spoils of war. 40 The Lieber Code introduced the concept that important works of art, places of worship, and monuments must be protected against damage and destruction during war. Following this, the incorporation of CPP into IHL was strengthened by the adoption of the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land ( 1899 Hague Convention ) and the 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 ( 1907 Hague Convention ). These were seminal in articulating fundamental principles concerning the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. In particular, the Regulations to the 1907 Hague Convention, which revised the 1899 Hague Convention, stipulate that all necessary steps must be taken to spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, [and] historic monuments during sieges and bombardments. 41 Furthermore, Article 56 of these Regulations prohibits the seizure of, destruction or wilful damage to cultural property. 42 In this context, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( 1954 Hague Convention ) was the first international instrument to focus exclusively on the treatment, protection and status of cultural property in armed conflict. 40 US Committee of the Blue Shield, Laws and Treaties Protecting Cultural Property: The Lieber Code of 1863 (USCBS, 2015) < accessed 12 April 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 (adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910) (1907 Hague Convention) art Hague Convention, art. 56.

22 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page The 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols Adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War, and following the widespread looting, damage, and intentional destruction of cultural property which occurred during that conflict, the 1954 Hague Convention sought to establish a codified set of rules dedicated to preventing similar attacks against cultural property in future conflicts. 43 Specifically, the 1954 Hague Convention recognises both immovable (buildings, sites, monuments) and movable (works of art, artefacts, books) 44 objects as cultural property and enjoins States parties to safeguard and respect cultural property, inter alia by refraining from directing any act of hostility against such property. It creates a Special Protection regime for refuges housing cultural property and centres containing monuments, to ensure their immunity from attack. 45 The 1954 Hague Convention is complemented by two Protocols. The Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( 1954 First Protocol ) is specific to movable cultural property, prohibiting its export from occupied territory during conflict and requiring its return at the conclusion of hostilities. 46 The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( 1999 Second Protocol ) was the product of a comprehensive review of the 1954 Hague Convention, and an attempt to strengthen the Convention and its provisions. It specifically defines the criminal sanctions triggered by violations of its provisions, 47 and establishes a regime of Enhanced Protection for cultural property which is of the greatest importance for humanity. 48 Property enlisted under such protection must not be made the object of military attack, and, unlike cultural property which is not under enhanced protection, a party has a much higher threshold to prove in order to justify any attack against such property. However, this obligation does not apply if the cultural property has become a military objective by virtue of its use. Attack is therefore permitted only if it is the only way to end this use, and precautions must be taken to minimise damages on the cultural property. 49 The 1999 Second Protocol also elaborates on the concept of safeguarding first articulated by the Convention, by stipulating that States Parties take measures such as the preparation of inventories, installing emergency measures against fire and structural collapse, organising for the removal of cultural property if necessary, and designating appropriate authorities to oversee the protection of cultural property. 50 Together, the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols establish a comprehensive set of rules governing armed conflict and ensuring the safety of cultural property during hostilities. The regime embodied by these legal instruments serves a twofold function. Firstly, they are prohibitive in the way in which they (much like IHL generally) set out specific prohibitions which parties are obliged not to violate, carrying the weight of penal law by criminalising any such violations. And secondly, 43 Blue Shield International, The Hague Convention 1954 (ANCBS, 2017) < accessed 13 April Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention recognises as cultural property movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, as well as buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit ( ) movable cultural property and centres containing a large amount of cultural property. 45 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 14 May 1954, entered into force 7 August 1956) 249 UNTS 215 (1954 Hague Convention) art Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 14 May 1954, entered into force 7 August 1956) 249 UNTS 358 ( 1954 First Protocol ) arts Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 26 March 1999, entered into force 9 March 2004) 38 ILM (1999), at 769 ( 1999 Second Protocol ) art Second Protocol, art Second Protocol, arts Second Protocol, art 5.

23 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 23 they are protective and pre-emptive, by obliging States Parties to take measures which protect cultural property during times of peace, in order to ensure its safety from attack, looting, and other damaging effects of war. Regarding situations of occupation, Article 9 of the 1999 Protocol on protection of cultural property in occupied territory requires States to prohibit and prevent, in relation to an occupied territory illicit export, removal or transfer of ownership of cultural property, as well as any archeological excavation, save where this is strictly required to safeguard, record or preserve cultural property and any alteration to, or change of use of, cultural property which is intended to conceal or destroy cultural, historical or scientific evidence. 51 These elements second the 1956 UNESCO Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archeological Excavations in which Article 32 says that any Member State occupying the territory of another State should refrain from carrying out archaeological excavations in the occupied territory and to prohibit or prevent any alteration to, or change of use of, cultural property which is intended to conceal or destroy cultural, historical or scientific evidence Cultural property protection within general IHL The additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions The principles of CPP have also been included in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two 1977 Additional Protocols, reflecting the relevance and importance of CPP to human rights issues in international law. 53 These Conventions are at the core of IHL, and seek to mitigate the harm and injury inflicted on people specifically civilians, medics, aid workers, and wounded soldiers during war. 54 In particular, the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts ( Additional Protocol I ) prohibits, without prejudice to the provisions of the [1954] Hague Convention, any acts of hostility against cultural objects and places of worship, as well as their use for any military purpose. 55 Similarly, Article 16 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts ( Additional Protocol II ) also prohibits these acts. 56 In this way, the protection of cultural property in conflict has been recognised as intrinsic to ensuring respect for all peoples and cultures; the safeguarding of cultural property in armed conflict is thus central to the safeguarding of human rights in times of war. 51 < accessed 24 October < accessed 24 October Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31 ( Geneva Convention I ); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 83 ( Geneva Convention II ); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135 ( Geneva Convention III ); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 ( Geneva Convention IV ). 54 International Committee of the Red Cross, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols (ICRC, 2010) < accessed 13 April Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 ( Additional Protocol I ) art Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609 ( Additional Protocol II ).

24 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Customary international Law The obligations and principles of CPP are now considered part of customary international humanitarian law. It means that, aside from the obligations created by the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, all States (regardless of whether they are party to these instruments or not) are obliged to respect the fundamental principles of CPP and to observe them during hostilities. 57 According to the ICRC CIHL study 58, States are thus obliged (in both NIAC and IAC) to take special care in their military operations to avoid damage to cultural property. 59 They must not make such cultural property the object of military attack or use it for military purposes, in a manner which might expose it to damage or destruction, unless imperatively required by military necessity. 60 Furthermore, the seizure, theft, misappropriation and pillage of cultural objects is also proscribed under customary international law. 61 Occupying forces are obliged to prevent the illicit export of cultural property from territory under their control, and, as required by the 1954 First Protocol, must return any such property which is exported. 62 In addition, reprisals against objects protected by the Geneva Conventions and the 1954 Hague Convention including both immovable and movable cultural property protected by these conventions are prohibited. 63 In this way, the fundamental principles of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols related to respect for cultural property are binding on all States who partake in armed conflict regardless of whether they are party to the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols as well as, as applicable, on non-state armed groups and international organizations War crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ( Rome Statute ), intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [and] historic monuments, which are not military objectives, is a war crime. 64 This principle applies in both IAC and NIAC. 65 The recognition of the destruction of cultural property as a crime of such gravity was reinforced in the recent International Criminal Court (ICC) trial of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi. 66 Al Mahdi was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for intentionally directing attacks against ten historic and religious buildings in Timbuktu, Mali, between June and July On 17 August 2017, 57 HENCKAERTS, J-M, DOSWALD-BECK, L, Customary International Humanitarian Law (first published 2005, Cambridge University Press 2009) ( CIHL ), < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November CIHL, rule 38, < accessed 24 October CIHL, rule 38, < CIHL, rule 39, accessed 24 October CIHL, rule 40, < accessed 24 October CIHL, rule 41, < accessed 24 October CIHL, rule 147, < accessed 24 October Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3 ( Rome Statute ), arts 8(2)(b)(ix), 8(2)(e)(iv). 65 Rome Statute, arts 8(2)(b)(ix), 8(2)(e)(iv). 66 The Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15 (27 September 2016). 67 International Criminal Court, Press Release: ICC Trial Chamber VIII declares Mr Al Mahdi guilty of the war crime of attacking historic and religious buildings in Timbuktu and sentences him to nine years imprisonment (ICC, 27 September 2016) < accessed 13 April 2017.

