Search

Experiences of the Second World War were recent to those who drafted the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and many of its provisions ref...

Iraq is home to many of the large archaeological sites of the world like Babylon Ashur, Nineveh, Nimrud, and Samarra. Due to the great quantity and quality of Iraq?s cultural resources, it is known as one of the great source countries for international antiquities market and is inherently at risk of looting and pillage of its vast cultural property resources. There are three international agreements on the protection of cultural property whereby Iraq is a party; the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illegal Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illicitly Exported Cultural Property. However, after the U.S occupation in 2003, Iraq has become very unstable and has given way to uncontrolled looting and illegal trade of antiquities, despite the existence of international conventions and Iraqi laws on this matter. This study aims to analyse the legal protection for antiquities, in accordance with international and domestic laws and to recommend legal improvement on this matter. Towards these ends, this study employs the traditional legal method through document analysis. The study concluded that the conventions to safeguard cultural property are inadequate to deal with the situation in Iraq due to lack of commitment from the United States and the United Kingdom to be part of these conventions and make serious efforts to safeguard cultural property in Iraq.

In times of economic hardship, the support given by specialized civil society organisations to public institutions in the protection of cultural heritage has often proved very useful, and there is evidence that their contribution is essential in times of conflicts and natural disasters, if well-designed plans and measures are organized efficiently, thoroughly tested and properly implemented. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (HC), its two Protocols and other international juridical instruments address these situations since decades, however, they remained widely not-applied in absence of proper regulatory instruments. In 2004, the Second Protocol of the Hague Convention (1999HP) entered into force and the Committee of the State Parties was formed. It became clear that a new trend started when, in 2009, draft Guidelines for the implementation of the 1999HP were issued. Meanwhile, WATCH, in partnership with the Council of the United Municipalitities of Jbail (Lebanon) and the Head of the Municipality of Mtskheta (Georgia) prepared a project proposal aimed to set a precedent in the governance of urban sites that are registered in the World Heritage List which are at risk of armed conflict. The project War Free World Heritage Listed Cities http://www.warfreeheritage.net/ was co-financed in 2010 with a grant within the framework of the EC CIUDAD programme and it is currently at an advanced level of implementation. This presentation will focus on achievements and contingencies faced during implementation as well as lessons learned that could be surely useful for pers pective applicants.

The topic of "Confronting Complexity in the Preservation of Cultural Property: Monuments, Art, Antiquities, Archives, and History" is pertinent, because cultural property throughout the world is constantly threatened by a large variety of factors ranging from armed conflicts and natural disasters to different peacetime human activities which, regrettably, do not take into account the need to safeguard and respect it. My remarks are divided into three parts: In the first part, I will discuss the 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage (the Declaration); then I will cover the issue of sanctions under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) and its Second Protocol; finally, I will compare protection provided by the Hague Convention and its Second Protocol with that provided under the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Let me start with the 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. It is a legal instrument aimed at protecting cultural heritage including that linked to natural sites both in peacetime and wartime, and it was unanimously adopted by 32 C/Resolution 33 of the thirty-second session of the General Conference of UNESCO. (1) In March 2001, the international community helplessly witnessed the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan--an enormous tragedy that impoverished the cultural and spiritual heritage not only of Afghanistan, but of all humanity. (2) This mindless act of destruction took place despite massive efforts by the international community including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to persuade the Taliban regime not to destroy the statues. (3) As a reaction to the destruction of the Buddhas, the Executive Board of UNESCO adopted at its one hundred and sixty-first session (Paris, May 28-June 13, 2001) 161 EX/Decision 3.1.1 (III) which, among other things, resolutely condemned "the acts of destruction committed against historical and cultural monuments," in particular in Afghanistan, described by the Director-General as "crimes against culture'" and invited Member States tirelessly to pursue their efforts to ensure the full application of the principles of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954), the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and the other relevant international legal instruments. The decision finally resolved to include the item "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity" in the agenda of its 162rid session and in the provisional agenda of the 31st session of UNESCO's General Conference." (4) The issue of acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity was further discussed during the one hundred and sixty-second session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (Paris, Oct. 2-31, 2001) and the thirty-first session of the General Conference of UNESCO (Paris, Oct. 15-Nov. 3, 2001). The latter considered this issue extensively and adopted 31 C/Resolution 26 on the "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity" (5) which, among other things, invited the Director-General "to formulate, for the 32nd session of the General Conference, a Draft Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage." Let me take this opportunity to explain that in UNESCO's standard-setting terminology, conventions are international legally binding instruments defining rules that, not binding ex se, except for those states which accept, accede, approve, ratify, or succeed to them. They are adopted by a two-thirds majority of states which attend the General Conference of UNESCO. …

