Comparing Interpretations of States’ and Non-State Actors’ Obligations Toward Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict and OccupationMilitary Manuals and the Law of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-81
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Varner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954 Hague Convention) remains the leading treaty on the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. After several decades of relative dormancy, eleven States have joined the 1954 Hague Convention in the last decade, including two major military powers: the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the 1954 Hague Convention, a host of laws touch on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as those under customary international law. Nonetheless, there are disagreements in interpretations of States’ obligations toward cultural property during armed conflict stemming from a variety of factors. These factors can include: whether States are Parties to the instrument that conveys the obligation or if the obligation is one of customary international law, which itself is often contested; the individual State’s interpretation; interpretation by tribunals; and a plethora of other factors. Given these discrepancies in interpretation, a review of States’ military manuals is useful to see if they shed any light on the State’s interpretation of their obligations toward cultural property under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and international obligations in LOAC more generally. This chapter will analyze and compare the military manuals of the United States and the United Kingdom to determine how they elucidate several key issues in the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, such as the definition of ‘cultural property’, requirements for ‘respect’, the doctrine of military necessity, and laws applicable in non-international armed conflicts.

Part II, 5 Legal Protection of Religious Freedom

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahdar Rex ◽  
Leigh Ian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Difficult Question ◽  
The United Kingdom

This chapter first considers the broad nature of ‘religious freedom’. It then outlines the various systems of constitutional protection for religious liberty in different nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and so on, as well as the guarantees in international law for religious rights. Next, it explores the difficult question of how one defines ‘religion’ for the purpose of recognizing religious liberty.

Intelligence Communities and International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley S. Deeks
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom

The lack of certainty about the precise status of various intelligence activities in international law fosters conditions under which states can choose—and have chosen—different paths through the thicket. This chapter compares how certain states’ intelligence communities (ICs) approach their international law obligations. The United Kingdom asserts that its IC’s activities comply with international law. The United States, in contrast, implies that certain IC actions may violate international law, though it avoids specific public statements about such deviations. This chapter identifies and analyzes the problems and benefits posed by the competing approaches and offers lessons about the capacity of international law to constrain core national security activities.

Patterns of Difference and Dominance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Roberts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Future Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
The United Kingdom

This chapter examines three implications of these patterns of difference and dominance for the wider field of international law. First, although most legal academies and law schools remain relatively nationalized, there are outliers that are significantly more internationalized than their counterparts. Different academies also evidence different strengths and areas that are ripe for future development. Second, the existence of distinct national or regional communities of international lawyers may result in substantial disconnects developing within the field, such as in debates about Crimea and the South China Sea. Third, some of the patterns of dominance that emerge in the academies and textbooks are replicated elsewhere in the field, including privileging sources and actors from Western states in general, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France in particular. Choice of language and the emergence of English as the lingua franca play particularly important roles in this privileging process.

Protection of Cultural Property

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger O'Keefe
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Architectural Significance ◽  
The Hague Convention

International law protects cultural property in armed conflict from damage and destruction and from all forms of misappropriation against belligerents who have always looked to raze or plunder the enemy’s cultural heritage. ‘Cultural property’ may include buildings and other monuments of historic, artistic or architectural significance, as well as artworks, antiquities, manuscripts, books, archaeological sites, and archives. This chapter focuses on the relevant bodies of international law and international humanitarian law designed to protect cultural property during armed conflict, including multilateral treaties such as the Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (also known as the Roerich Pact) and the Hague Convention of 1954 and its two Protocols. It also examines international human rights law, international cultural heritage law, and international criminal law under the respective rubrics of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

scholarly journals U.S. Consideration of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention

Ethnologies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 325-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Kurin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intangible Cultural Heritage ◽  
United Nations Educational ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
October 17 ◽  
The U.S

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, voted overwhelmingly at the biennial meeting of its General Conference in Paris on October 17, 2003 to adopt a new international Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. That Convention became international law on April 30, 2006. By the end of 2006 it had been ratified or accepted by 68 countries; today, that number is approaching universal acceptance with more than 160 nations having acceded to the convention. At the 2003 session, some 120 nation-members voted for the convention; more registered their support subsequently. No one voted against it; only a handful of nations abstained – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States among them. Within some of those nations, debate over whether to ratify the treaty continues. In this paper, the author considers the convention and unofficially examines the U.S. government position with regard to why support for it was withheld in 2003, how deliberations have proceeded since then, and whether or not the U.S. might ultimately accept the treaty.

scholarly journals Kedudukan dan Daya Mengikat Konvensi Denhaag 1954 Tentang Perlindungan Obyek Budaya Dalam Sengketa Bersenjata Terhadap Pihak-Pihak Yang Bersengketa (Amerika Serikat-Irak) Menurut Konvensi Wina 1969 Tentang Perjanjian Internasional

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilda Hilda
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Crucial Issue ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Binding Power

Status and Binding Power of the Denhaag Convention 1954. Armed conflict between the United States and Iraq indicates that the two parties neglect cultural objects. The disobedient towards the provisions of international law, particularly the 1954 Hague Convention and its additional protocols, regarded as one of the conspicuous reasons for the fatal damage of cultural objects. The only justification to avoid from the obligation od protecting cultural objects is that one of the party does not bind to the instrument of international law. This has made the position and power of the Hague Convention 1954 becomes a crucial issue to the extent of its effectiveness. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v1i1.2984

List of Current Proceedings: Update

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-595
Author(s):  
Juan M. Amaya-Castro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
The United Kingdom

Libya filed two separate applications on 3 March 1992. In the applications, Libya contended that it had not been possible to settle this dispute by negotiations and that the parties unable to agree on the organization of an arbitration to hear the matter. It accordingly submitted the disputes to the Court on the basis of Article 14(1) of the Montreal Convention. Libya refers in the applications to the charging of two Libyan nationals, by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and by a Grand Jury of the United States, respectively, with having caused a bomb to be placed aboard a Pan-am flight, which bomb subsequently exploded, causing the aeroplane to crash. Libya contends that the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively, by rejecting the Libyan efforts to resolve the matter within the framework of international law, including the Montreal Convention, are pressuring it into surrendering the two Libyan nationals for trial. In this connection, Libya refers to Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, according to which the charge constitutes an offence, and to the several other articles of that Convention which are relevant to Libya's alleged right to jurisdiction over the matter and the prosecution thereof. Libya alleges that these obligations are breached by the United Kingdom and the United States respectively.

List of Current Proceedings: Update

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-872
Author(s):  
Rosanne van Alebeek ◽  
Ursula E.A. Weitzel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
The United Kingdom

Libya filed two separate applications on 3 March 1992. In the applications, Libya contended that it had not been possible to settle this dispute by negotiations and that the parties unable to agree on the organization of an arbitration to hear the matter. It accordingly submitted the disputes to the Court on the basis of Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention. Libya refers in the applications to the charging of two Libyan nationals, by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and by a Grand Jury of the United States, respectively, with having caused a bomb to be placed aboard a Pan-am flight, which bomb subsequently exploded, causing the aeroplane to crash. Libya contends that the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively, by rejecting the Libyan efforts to resolve the matter within the framework of international law, including the Montreal Convention, are pressuring it into surrendering the two Libyan nationals for trial. In this connection, Libya refers to Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, according to which the charge constitutes an offence, and to the several other articles of that Convention which are relevant to Libya's alleged right to jurisdiction over the matter and the prosecution thereof. Libya alleges that these obligations are breached by the United Kingdom and the United States respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document