25 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 25 the ICC issued a reparation order of 2.7 million in expenses for individual and collective reparations for the community of Timbuktu. The Court also required that one symbolic euro be given to the Malian State and UNESCO in compensation for the harm done to the national community and the international community. 68 This case is an important milestone in the continuing recognition of CPP s importance, and establishes a precedent for the further enforcement of IHL norms relating to cultural heritage. Attention should be given to the fact that, before the adoption of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had criminalised intentional destructions of cultural property in its Statute of Article 3(d) includes among the violations of the laws or customs of war in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science. This disposition enabled the ICTY to prosecute and convict those responsible of the bombing of the Old City of Dubrovnik in Croatia, a UNESCO World Heritage Site Supporting international instruments and institutions Since the adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, the protection of cultural property in armed conflict has been reaffirmed as an internationally-recognised and respected principle, through various international instruments and institutions Human rights and cultural property protection The link between the protection of cultural property in armed conflict and human rights has been reiterated by the Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Ms Karima Bennoune. In a statement dated 10 March 2016, Ms Bennoune emphasised that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a violation of human rights. 71 The Special Rapporteur also recognised that the obligations contained in the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, and the principles of CPP, rise to the level of international customary law, as well as the fact that violations of these principles amount to war crimes under international law. 72 This address was followed by the Special Rapporteur s report to the UN General Assembly (9 August 2016), which detailed the impact of the intentional destruction of cultural property on human rights and called for international strategies to prevent such destruction. 73 In response to this, the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 33/20 (30 September 2016), which recognised that damage to cultural heritage can have a detrimental and irreversible impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights. 74 The Resolution urged all 68 < accessed 6 November Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (adopted 25 May 1993), < accessed 24 October Indictment on the attack of Dubrovnik on 1 October 1991 < accessed 24 October United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR), Statement by Ms. Karima Bennoune, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, at the 31 st Session of the Human Rights Council, 10 March 2016, < accessed 14 April Ibid. 73 UNGA Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (9 August 2016) 71 st Session UN Doc A/71/317; UN OHCHR, The intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights (OHCHR, 2017) < accessed 25 April UNGA Human Rights Council Res 33/20 (30 September 2016) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/33/20.

26 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 26 parties to armed conflicts to refrain from targeting cultural property, in conformity with principles of international humanitarian law Other UNESCO standard-setting instruments related to culture Complimentary to the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols are several other international legal instruments whose purpose is to safeguard, promote, and regulate cultural heritage in all its manifestations. There are five other culture conventions overseen by UNESCO, each of which focuses on a specific aspect of cultural heritage. Closely linked to the 1954 Hague Convention is the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage ( 1972 World Heritage Convention ), which obliges States Parties to recognise the importance of both natural and cultural sites, and to take legal and operational measures to protect and preserve them. 76 It is not specific to armed conflict, and thus is not part of IHL; however, like the 1954 Hague Convention, it establishes a framework through which States Parties are encouraged to adopt concrete measures of protection for their cultural property. 77 Furthermore, Article 6(3) of the 1972 World Heritage Convention stipulates that States Parties undertake not to implement deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage [ ] situated on the territory of other States Parties, reinforcing the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention which command respect for the cultural property belonging to other States. 78 Another convention concerned with the protection of movable cultural property is the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property ( 1970 Convention ). 79 Under this Convention, States Parties are obliged to take preventative actions against the illegal export of cultural property, such as the creation of inventories, the issuing of export certificates, closely monitoring trade, and observing the Convention s restitution provisions. 80 Like the 1972 World Heritage Convention, the 1970 Convention is not restricted to armed conflict. However, as the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols recognise, the looting and trafficking of cultural property remains a common corollary of war; thus the 1970 Convention complements the 1954 Hague Convention s provisions which prohibit the requisitioning of movable property. 81 Under Article 11 of the 1970 Convention, the export and transfer of cultural property under compulsion arising directly or indirectly from the occupation of a country by a foreign power is regarded as illicit, and is thus forbidden. 82 UNESCO also oversees the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage ( 2001 Convention ), which seeks to ensure the wellbeing and protection of submerged cultural property 75 UNGA Human Rights Council Res 33/20 (30 September 2016) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/33/ Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted 16 November 1972, entered into force 17 December 1975) 1037 UNTS 151 ( 1972 World Heritage Convention ). 77 UNESCO World Heritage Centre, The World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2017) < accessed 13 April World Heritage Convention, art 6(3). 79 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (adopted 14 November 1970, entered into force 24 April 1972) 823 UNTS 231 ( 1970 Convention ). 80 UNESCO 1970 Convention, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 (UNESCO, 2017) < accessed 13 April Hague Convention, art 4(3) Convention, art 11.

27 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 27 such as shipwrecks, archaeological sites, ruins, and submerged caves. 83 This Convention elaborates detailed rules for the treatment and research of underwater cultural heritage, as well as the circumstances in which it is acceptable to remove such objects from their positions. 84 The final two cultural conventions within UNESCO s mandate concern more intangible forms of cultural heritage. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage ( 2003 Convention ) promotes respect for, awareness of, and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage : practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills belonging to communities and individuals, which these people identify as part of their cultural heritage. 85 The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions ( 2005 Convention ) is designed to ensure the ongoing creation and dissemination of a range of cultural expressions and practices by artists, cultural professionals, and citizens. 86 It seeks to promote both tangible and intangible cultural heritage as a means to further sustainable development UNESCO Declaration Following an increase in the number of intentional attacks against cultural property around the world (in particular, the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, March 2001), the UNESCO General Conference unanimously adopted the UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage on 17 October Although not a legally-binding instrument, this Declaration importantly manifests, with considerable moral and normative weight, the growing international consensus on the importance of CPP. Its unanimous adoption by UNESCO Member States indicates that the safeguarding of cultural property in armed conflict is now widely viewed by the international community as an imperative. The Declaration reiterates the measures that States should take to protect heritage from intentional destruction, 89 as well as the care that must be taken to refrain from damaging cultural property in peacetime and conflict. 90 One significant aspect of the Declaration is its provision on State responsibility, which reaffirms that a State bears responsibility for intentionally destroying, or intentionally failing to take measures to prevent destruction to cultural heritage of great importance for humanity. 91 The Declaration also restates the obligations contained in the 1999 Second Protocol, by asserting that States must impose criminal sanctions against persons who commit acts of intentional destruction against cultural heritage of great importance to humanity. 92 However, intentional destruction of cultural property would in many cases violate IHL even if the cultural property in question is not of great importance for humanity. Thus, the Declaration reaffirms State and individual criminal responsibility in a limited way (as far as armed conflict is concerned). 83 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (adopted 2 November 2001, entered into force 2 January 2009) 41 ILM 37 ( 2001 Convention ). 84 UNESCO 2001 Convention, About the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2017) < convention/> accessed 13 April Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (adopted 17 October 2003, entered into force 20 April 2006) 2368 UNTS 1 ( 2003 Convention ) art Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (adopted 20 October 2005, entered into force 18 March 2007) 2440 UNTS 311 ( 2005 Convention ); 2005 Convention, The Convention (UNESCO, 2017) < accessed 13 April Convention, The Convention (UNESCO, 2017) < accessed 13 April UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage ( 2003 UNESCO Declaration ), adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 32 nd Session (October 2003) UNESCO Declaration, art III UNESCO Declaration, arts IV V UNESCO Declaration, art VI UNESCO Declaration, art VII.