The author stresses the importance of protecting cultural property from the effects of armed conflict as its damage or destruction destroys a community’s identity and its links with its past, present and future, as well as diminishes the cultural heritage of humankind. The author draws attention to the recent destruction of cultural property in the civil war in Syria and the activities of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL) in Iraq. This chapter analyses the provisions of the principal legal instruments dealing with the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, namely the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The 1954 Hague Convention), the 1954 Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1999 Second Protocol to The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, as well as other relevant instruments of international law. While the existing legal instruments may be adequate, the problem, as with international law generally, lies in their effective enforcement, particularly in situations of non-international armed conflict where the parties to the conflict have no regard for the dictates of international humanitarian law. But once hostilities have come to an end, it will be possible to bring offenders to justice, if necessary before the International Criminal Court. In the meantime, it is important that there should be widespread adherence to The 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols.

This paper deals with the use of military or militarized experts for cultural property protection (CPP) during times of conflict. CPP activities generally take place within a juridical framework that gives obligations for all parties involved, primarily the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and attention is paid to various implications and challenges that occur when implementing military CPP obligations within this framework. To illustrate matters, the paper details a specific case study from the author’s own field experience in the safeguarding of the archaeological site of Uruk in Iraq. Aspects, including economic, legal, financial, and educational implications, are presented and these are especially relevant since they apply (to an extent) to other situations, such as the recent cultural disasters in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The Uruk case study is used to suggest a number of key elements that are vital for the implementation of an effective CPP strategy in the context of military operations. Overall, the importance of international cooperation, training, and education, along with the assistance of civil reach-back capabilities, is emphasized. The paper argues that an effective way to protect Cultural Property during armed conflicts is through military channels and with military logistics and tools. To fulfil CPP in agreement with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) joint preparations in peacetime are necessary. The handover of military initiated CPP projects to civil authorities has to take place as soon as the situation permits. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations.

International law provides for a framework for protecting cultural heritage during armed conflict and for punishing those who transgress these principles. If understood within its limitations of dependence on state ratification and enforcement, international law protects cultural heritage by providing guidelines to those who wish to conform and by punishing after the fact those who deliberately destroy cultural heritage. Recent movement toward ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its protocols by the major military powers should afford greater protection to cultural heritage in future conflicts.

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.

The April 2003 occupation of Iraq by armed forces predominately of the United States and the United Kingdom was accompanied by the looting of archaeological sites and the Iraqi National Museum. Priceless artifacts dating back 7000 years disappeared. No effort was made by the occupying forces to protect the sites, although a few journalists and military personnel were later arrested when they attempted to smuggle looted objects into the United States. Given that international law has obliged an occupying power to protect cultural property at least since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, a new Iraqi government could seek reparations if the occupying powers fail to take widespread and effective action to recover or replace lost objects and restore the museum and sites.

The United States ratified the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in 2009. This chapter explores the background to ratification, key provisions of the Convention and its two protocols, impact of ratification on the US military, adequacy of US military compliance with the Convention, and subsequent developments, particularly the growth of the Blue Shield movement, that have aimed at providing greater protection to cultural property. These improvements are also evaluated as the proliferation of conflicts involving non-state actors and not of an international character poses ever greater threats to cultural heritage.

This article examines the control system under the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 (the Convention) and its Second Protocol (the Protocol). It is divided into three parts. Part 1 introduces the control system and provides some examples of its implementation; Part 2 focuses on the evaluation of the control system during a recent review of the Convention; and Part 3 compares the control system under the Convention with that under the Second Protocol to the Convention.

On 26 March 1999, the Diplomatic Conference on the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter, 1954 Convention), held in The Hague from 15 to 26 March 1999, adopted a Second Protocol to that Convention. The reasons leading to the elaboration and adoption of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter, Second Protocol) are manifold.Firstly, armed conflicts that have taken place since the entry into force of the 1954 Convention, such as in Cambodia, the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia, have revealed its deficiencies. In particular, the Convention lacked full application, as most of the armed conflicts have been of a non-international character; furthermore, it lacked proper implementation, as the system of execution of the Convention, which is based on a functioning Protecting Power-and Commissioner General-system, proved to be unworkable in practice; and, finally, it lacked adequate provisions to cope with the extensive and systematic destruction of cultural property during armed conflict, as it contains no mandatory criminal sanctions regime.

