Search

Cultural property protection policy as implemented in Syria since 2011 is structured around standards and practices enshrined within the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (including its First and Second Protocols) and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Policy emphasis is on thein situprotection of cultural sites and the recovery and return of stolen or looted cultural objects. But policy initiatives have very obviously failed to stop the plunder and illegal trade of cultural objects in Syria, as they have failed before for neighboring countries. This paper describes why policy initiatives aimed at site protection and object recovery have failed and how policy might be improved by a market reduction approach aimed at subduing demand.

When I was asked by Dr. O'Keefe, Book Editor of the International Journal of Cultural Property, to review “War and Cultural Heritage” by Kevin Chamberlain I immediately agreed because I wished to see the first scholarly article-by-article commentary on the 1999 Second Protocol (“the Second Protocol”) to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (“the Convention”) as well as another commentary on the Convention and the 1954 First Protocol.

SummarySince the second half of the last century, public international law has been developing rules regulating the restitution of cultural objects removed from occupied territories during armed conflict. Today it is generally recognized that customary international law forbids pillage. The Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict further mandates that artifacts removed from an occupied territory must be returned to the competent authorities of that territory at the close of hostilities. The Arab-Israeli case highlights the problematic side of this solution. Following the Six Day War in 1967, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza strip and the territory known as the “West Bank” came under Israeli control. Israeli archaeologists carried out numerous excavations, and discovered artifacts of special importance to Jewish cultural heritage. It is regrettable that, as a result of the peace treaty with Egypt, these artifacts can no longer be exhibited and appreciated at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, but had to be delivered to Egypt, where they now face an uncertain future. A similar fate may befall the artifacts excavated in the Golan Heights. The Palestinian claim for restitution cannot be based on the Protocol. The Problem is nevertheless the same in all cases; if the artifacts are to be preserved, properly appreciated and made available for purposes of study and research, it may be more appropriate to distribute them among the states by way of compromise and agreement, that will seek to enhance their cultural significance, rather than use the arbitrary sole criterion of the place of discovery.