28 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page UN Security Council Resolutions The UN Security Council (UNSC), the international body with the responsibility for the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security, has also issued resolutions which affirm the importance of protecting cultural heritage in armed conflict. Most recently, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2347 on 24 March 2017; a historic resolution which is the first UNSC resolution to focus exclusively on cultural heritage. 93 The Resolution, unanimously adopted by the 15-member Council, condemns the destruction of cultural property as well as its looting and illegal trafficking, particularly by non-state armed groups. 94 It states that such destruction constitutes an attempt to deny historical roots and cultural diversity, and can fuel and exacerbate conflict and hamper post-conflict national reconciliation, thereby undermining the security, stability, governance, social, economic and cultural development of affected States. 95 Furthermore, Resolution 2347 encourages States to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, and calls on all States to introduce effective national measures to prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural property from conflict zones, as well as to introduce preventative measures designed to safeguard their national cultural property. 96 This Resolution is historic in the fact that its sole focus on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as in its reinforcement of the principles, obligations, and ideals set out in the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols Future Challenges Despite this comprehensive legal framework which formulates and supports the principles of CPP, as new national, regional and international laws and conventions pertaining to culture are currently developed to further criminalise destruction and traffic of cultural heritage, there remain several challenges concerning the global coherence of that body of law. Issues such as protected cultural zones, safe havens, and protection of culture in occupied territory, for example, are issues that may require further legal detailing and defining. 93 UN Res 2347 (24 March 2017) UN Doc S/RES/2347; UNESCO, UN Security Council adopts historic resolution for the protection of heritage (UNESCO, 24 March 2017) < accessed 14 April UN Res 2347 (24 March 2017) UN Doc S/RES/ UN Res 2347 (24 March 2017) UN Doc S/RES/ UN Res 2347 (24 March 2017) UN Doc S/RES/2347.

29 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 29 Chapter 4 Proposed Action Plan The necessity to protect cultural property implies the necessity to work on an organised set of actions. If efforts to protect cultural property during conflict are to have a serious chance of anything but ephemeral or cosmetic success, there is a clear need to develop a theoretical and methodological context for establishing cultural property protection (CPP) as part of the mind-sets of politicians, the military and other emergency organisations (police, customs, fire brigades etc.), relevant NGOs, and all concerned parties before a conflict occurs. The proposed Action Plan seeks to detail the potential activities to be implemented to further the protection of cultural heritage in conflict, including occupation. It has been drafted in coherence with the mandate of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of the 1954 Hague Convention and its First and Second Protocol, of the UNESCO standard plan of action to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict adopted by the General Assembly on 2 November, 2015, and of UNESCO s Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO's Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict and for the Protection of Culture in Emergency Situations related to Natural Disasters, endorsed by the Executive Board at its 201 st Session. In an effort to standardise and improve the activities conducted in the field, many of the actions suggested below seek to promote the publication of good practice or the organisation of training to support Member States and States Parties in their work to protect cultural property. The proposed Action Plan is also an effort to present realistic and practical solutions that fall within the mandate of the Committee and that it can implement The present report also supports the actions suggested by Italy, Jordan, INTERPOL, UNESCO, and UNODC on 22 September Published in Protecting Cultural Heritage: an Imperative for Humanity, the twenty-seven proposed key actions are separated in three areas of work: international, national, and areas affected by armed conflict. The reader is invited to take the report and its recommendations into consideration as it contains sound proposals for the protection of cultural heritage in conflict, including occupation.

30 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Capacity building / awareness-raising ACTION 1 Building capacity and raising awareness of military forces At the core of any efficient cultural property protection measure, is the necessity to build capacities of all the concerned parties. In this case, special attention should be paid to the training of military personnel in the safeguarding of cultural heritage. A goal that can be achieved through the production and dissemination of appropriate guides and manuals, as well as by the organisation of dedicated training for members of the armed forces. Action 1.1. Disseminate military training materials in all relevant UN languages and encourage States Parties to translate them into their official languages. Build on these existing materials to develop new training methods and tools for national and regional military forces. Supporting armed forces in their responsibility to protect cultural heritage is essential. This can be done through the development of practical tools and the dissemination of clear guidelines that help non-heritage professionals identify cultural property at risk. User-friendly military training materials should be translated in all UN official languages. Following the successful example of the Mali Passport published by UNESCO in , the production of specific practical tools to support the identification of built heritage to be protected during an onthe-ground operation should be encouraged. The Committee should seek to clearly communicate to States Parties the options available to them for the training of their military in CPP, while largely disseminating existing training materials, such as the Military Manual on Protection of Cultural Property published under the auspices of UNESCO in , or practical tools in the identification of movable and immovable cultural heritage at risk. 100 Training armed forces and raising awareness on the importance of CPP among members of the forces before they reach the battlefield is of great importance. When foreign forces aim at protecting the local population s cultural heritage, their effort is rewarded as the population becomes more compliant to the stabilisation efforts. The role of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali in protecting the cultural heritage of the country by patrolling around archaeological sites, sacred places and museums, following the UN Security Council s resolution 2100, demonstrated a certain respect for the local culture and dramatically improved the relationship between local communities and peacekeeping forces. Training should include notions on the legal framework that applies to conflicts in general and to the specific country or region concerned. Such training missions for the military are fundamental and can be carried out by specialised bodies like the Blue Shield or other qualified national institutions. 98 < General/Passeport-pour-le-Mali.PDF> (in French), accessed 6 November < SCO%20Blue%20Shield% e.pdf>, accessed 6 November The ICOM Red Lists of Cultural Objects at Risks are a good example of a practical tool aimed at helping law enforcement and military tasked with CPP to identify movable cultural property. ICOM Red Lists are enshrined in some national legislation, such as in Germany, in supporting the identification of categories of objects most at risk of looting and traffic. < accessed 6 November 2017.