La Convention de La Haye 1954 permet une dérogation à l'obligation de respecter un bien culturel si une nécessité militaire l'exige. Si l'objet est sous protection spéciale, les conditions permettant une dérogation sont plus strides. La notion de « nécessité militaire » et la signification à y donner ont toujours suscité la controverse des experts en la matière. Dans son article, l'auteur retrace l'histoire de cette disposition, à partir des premiers projets jusqu'a l'adoption de la Convention de 1954. Il examine ensuite différentes propositions qui tentent de définir la notion de « nécessité militaire » d'une manière plus précise. Le Deuxième Protocole additionnel à la Convention de 1954, adopté le 26 mars 1999par une conférence diplomatique à La Haye, inclut de nouveaux textes qui représentent un pas en avant dans la protection des biens culturels en cas de conflit armé.

The end of the Cold War and the disappearance of bipolarity have resulted in a recrudescence of a number of armed conflicts in the world, in particular in the ex-Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. Such conflicts have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law of armed conflicts and a loss of respect for human lives and cultural heritage. They have also demonstrated deficiencies in the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict — the only comprehensive international agreement aimed specifically at protecting movable and immovable cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict.

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.

Despite the importance of its protection, cultural property is always at risk. Armed conflict makes such property particularly vulnerable. Although they are precious to all humanity, objects of cultural property are often among the first wilful targets in armed conflicts. The wilful destruction of the Old Bridge, a landmark of the city of Mostar and national monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is emblematic of tragedies wrought on priceless cultural objects internationally. Using the incident of the Old Bridge's destruction, this chapter considers the relationship between cultural property and nationhood. It argues that cultural property is both 'national' and 'international' at the same time. A dual nature of cultural property is analogous to a constant interplay between the primacy of a nation and its withering in international law.

On 23 November 2011, Palestine became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”), and acceded to and ratified a number of UNESCO’s Conventions. Some observers view this membership as decisive, or at least significantly dispositive, in the debate on the international recognition of Palestinian statehood. UNESCO is characterized as a springboard by which Palestine can further recognition of its international sovereignty, which, at the present time, is inexorably stalled. However, this recognition is not without challenge – for example, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has not recognized Palestine’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. UNESCO has, in turn, descended into a budgetary crisis with the withdrawal of funding from the U.S. and other states, which represent twenty-two percent of its budget. In February 2012, UNESCO responded to this crisis with a plan to “re-engineer” the organization, implicitly confirming that it will not allow any revocation of the Palestinian membership vote, despite a campaign to “un-admit” Palestine. This paper analyzes the legal consequences of Palestine’s membership in UNESCO and its ratification of UNESCO conventions through an examination of the protections afforded by the UNESCO treaty framework governing cultural, amongst other forms of, heritage. This is particularly relevant as Palestine’s application for UNESCO membership took place in the context of what are termed the Palestinian U.N. initiatives, intended to further Palestine’s status and activate its rights as a state in the international legal order. The initiatives manifested in a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 29 November 2012 “upgrading” Palestine’s observer status.For more than a century, Palestinian cultural heritage and property has been the subject of capture and destruction by other states. Palestine’s accession to various UNESCO conventions testifies to the effect that no other sovereign controls its cultural heritage and property. Palestinians have habitually asserted internationally-recognized principles as a point of departure in “final status” negotiations on what is termed the “archaeology file,” yet have been unable to maintain complete control of such property. Ahmad A. Rjoob of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities describes Palestinian cultural heritage as “one of the most intensively abused, excavated and subsequently disturbed worldwide,” a result of more than a century of management from different administrations, each with its own methods of research and distinct political purpose. “The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Israeli sources estimate that between 1967 and 1992 about 200,000 artifacts were removed from the occupied Palestinian territory annually,” with approximately 120,000 removed each year since 1995. This hemorrhaging of Palestinian cultural property is occurring in a context where archaeology has been used by Israel “as a pretext to gain territorial control” and exercise sovereign rights “over Palestinian lands [in order] to further its settlement enterprise” and exploit natural resources.Section II traces the history of archaeological laws and practices in Palestine, from the Ottoman era to contemporary Israeli military orders. Section III examines the rules governing the protection of cultural property during military occupation under the aegis of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and the consequences of future Palestinian ratification of the Convention and its 1999 Second Protocol. Section IV tracks the illicit trade in antiquities from Palestine, and the potential effects that ratification of two instruments would have on regulation and restitution – particularly, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. Section V focuses on the underwater cultural heritage off the coast of Gaza and the maritime zones of legal control granted by the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the first international treaty that Palestine has ratified. Finally, Section VI assesses the consequences of UNESCO membership, including whether membership of a U.N. agency means that Palestine can ratify instruments outside of UNESCO’s competence.

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.

The idea of cultural heritage as an "international public good" can be traced back to the Preamble to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, according to which "damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world". But how can this idea of cultural heritage as a global public good be reconciled with the infinite variety of cultural expressions and with the role of art as a medium essentially devoted to giving form to the plurality and diversity of tastes, beliefs, and inclinations of the different societies in which it is produced?. In this article I will examine the issue of pluralism and legal interaction within three perspectives: (1) the plurality of different meanings of cultural property and cultural heritage; (2) the plurality and interaction between different legal regimes of protection � international and domestic, private and public, peacetime and wartime; and (3) the plurality and interaction between different mechanisms of enforcement at the international and domestic levels.

