We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
THE HOSTILITIES-OCCUPATION DICHOTOMY AND CULTURAL PROPERTY IN NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS.
- Authors
CARSTENS, ANNE-MARIE
- Abstract
The protracted civil war in Syria and the recent onslaught of the Islamic State have devastated the rich cultural heritage of Syria and Iraq, among their many tragedies. In the wake of this devastation, much public discourse has predictably focused on the destruction and looting as war crimes that violate the well-entrenched prohibitions on unnecessary destruction and seizure, which apply in international and non-international conflicts alike. The stature of these prohibitions as the central pillar of cultural property protection has diminished in recent decades, however, particularly in noninternational conflicts that are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animus and that increasingly feature prevalent attacks on cultural property. The survival of cultural property instead increasingly rests on affirmative obligations to protect cultural property-which this Article terms "protectionplus" obligations because they complement and supplement prohibitions on unnecessary destruction and seizure-which would require participating belligerents with both access and means to take positive steps to secure cultural property from harm. Protection-plus obligations to protect cultural property already exist in some form in international armed conflicts. Unfortunately, the persistent hostilities-occupation dichotomy prevents their unequivocal application during non-international armed conflicts because many such obligations are understood to attach only during occupation, which by definition occurs only in international-and not in nonintemational-conflicts. The promise and limitations of protection-plus obligations are exposed by considering how such obligations might attach in the overlapping conflicts in Syria and Iraq. To be sure, any belligerent who flagrantly violates the longstanding prohibitions against unnecessary destruction and seizure will similarly disregard positive obligations to protect cultural property. Nevertheless, many conflicts engage military actors and non-state actors whoare not flagrant violators and who can usefully implement tangible, if moderate, improvements in protection, often without compromising their strategic objectives. This Article argues that the enduring preservation of the "cultural heritage of mankind" depends on recognizing a new norm that would incrementally whittle down the hostilities-occupation dichotomy to provide for the application ofprotection-plus obligations in non-international armed conflicts, and it suggests likely vehicles for doing so.
- Subjects
PROTECTION of cultural property -- Law &; legislation; OPERATION Inherent Resolve, 2014-; INTERNATIONAL law; WAR crimes; INTERNATIONAL Peace Conference (1st: 1899: Hague, Netherlands)
- Publication
Stanford Journal of International Law, 2016, Vol 52, Issue 1, p1
- ISSN
0731-5082
- Publication type
Article