31 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 31 Training material such as guides and military smart books proposed under this Action Plan should be disseminated and used for such training programmes. In building capacities of the military, the development of armed conflicts of a non-international character with strengthened engagement of non-state armed groups should be considered. In response to asymmetric conflicts, NATO has developed what it calls its comprehensive approach in which a better understanding of culture and cultural property can be seen as a force multiplier a tool that helps amplify the effort of deployed troops to produce more output and increase effectiveness. 101 Protecting cultural property may not win occupying troops more friends; but can prevent them from making unnecessary enemies, as opposed to instances in which failure to protect cultural property resulted in significant deterioration to relations with the local community. 102 This is particularly relevant in times of occupation. Standard guidelines could be issued to guide the military in its practices, and responds to Activity 1 of the UNESCO Action Plan on the development of training tools for armed forces. Considering some States are employing private security companies (PSCs) and private contractors in armed conflicts areas, guidelines should also be issued for this specific audience, with requirements similar to the one that are compulsory for the military. The Committee could therefore cooperate with the United Nations Peacekeeping for the creation of standard guidelines for CPP available to all States wishing to share it with their Military. Armed forces of different countries such as the United States of America, Switzerland 103 and Austria 104, just to name a few, have developed detailed guides to inform and train their military on cultural property protection. Action 1.2. In collaboration with other culture Conventions, in particular 1970, 1972 and 2003, and in cooperation with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, invite the Security Council to incorporate the protection of cultural property into peacekeeping processes, and more specifically mainstream through training and awareness-raising programmes the principles of protection of cultural property into military training of the UN Peacekeeping forces. In the perspective of encouraging States Parties to train their national forces, the Committee should contribute to developing good practices among UN Peacekeeping forces in protecting cultural property. Following the successful example of the work of UNESCO with MINUSMA in Mali, the experience should be renewed with other UN peacekeeping missions as expressed in Activity 25 of the UNESCO Action Plan. Cooperation between UNESCO and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations should consist on exchanging information (e.g. data for no-strike lists ) and advising on cultural property protection, as well as, when foreseen within their mandate as determined by the UN Security Council, cooperating with UN peacekeeping missions on the ground for the protection of cultural and natural heritage, through the deployment of technical experts under UNESCO s coordination or imbedded in national armed forces 105. Such cooperation will be subject to military 101 < accessed 6 November CORN, G, Snipers in the Minaret - What is the rule? The Law of War and the Protection of Cultural Property: a complex equation, in The Army Lawyer, pp Regulation e of the Swiss Armed Forces, issued on 21/03/2013, creates Ten basic rules for the protection of cultural property which must be respected by members of the Swiss armed forces. This regulation is a reminder circulated to the staff of Swiss armed forces. 104 Directive for the Military Protection of Cultural Property and the Military Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage (December 2009). 105 Such as the United Kingdom s Defence Cultural Specialist Unit s Cultural Property Protection officers.

32 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 32 necessity, as each peacekeeping operation may not include in its mandate a cultural component. However, upstream training of military forces can help mainstreaming principles of CPP while reinforcing dialogue between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and heritage professionals. This dialogue is essential to the mutual understanding of the two sectors. In current times, cultural heritage professionals have attempted to build relationships with the military, especially since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. It requires an understanding of a mind-set and agenda that heritage professionals are unfamiliar with. The development of manuals intended as a military training aid for heritage professionals could be another effective way to strengthen dialogue and cooperation between the military and the cultural sectors. Since many stakeholders are involved in the safeguarding of cultural heritage in armed conflict as well as in peacekeeping operations, as foreseen by the Activity 25 of the UNESCO Action Plan 106, the manuals could also be beneficial for these purposes. Manuals intended at training peacekeeping forces in CPP could be created. Much like the Mali Passport developed by UNESCO 107, such practical tools should resemble a military smart book to be distributed to troops before their arrival on operations on the ground in the context of armed interventions and occupation, informing them on the local situation and providing them with basic information on the applicable legal framework in the matter, as well as with concrete plans and maps of major cultural property in the area. In addition, the final page of the Mali Passport titled Quelles informations recueillir invites the reader to collaborate to the effort of CPP by collecting and communicating any known information on a cultural entity endangered, such as its name, its state of conservation (whether partially or entirely destroyed) and its GIS coordinates. A precise set of questions guides the reader on data collection. An contact and phone number are available to share pictures collected (Annex A). In military operations, gathering information on the status of cultural heritage, and sharing it with trusted sources, could prove critical to improving cultural heritage protection. The world heritage community often struggles to gather precise data on the situation of monuments and artefacts in conflict, including occupation. This is an area where input from members of the military could be key while being complementary with their duty to insure security and stability in conflict zones. Action 1.3. Develop training programmes for trainers at national level In order to accompany Member States in their efforts to provide trainings in CPP to their armed forces, the Committee could play an active role in offering programmes for trainers in coherence with the good practices developed by UNESCO, by other specialised bodies such as the Blue Shield or by national departments of Defence. Member States should pay special attention to organising these trainings at a national level, in order to develop programmes adapted to local or regional situations. Such training endeavours would be an opportunity to present and disseminate recognised capacity building tools dedicated to armed forces, to teach notions on the legal framework of cultural property protection that applies to conflicts and occupation, and to organise reflections on the best ways to train the military for CPP. 106 < accessed 6 November < General/Passeport-pour-le-Mali.PDF>, accessed 6 November 2017.

33 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 33 Action 1.4. Organise a high-level event attended by representatives from military institutions and military experts with the aim to outline effective strategies on mainstreaming the principles of protection of culture into best military practices. The actions of UNESCO for protecting cultural property in conflict, including occupation, will be effective only if they are developed in close concertation with military professionals. Their effectiveness can only be strengthened if best military practices are instigated by military institutions themselves, rather than by cultural institutions exclusively. Consequently, the Committee should organise, in concertation with UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, an international event dedicated to CPP in conflict and occupation, which would gather military experts and institutions, under the auspices of UNESCO and other specialised heritage protection bodies such as the institutional founding members of the Blue Shield (ICA, ICOM, ICOMOS and IFLA). Along with military officials from national armies, representatives of UN peacekeeping and regional forces should be invited. This event would be an opportunity to discuss recognised military standards on CPP and exchange good practices on how to mainstream the principles of protection of culture into the military. It is important that CPP is not dissociated from the daily work of first responders, armies and defence units. A thorough and open dialogue is thus necessary. The report recommends that any high-level meeting organised for the purpose of discussing CPP with the military be done in a manner to insure it will be a forum to discuss the implementation of actual future actions, and thus avoid being perceived as just another communication opportunity. Since 2012, many high-profile conferences, seminars and meetings have been held, internationally, around the topic of protecting cultural heritage at risk. There is reason for concern about some of these events shortcomings and the expectations associated with them. The idea is not to contribute to a certain meeting fatigue in the field, but to host constructive professional talks that will lead to concrete outcomes that can be implemented through the work of the military Ratification ACTION 2 Promotion and implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols Ratification is the first and essential condition to insure effectiveness of the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols. It is the best way for a State to benefit from international cooperation, assistance and exchange of experience in the situations foreseen by the Convention 108. As stated in Activity 5 of the UNESCO Action Plan on the organisation of a campaign for the global ratification of UNESCO Conventions, the number of States Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention needs to be maximised. Such a maximisation is indispensable for the Convention to fully attain its potential. The role of the Committee in achieving this goal of increasing ratification and implementation is fundamental. The Committee could organise a vast campaign to promote adhesion to the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, and consequently contribute to upholding the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions on the topic. As foreseen by Article 27 of the Second Protocol, the development of Guidelines for the implementation of the Protocol is the first mission of the Committee. A guide for the transposal of the 1954 Hague Convention into national frameworks, summing up the main advantages of joining the 1954 Hague Convention, could be an effective tool. 108 < accessed 6 November 2017.

34 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 34 Action 2.1. Develop country specific strategies, with particular focus on Africa and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), highlighting the importance of ratifying and implementing at the national level the 1954 Hague Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols, in times of peace and through appropriate legal and institutional measures. The efforts in promoting the 1954 Hague Convention should pay specific attention to African and SIDS Member States given that the majority of these countries are not party to the 1954 Hague Convention. Specific promotion strategies and information packages adapted to these countries should be edited to put forward arguments and advantages most likely to convince these States of the benefits of joining the Convention. In addition, with regard to States Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention, it is of the utmost importance that States transpose the 1954 Hague Convention into their national framework to ensure efficient CPP. A technical guide could be created and distributed by the Committee to the States Parties. It could contain a set of examples of good practices and a description of the options available to them for transposals. Several concrete recommendations could be mentioned, based on successful national examples observed. One of these could be the fact that in order to ensure proper transposal of the Hague Convention into national legislation, States should make violations of the Convention deemed as crimes in their national law, to improve prosecution and ensure that judges are able to properly prosecute perpetrators. Finally, the documentation could encourage States Parties to use the Blue Shield protective emblem for cultural property as described in Article 16 of the 1954 Hague Convention, even in peacetime, to raise the awareness of both the national military and the general population on the importance to protect cultural property. To encourage the use of the Blue Shield emblem on monuments requiring special protection during conflicts, a set of visual examples of uses of the emblems could be included. A very practical recommendation could be added: to keep in stock a large fabric flag (3x3m) to be deployed on top of sites or building rooftops in order to signal it from sky to air striking forces and drones. Action 2.2. Organise specific ratification seminars or workshops, with particular focus on Africa and SIDS, in collaboration with UNESCO regional offices and civil society. Only 24 out of 47 African States signed the 1954 Hague Convention, and only 17 out of 44 Asian States, among which very few SIDS are signatory to the Convention 109. Given the low number of African and SIDS countries having joined the Convention, special seminars should be organised focusing on the specific needs of these countries, in order to clearly explain the advantages of ratifying. These seminars should be organised in close collaboration with UNESCO regional offices and specialised NGOs established in these regions which are likely to support their governments to ratify the Convention. Regional and local UNESCO offices and organisations representing civil society would benefit and contribute from such workshops, by bringing an approach to the Convention 109 Situation as of 19 April 2016, < accessed 7 November 2017.