This chapter addresses the question Why a Second Protocol to 1954 Hague Convention? On 13 March 2009, the Director-General of UNESCO received from the United States of America the instrument of ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, entering into force immediately and, with some exceptions related to penal aspects, being self-executing. During the negotiations at the 1954 Hague Conference, the delegates made several concessions requested by the UK and US delegations, in the hope that they would become Parties to the Convention. The international community had to wait 55 years to see at least one of them (US) become a Party. Keywords: armed conflict; Hague Convention; protection of cultural property; Second Protocol; UNESCO

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is the paramount international instrument for the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. The effectiveness of the 1954 Convention became a subject of general concern in the early nineties, during the second Gulf War and war in the former Yugoslavia. The Diplomatic Conference on the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict took place in The Hague from 15 to 26 March 1999. The Second Protocol is additional to the 1954 Convention, which remains the basic text. This chapter highlights the major developments embodied in the Second Protocol and mentions certain points of common understanding that were acknowledged at the Diplomatic Conference but not reflected as such in the text of the Protocol itself nor in the Conferences Final Act. Keywords: armed conflict; diplomatic conference; Hague Convention; protection of cultural property; second protocol

Iraq is Party to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its First Protocol, but not yet to the Second Protocol of 1999. Article 2 of the Second Protocol states that this Protocol supplements the Convention in relations between the parties. Since Iraq is already party to the Convention, it is also entitled to become party to the Second Protocol. The Second Protocol calls, inter alia, for parties to take general provisions regarding the protection of cultural property in peacetime. If Iraq had been Party to the Second Protocol, would the situation there have been differentbefore, during and after the Gulf Wars? Could tangible heritage have been saved? Could certain sites have been spared? In what way could the Second Protocol have had added value for Iraq? This chapter is an attempt to answer these questions. Keywords: 1954 Hague Convention; armed conflict; Gulf wars; Iraq; protection of cultural property; second protocol

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict has, until recently, sat on the sidelines of humanitarian law. One reason for this, which has been overlooked to date, is a seemingly widespread though rarely confessed confusion over the nature and extent of the ‘cultural property’ to which it applies. Article 1 defines cultural property within the meaning of the Convention as: ‘movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people …’

In modem international law, the straight answer to the question ‘what is the basis of the institution of war?’ is: ‘nothing’. That is to say that developments in the law since the First World War, and more particularly since the coming into existence of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, have outlawed the resort to ‘war’ as such. Thus, modern international treaty instruments which deal with humanitarian treatment of victims of ‘war’ and with methods of waging ‘war’, have tended to avoid the use of the term. For example, the four Geneva Red Cross Conventions of 1949, common article 2, provide that they should apply ‘to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one [or both] of them’. More recent treaties, such as the two additional Geneva Protocols of 1977, do not mention the word ‘war’ at all, but use the term ‘armed conflict’ as does the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Countless historic monuments, works of art and places of worship have been destroyed in recent conflicts, despite the fact that cultural property, as part of the cultural heritage of all mankind, is protected by the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 — the fiftieth anniversary of which is being celebrated this year — and by other provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular Articles 53 and 16 respectively of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions. his article retraces the origin and development of the main rules of international law adopted to safeguard cultural property in the event of armed conflict, and shows their place in the context of international humanitarian law.

This article examines the legal questions concerning interpretation of the 1954 Hague Convention’s Article 17 on the distinctive emblem. It does so by giving a general analysis of the marking of cultural property and then by considering the query by Bosnia-Herzegovina as to whether it is appropriate to mark destroyed cultural sites with that emblem.

Cambodia's unequalled cultural heritage — and in particular Angkor — was not spared the sufferings that country endured from 1970 onwards. Cambodia went through 30 years of conflict, with the Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979) marking the peak of cruelty and ideological barbarity. These years have left a permanent scar on the country and its memory. Monuments and archaeological sites in particular suffered the consequences of abandonment, vandalism, looting and lack of maintenance, together with the effects of military use. However, despite the traces of vandalism that bear witness to the sites' having been subjected to military occupation, the temples suffered less during the fighting than had been feared. The application of certain of the provisions contained in the Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict of 14 May 1954 played a crucial role in protecting Cambodian heritage. The Convention constitutes one of the most important tools for the protection of cultural property under international humanitarian law. It clearly helped to protect cultural property by providing the Cambodian authorities with a legal basis and, above all, by legitimizing the action they undertook in this area.