35 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 35 adapted to regional specificities. It may also help reach the appropriate concerned individuals to ensure ratification. When promoting the 1954 Hague Convention, attention should be payed to promoting the ratification of its two Protocols as well, knowing that only 68 out of 124 Member States that signed the 1954 Convention also signed the 1999 Second Protocol. Putting forward the Article 10 of the Second Protocol, which gives access to granting of enhanced protection for cultural property, could prove relevant for SIDS and African countries and justify ratifying the Convention and its Protocols. It should be noted that diverse representatives of civil society in the concerned countries have demonstrated a growing interest in cultural property protection. For example, Blue Shield National Committees are under creation in the Asian Pacific region, which clearly demonstrates that cultural heritage experts and institutions feel concerned with supporting the protection of culture in emergency. Such support for CPP in conflict and occupation could prove to be an asset to future ratifications. Action 2.3. Increase synergies between actors and between texts with a view to increasing ratification and other relevant actions. Support a study on the optimisation of synergy between all UNESCO legal instruments pertaining to CPP. Since 2011, one of the challenges brought by the succession and the accumulation of conflicts putting heritage at risk in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has been the lack of effective coordination among the different players concerned by CPP. The multiplication of conflicts was accompanied by the multiplication of institutions willing to contribute to safeguarding threatened cultural property. A lack of coordinated action leads to duplication and ultimately to inefficiency. Insuring appropriate distribution of the available support would avoid the temptation of some to move on to the next disaster before the necessary safeguarding measures have been carried out. Similarly, as regards to synergies between legal instruments, the body of legislative tools and guidelines developed by UNESCO, although sufficient in terms of amount and content, could benefit from a greater synergy between the organisation s Conventions. Therefore, the Committee could second its annual Meeting with another day dedicated to dialogue and coordination with all its partners. The list of the Committee s partners that could attend this meeting is defined by the Article 27 of the Second Protocol as the partner organizations that may be invited to its meetings : the Blue Shield and its constituent bodies (ICA, ICOM, ICOMOS, IFLA) the ICCROM and the ICRC. In that context, an invitation could also be sent to representatives of the 1970 Convention and its Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property to join the discussions and formulate proposals for collaboration. Additionally, as Activity 15 of the UNESCO Action Plan pertains to the Establishment of a Global Observatory of Cultural Heritage to monitor and document attacks against cultural heritage sites, such an organ should include in its mission coordination of all current existing CPP missions on the ground, either through the Committee itself or in partnership between the Blue Shield, its constituent bodies and the Committee. Such a task could contribute to avoiding duplication or poor

36 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 36 concentration of efforts. In this regard, it should be noted that ICOM created the International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods in Finally, as regards to the increased synergy between texts, Activity 20 of the UNESCO Action Plan encourages actions to strengthen Conventions' operational guidelines and build synergies in their implementation. The Committee could therefore study the optimisation of synergy between UNESCO legal instruments to be used for the purpose of cultural property protection in times of conflict, namely the 1954 Hague Convention and its First and Second Protocols, the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Enhanced protection ACTION 3 - Guidelines on recommendations of cultural properties for the granting of enhanced protection One of the most important novelties of the Second Protocol was the creation of a status of enhanced protection for cultural property of greatest importance for humanity. Not only did it create a new category of cultural property in IHL, but it also settled a new protection mechanism for cultural property in time of armed conflict, including occupation. Since its creation, the Committee has been working on granting enhanced protection to several sites. As of September 2017, twelve World Heritage Sites have been granted enhanced protection 110. The inscription on the list of cultural property under enhanced protection obliges State parties to take additional protective measures in time of peace: each of the sites inscribed on the list have benefited from a declaration of non-use for military purposes from the Ministry of Defence of the country having control over the cultural property. These first achievements could be further developed by increasing the number of cultural properties under enhanced protection. Action 3.1. Guide the Blue Shield and other specialised NGOs (Article 11.3 of the 1999 Protocol), in their function as experts in recommending to the Committee specific cultural properties for the granting of enhanced protection. Article 11.3 of the 1999 Protocol grants the Blue Shield and other specialised NGOs the possibility to recommend specific cultural property to the Committee. In such cases, the Committee may decide to invite a State Party to request inclusion of that cultural property in the List. A close collaboration between member organisations of the Blue Shield (ICA, ICOM, ICOMOS and IFLA) and the Committee is necessary to help define the criteria for granting enhanced protection. The relevant institutions that constitute the Blue Shield could be tasked by the Committee with an advisory mission to elaborate guidelines on how to evaluate cultural property to be granted enhanced protection. Recommendations could be made on the elaboration of the criterion in Article 10 of the 1999 Second Protocol cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity 110 < accessed 6 November 2017.

37 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 37 mentioned in Article 10(a) of the Protocol as a criterion for cultural goods to be placed under enhanced protection. The guidelines should also include recommendations on the definition of protection measures mentioned in Article 10 (b) and 12 of the Protocol. The technical guide on the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention suggested in Action 2 of this proposed Action Plan could also mention the fact that the ratification of the 1999 Second Protocol also provides, according to Article 10, the possibility for States Parties to request the granting of enhanced protection. The Committee is responsible for the management of the system of enhanced protection. According to Article 27(1) (b) of the 1999 Second Protocol, enhanced protection 111 grants immunity of cultural property from military action. Since only 12 cultural properties have been inscribed on this List so far 112, the booklet could seek to encourage States to request enhanced protection for their cultural properties, providing guidelines describing the steps to undertake and further information as regards to the type of information requested to comply with the criteria mentioned in Article 10 of the Second Protocol. ACTION 4 - Documenting and inventorying cultural property Action 4.1. Promote and disseminate existing guidelines summing up the international standards and practices for documenting and inventorying cultural property, to be circulated among ministries, museums and heritage institutions worldwide. Documenting heritage is necessary in order to ensure its proper protection from theft and destruction. Innovative work for the digitisation of built heritage by some corporations 113 such as Iconem 114, CyArk 115, and many others is currently being carried out in countries in conflict in order to gather information necessary for inventories or for future reconstruction work in the aftermath of disasters. Digitisation of built heritage, updated standardised photographic and descriptive inventories of collections are examples of effective preventive action. They could be included in possible preparedness measures relating to Article 5 of the Second Protocol as well as Activity 3 of the UNESCO Action Plan. In this context, the publication of a set of guidelines on standards and practices for documenting and inventorying cultural property could be circulated to States Parties. It could mention that along with physical protection measures, security and safety plans, heritage institutions should hold updated standardized photographic and descriptive inventories of their movable collections to protect them from being illicitly trafficked in case of theft or from being totally lost in destruction. The standard Object Identification (Object ID) 116 is an example of an internationally recognised inventory standard for movable cultural heritage. 111 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1999). 112 < accessed 6 November N.B. Many corporations specialising in IT for CPP (3D scanning, digitisation, mapping, etc.) now operate in different countries. This report does not specifically endorse the work of one group over another. The examples mentioned only serve to inform on the more widely known options. 114 < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November 2017.

38 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 38 The main documentation standards and guidelines for movable and immovable cultural property should be gathered and circulated as good practice for CPP. Such guidelines could also be disseminated through the Committee s future guide for the transposal of the 1954 Hague Convention into national frameworks proposed in Action 2. Action 4.2. Integrate internationally listed cultural properties into geographic information system (GIS). Documentation and inventories of cultural heritage can be effective when the data set is scientifically valid, when the data collection is standardised, and when it is appropriately stored and used. Pre-emptive lists of geospatial coordinates for cultural property should be gathered and made available in times of conflict, including occupation. Accurate mapping of cultural property, including through the use of geospatial data, should be undertaken before the beginning of a conflict in order to ensure quick identification and localisation of zones to be protected. Immovable cultural property to be inventoried on pre-emptive lists should be selected in accordance with recognised international listings such as the World Heritage List of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, and cultural property listed under enhanced protection following Article 10 of the Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention. Additionally, lists of the main archaeological sites, museums, libraries and archives present in an area in conflict, including occupation, should be gathered. The types of movable cultural heritage identified as being at risk in the internationally recognised ICOM Red Lists of Cultural Objects at Risk should serve as basis to complete the data set of tangible cultural heritage. Registering precise location such as coordinates of monuments, sites and museums internationally recognised as cultural heritage of outstanding universal value (1972 Convention), or of greatest importance for humanity (1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Convention), should serve as a basis for establishing no-strike lists of sites and institutions that should be protected from the effects of military operations under international law and/or rules of engagement. A no-strike list is a list of places in the area of operations that should be spared in emergency. These no-strike lists have been used in the past to indicate to the military the coordinates of sites which should be avoided unless military necessity dictates, usually only when the places are employed by the enemy for military purposes. They are compiled and directly dispatched to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs or to Ministries of Defence of countries involved in military actions. The Committee should invite State parties to elaborate no-strike lists of their national cultural properties. The Blue Shield network has helped to provide lists of important cultural property to be protected during armed conflicts in Libya 117, Mali, Syria and northern Iraq. Most of these lists have been deposited to the Department of Defence (DoD) in the USA, the French Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the UK. The lists have also been passed on to NATO. Once handed over to the military it is difficult to know what is done precisely with this information. The intention, and hope, is that the information will be added to the no-strike lists produced by the military. These lists therefore fit Activity 25 of the UNESCO Action Plan as regards the Integration of the protection of cultural heritage and diversity in military. 117 < accessed 6 November 2017.

39 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 39 ACTION 5 - Post-Conflict and RPBA Action 5.1. In the framework of UN-wide Recovery and Peace Building Assessments (RPBA) and Post-Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNA) exercises, this activity aims at strengthening culture component and training UNESCO staff, NGOs in the cultural sector and relevant government officials in their methodology and implementations. In March 2015, the third session of the United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR) held in Sendai mentioned culture and cultural heritage protection within the expected outcomes, goals to pursue and priorities of the Sendai Framework. This declaration, along with the thematic meeting on Resilient Cultural Heritage which was held in the main session of the WCDRR, demonstrates growing consideration for cultural heritage within UN strategies on disaster risk reduction and needs assessments. The International Expert Meeting on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities which was organised in parallel of WCDRR played a significant role in the inclusion of cultural heritage considerations into the Sendai Framework. Building on this declaration, this activity suggests developing the consideration for culture protection within UNwide RPBA and PDNA. Recovery and Peace Building and Post-Disaster Needs Assessments (RPBA and PDNA) are international standards and guidelines elaborated by the UN with collaboration and support of the World Bank and the European Union, giving methodology for addressing recovery needs related to infrastructure, shelter, livelihoods, and social and community services in a balanced and comprehensive manner after a conflict or a disaster. They aim at building strong partnerships and enhancing coordination to improve coherence in a complex and demanding environment characterised by a multiplicity of actors. Activity 12 of UNESCO Action Plan calls for strengthening culture component of RPBA and PDNA exercises and continue engaging in joint in-depth assessment exercises. A comprehensive approach to recovery is not limited to addressing tangible damage and destructions, but seeks to develop national capacities and policies for the revitalisation of the culture sector as a whole. UNESCO and NGOs in the cultural sector should build on their capacities to assist Member States in elaborating recovery and reconstruction strategies and plans, and support the development of cultural policies. Strategies and plans could be elaborated via regional workshops in order to create guidelines adapted to regional specificities. The preparation of recovery plans for heritage sites mentioned in Activity 11 of the UNESCO Action Plan should also be implemented in relation to these needs assessments, as part of peacebuilding and reconciliation strategies. Indeed, the recovery phase following occupation during a conflict is crucial to ensure the future of sites and places of conservation, as well as to preserve the resilience of local communities. The Committee could encourage the organisation of regional workshops to create and adopt guidelines for Post-Conflict Needs Assessments, and it could support the implementation of strategies in this regard. Using the recent practical case of cultural heritage caught in the crossfire in Palmyra, the Blue Shield, aware of the sensitive nature of the site, issued on 22 April a document entitled Reflections 118 < accessed 6 November 2017.

40 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 40 on Palmyra (Annex B) which lays out the necessary conditions and framework for recovery to take place and demonstrates how critical the first steps after the liberation of a site or area. Following such actions, rapid technical assessment missions could be sent on the sites, based on what had been done by UNESCO in sending an assessment mission to Palmyra from 24 to 26 April 2016, headed by the Director of UNESCO s World Heritage Centre and escorted by United Nations security personnel, to inspect Palmyra s museum and archaeological site. UNESCO experts presented their preliminary findings regarding damages to the Syrian Arab Republic World Heritage site 119. Following these actions, an International Conference was held from 2 to 4 June 2016 in Berlin, where some 230 Syrian and international experts joined forces in a two-day meeting to assess damages to cultural heritage sites in Syria, develop methodologies and define priority emergency safeguarding measures for the country s heritage in order to lay the cultural foundations of a postwar Syrian order 120. In addition to supporting compliance with PDNA standards, the Committee could contribute to the creation of a standardised action plan to secure heritage sites in post-conflict, with proposals for coordinated actions and collaboration if and when sites have been mined with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in deployments on sites Safe Havens ACTION 6 - Safe Havens A safe haven for movable heritage is a secure location where cultural property can be stored, maintained or even restored in certain cases. The basic definition of the concept is a preventive right to asylum for cultural property kept in what could be qualified as refuge storerooms. Safe havens for cultural goods are an option considered for cultural goods in danger, in countries that encounter periods of war, military conflict or serious political tensions. The temporary transportation and storage of these cultural goods is a way to prevent them from suffering important damages, and partial or total destruction. The idea of safe havens for cultural property situated in States outside a conflict zone is mentioned in Article 18 of the Regulations for the Execution of the 1954 Hague Convention and in paragraph 5 of the First Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention. Action 6.1. Undertake a comprehensive review of legal and policy framework for the implementation of safe havens, in cooperation with other culture conventions, particularly the 1970 Convention, as well as ICOM, to ensure compliance with international law and ethics. Following a conference held in Abu Dhabi in December 2016, on the initiative of France and the United Arab Emirates, it was proposed to create an international network of safe havens for movable cultural heritage. It should be noted that the initiative was met with scepticism and suspicion on the part of countries that would potentially be the primary beneficiaries of the implementation of safe havens for cultural property. This reticence has brought forward the need 119 < accessed 6 November < accessed 6 November 2017.

41 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 41 for caution and compliance with the legal and ethical framework in regards to the concept of safe haven for cultural heritage. A thorough review of the legal and policy framework for the implementation of safe havens should be undertaken, with the support of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), as the main representative of the world museum community. Action Modify the existing guidelines to include standardised check-list and contract for reference by Parties for the creation and establishment of inventory of safe havens. The Expert meeting on the responsibility to protect and the protection of cultural heritage, held at UNESCO Headquarters on November 2015, recommends for UNESCO Member States and the UNESCO Secretariat to give due consideration to the idea of safe havens for cultural property situated in States outside the conflict zone. Additionally, both Activity 7 and Activity 16 of the UNESCO Action Plan focus on that topic. For example, the French Law specifically discusses the question of safe havens in Article 56 of its Law of July, 7, 2016 titled LOI n du 7 juillet 2016 relative à la liberté de la création, à l'architecture et au patrimoine. Article 56 L in particular details the scheme of creation of safe havens: if cultural goods are at risk due to an armed conflict, France can, upon request by the State of origin of the endangered cultural goods or upon request by the United Nations Security Council, offer a secure location of storage for the goods. UNESCO has to be informed of the procedure, and return is ensured upon simple request of the State of origin of the endangered cultural goods. Switzerland also has a similar legal framework facilitating the creation of safe haven for cultural heritage at risk. However, it is of importance to underline that the implementation of safe havens for cultural property should not be regarded as a primary option but as a last resort, after all recourse to protect cultural property in situ has been exhausted, as transport of cultural goods can increase risks of theft and of damages related to climate fluctuations, accidental impacts or vibrations, all of which are added to the specific risks stemming from the conflict situation. The implementation of such refuges should rely on mutual acceptance and assistance. It can take the form of storage within a museum, but it could also be a specific storage facility dedicated to the safeguarding of art and heritage in danger. Ideally, for a safe area to become a safe haven for cultural goods it should meet security and conservation standard requirements for collections. Activity 7 of the UNESCO Action Plan describes the necessity for the development of specific guidelines to facilitate the creation of safe havens for cultural property. Activity 7 also mentions a comprehensive legal review concerning the setting up and operationalization of safe havens. Such guidelines for the legal and ethical use of safe havens are under development by the International Council of Museums (ICOM). The American Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) has published Protocols for Safe Havens for Works of Cultural Significance from Countries in Crisis 121. Using the ICOM and AAMD guidelines, the Committee could support the development of a standardised contract to be used between two parties for the creation of a safe haven. Particular attention should be given to the question of the return of the objects, in order to facilitate and ensure the safe and timely return, post-conflict, of the objects to their rightful owners. 121 < accessed 6 November 2017.

42 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 42 Action Promote training and capacity building programmes at national levels to operationalise the above, in collaboration with other culture conventions. The Committee should ensure dissemination of the guidelines elaborated by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) among its Member States, and enjoin them to organise training programmes at national level to form their museum and heritage professionals to the importance of emergency plans and prevention measures, including the use of the standardised contracts and check-lists in case safe havens prove necessary. ICOM and its dedicated specialised bodies and partners can assist Member States in the organisation of workshops and training seminars on safe havens, which should ideally focus on ways to operationalise the guidelines, as a very last resort measure, in their specific national context. The improvement and promotion of these guidelines should also benefit from collaboration between the different Conventions pertaining to the protection of culture. Activity 20 of the UNESCO Action Plan encourages actions to strengthen Conventions' operational guidelines and build synergies in their implementation. The Committee could therefore study the optimisation of synergy between UNESCO legal instruments that could be used for the purpose of implementing safe havens: the 1954 Convention on Cultural Property Protection in Times of Conflict and its First and Second Protocols; the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property; the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects; and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Finally, the Committee could become, with the support of ICOM, the coordination body described in Activity 16 of the UNESCO Action Plan in order to assist by liaising between source countries and host countries, developing agreements, and where required, providing coordination and technical support for moving collections. The Committee could therefore act as an intermediary between the two actors wishing to collaborate in the context of safe havens for movable cultural heritage.

43 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 43 CONCLUSION The need for more concrete action and the necessity of improved coordination As the threats to cultural property in conflict keep multiplying in recent years, and as the will of nations and organisations to contribute to protecting and salvaging cultural heritage at risk is on the rise, this report recommends that the Committee support the implementation of the six proposed actions described above. They will contribute to improving the implementation of the legal framework and of the practical tools necessary for effective cultural heritage protection, while avoiding duplication. It should also be noted that the most important task and the main challenge that the Committee and the relevant international bodies should be addressing in the near future, in order to ensure effective action in regards to cultural property protection in conflict and occupation, remains the overarching necessity to dramatically improve the global coordination of relief efforts concerning cultural heritage. As new national and international funds dedicated solely to supporting the protection of heritage in conflict, with a focus on the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), have been created in and , duplication should be avoided and coordination should be improved to enhance the impact of the different actions to be carried out. There is a clear need for reinforcing, centralising and coordinating the information on and the work in cultural property protection and recovery efforts around the world. As protecting the cultural heritage of humanity is a shared responsibility, it is the duty of the concerned competent organisations to pull together in an effort to coordinate actions and cooperate in favour of safeguarding culture in conflict. 122 < accessed 6 November < (in French), accessed 6 November 2017.

44 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 44 References BENNOUNE, K, Document A/71/317, Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, United Nations General Assembly, Seventy-first session, Item 69 (b) of the provisional agenda, Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, United Nations General Assembly, 24 p. BENNOUNE, K, Document A/HRC/31/59, Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Human Rights Council, Thirty-first session, Agenda item 3, Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, Human Rights Council, 21 p. BLUE SHIELD (ICBS), Statement by the International Committee of the Blue Shield on the impact of a war on cultural heritage in Iraq. Available at (last consulted on 25/11/2016). BLUE SHIELD, Civil-Military Assessment Mission for Egyptian Heritage By Blue Shield and IMCuRWG, Available at: (last consulted on 10/07/2016). BLUE SHIELD (ICBS), The Seoul Declaration on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Emergency Situations, Available at: (last consulted on 25/11/2016). BROWN, M, Good Training and Good Practice: protection of the Cultural Heritage on the UK Defence Training Estate, in RUSH, L (ed.), Archeology, Cultural Property and the Military, Woodbridge: Boydell, pp COOGAN, M, 1999.The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 350 p. CORN, G, Snipers in the Minaret - What is the rule? The Law of War and the Protection of Cultural Property: a complex equation, in The Army Lawyer, pp DANIELS, B, and HANSON, K, Archaeological site looting in Syria and Iraq: a review of the evidence, in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Cultural Goods, The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: ICOM publication, pp DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: ICOM publication, 196 p. DESMARAIS, F, An Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: ICOM publication, pp. vii-x. FOLIANT, Y, Cultural Property Protection Makes Senses: a way to improve your mission, CCoE: NATO affiliated Civilian/Military Centre of Excellence, 78 p. Available at: (last consulted on 10/07/2016). GEORGE, D, The Looting of the Iraq National Museum, in STONE, P, and FARCHACK, B (eds.), The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq, Woodbridge: Boydell, pp GERSTENBLITH, P, Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Looking Back, Looking Forward in Symposium: War and Peace: Art and Cultural Heritage Law in the 21st Century, 4 March 2008, Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, vol. 7, No. 3, p HOLLOWAY, S.W., Assur is King! Assur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Leiden: Brill, 559 p.

45 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 45 HAMILAKIS, Y, The War on Terror and the Military Archaeology Complex: Iraq, Ethics, and Neo- Colonialism, Archaeologies, April 2009, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp HAMMES, T.X, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century, Saint Paul: Zenith Press, 336 p. HARDY, S, The Conflict Antiquities Trade: A Historical Overview, in DESMARAIS, F (ed.), Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: International Council of Museums, pp HAYASHI, N, Heritage and Conflict Situations: The Role of the International Heritage Community and National Agents, MUSEUM International, n , Museums managing the tensions of change, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing for the International Council of Museums, pp HENSEL, H.M, The protection of cultural objects during armed conflicts, in HENSEL, H.M. (ed.) The law of armed conflict: constraints on the contemporary use of military force, London: Routledge, pp HLADIK, J, The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: some observations on the implementation at the national level, MUSEUM International, No. 228, Protection and Restitution, p. 7. INTERPOL, UNESCO, UNODC, Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations, Permanent Mission of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the UN, Protecting Cultural Heritage, an Imperative for Humanity, Interpol, 24 p. KEPEL, G, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 454 p. MILES, M, Still in the aftermath of Waterloo: a brief history of decisions about restitution, in STONE, P (ed.), Cultural heritage, ethics and the military, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp PAULUS, A, VASHAKMADZE, M, Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict a tentative conceptualization, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 91 Number 873 March, pp RUSH, L, Military Protection of Cultural Property in DESMARAIS, F (ed.) Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods, The Global Challenge of Protecting the World s Heritage, Paris: ICOM Publication, pp RUSH, L (ed.), Archaeology, Cultural Property, and the Military, Woodbridge: Boydell, 240 p. SILVERMAN, H, FAIRCHILD, D, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, New York: Springer, pp STONE, P (ed.), Cultural Heritage, Ethics, and the Military, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 240 p. STONE, P, The Challenge of Protecting Heritage in Times of Armed Conflict, MUSEUM International, n , Museums managing the tensions of change, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing for the International Council of Museums, pp TEIJGELERT, R, Preserving cultural heritage in times of conflict in Preservation management for libraries, archives and museums, GORMAN, G & SHEP, S (ed.), London: Facet Publishing, pp TOMAN, J, Cultural Property in War: improvement of protection. Commentary on the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 892 p. WOOLLEY, L, A record of the work done by the military authorities for the protection of the treasures of art and history in war areas, London: HMSO (H.M. Stationery Office), 71 p.

46 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 46 ANNEX A. Excerpts of the Heritage Passport of Mali

47 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 47 ANNEX B. Blue Shield reflections on Palmyra Palmyra and the wider historic environment in Syria 22 April We can only welcome the removal of Da esh from the World Heritage Site of Palmyra and the initial analysis that, while extensive, damage has been less widespread than previously feared. The international heritage community must now support and stand together with Syrian colleagues to work to stabilise the site and prepare it for the future. 2.0 We must, however, accept the fact that the site continues to sit within a conflict zone and that it would be premature, and insensitive, to make final decisions as to its future. While there is a clear urgency to stabilise and protect the site, wider international efforts must be directed surely to the peaceful resolution of, and to the humanitarian support for those affected and displaced by, the conflict. It must be accepted that Palmyra s recapture does not mean the end of the war is significantly closer. 3.0 Now is the time to plan 3.1 The above does not mean that we should be inactive: quite the contrary. However, we should avoid the temptation to take rapid decisions and actions that future generations may regret. We need to work together to support Syrian stakeholders (including academics, archaeologists, heritage managers, local communities, tourism agencies etc.) who must lead the development of plans for the most suitable future for the site and for all cultural property as defined by the 1954 Convention. In particular, the opportunities and methodologies relating to the full or partial reconstruction of those parts of the site damaged and destroyed by Da esh needs to be discussed, as does how this most recent, appalling chapter in the site s history is memorialised and included in the interpretation of the palimpsest of the site s past. 3.2 As a World Heritage Site Palmyra should be contributing to UNESCO s over-arching objective of creating a culture of peace in the world. It is currently difficult to imagine, but at some point in the future the site could, some might say must, be deployed as a reflective vehicle for reconciliation and peace, not only for all Syrians but for all humanity.

48 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page Immediate necessary action 4.1 While there has been significant international media interest in the condition of the site, access to it now needs to be controlled and it treated as, effectively, a crime scene. No clearing up or other action should take place until: A competent authority has declared the terrain clear of explosive devices and unexploded ordnance The necessary evidence of the Da esh-controlled period has been collected All pieces of damaged objects from the museum have been carefully mapped and collected All damage to the site since the beginning of hostilities, and in particular the remains of monuments destroyed by Da esh, have been mapped to facilitate and ensure that any potential re-construction might be as authentic as possible if so desired An assessment of any immediate necessary structural stabilisation has been made Recent mass graves have been investigated and cleared or dealt with appropriately 4.2 While some or many of these actions may have been completed or are underway, led by the Syrian Department of Antiquities (DGAM), any additional international support required needs to be identified, requested, and organised. 5.0 The wider context 5.1 Palmyra is an iconic, internationally renowned and hugely important, site: hence its World Heritage status. It is however, a relatively straightforward site to deal with once decisions have been made about its future. It is a clearly defined, clearly bounded, heritage monument with little modern intrusion within the boundaries of the World Heritage Site. 5.2 More problematic is the future management of the whole of the urban historic environment in Syria including, for example, the centres of Aleppo and Homs and of all cultural property as defined by the 1954 Convention. It is clear that there will be, very understandably, enormous pressure following the end of the conflict to rebuild the urban centres in Syria most affected as quickly as possible. In the past, there has been a wide-ranging response in different parts of the world facing similar situations from the wholesale reconstruction of parts of cities such as Warsaw and Dresden; to the bulldozing away of historic, bomb-damaged urban centre to be replaced by modern architecture - as happened in most British urban centres following the Second World War; to the widespread destruction following more recent conflict, of the historic architecture and below ground archaeology of cities such as Beirut. While those in Syria plan for this restoration (and we understand initial restoration work has already taken place at Krak des Chevaliers and in old Homs), a number of projects are being planned already regarding this urban reconstruction led by a variety of disparate, well-meaning international groups. The reasons for these different approaches in the past, and the different projects currently being planned, need to be understood and coordinated.

49 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 49 Colleagues and communities in Syria must lead the debate on which approach should be taken but they will need, without question, considerable international support to be able to mitigate what will be undoubtedly highly persuasive and lucrative arguments for rapid, modern redevelopment. 6.0 Recommendations a) that, where action has not been taken already, the actions identified in 4.1 above be immediately led by Syrian colleagues with the support of the international community where and when additional expertise is necessary and practical b) that, as soon as appropriate, an international conference (possibly informed by specialised workshops) be held in the MENA region facilitated if requested by the Blue Shield, if possible in conjunction with UNESCO, but driven by Syrian colleagues, to discuss and begin to develop a robust, strategic plan for post-conflict heritage management in Syria. In particular decisions around methodologies and practices of reconstruction following the end of hostilities, both on archaeological sites and in urban centres, must be made and their existence made known to those national and international bodies and organisations helping with the search for a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. Peter Stone UNESCO Chair in Cultural Property Protection and Peace, Newcastle University, UK Secretary, Blue Shield

50 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 50 ANNEX C. UNESCO s Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO s Actions for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of an Armed Conflict

51 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 51

52 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 52

53 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 53

54 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 54

55 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 55

56 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 56

57 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 57

58 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 58

59 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 59

60 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 60

61 C54/17/12.COM/6 Annex 1 page 61