The Marking of Cultural Property according to the 1954 Hague Convention - Lessons Learnt from Austria

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Center for cultural property protection, university for continuing education

World heritage and cultural property protection

The Marking of cultural property according to the 1954 Hague Convention - lessons learnt from Austria

P. Strasser, Doktor, Universitat-Professor

Annotation

This essay will focus on the practise of the marking of cultural property in Austria, which was undertaken on the basis of the 1954 Hague Convention. These activities, which started meanwhile more than 50 years ago, represent an interesting case regarding interpretation and application of an international Convention. After Austria had ratified the 1954 Hague Convention in 1964, the government installed in the late 1960ies the Conventionsburo in Vienna. Among other activities, between 1971 and 1984 more than 80.000 cultural properties were registered in lists and inventories as well as some 20.000 blue-white emblems were distributed. Finally, the emblems became a common feature of the Austrian landscape. However, the high number of registered and labelled sites contributed sometimes rather to confusion among military staff and conservators than assisting them in respecting cultural heritage while performing their tasks.

Consequently, following the amendment of the Denkmalschutzgesetz (“Austrian Monuments Protection Act”) in 2008, a new cultural property inventory had to be prepared. As a consequence, all the blue-white emblems, which were displayed so far, ceased to be valid. However, many of them were not removed from the sites, moreover, some of them were even sold (illegally of course) on sale- platforms. The new inventory (which was issued through a Minister's decree) covers 135 sites and is available through internet.

The contribution will on the one hand provide an overview on the international regulations regarding the marking of cultural property, and on the other hand demonstrate the practical implementation of these international demands by analysing the activities, achievements and deficits of Austria's marking efforts.

Keywords: marking of cultural property, cultural property protection, cultural heritage legislation, humanitarian law, UNESCO, blue shield emblem.

Анотація

Маркування культурних цінностей відповідно до Гаазької конвенції 1954 року - досвід Австрії

Маркування культурних цінностей - феномен ХХ століття. Їх поява тісно пов'язана зі збройними конфліктами, а отже, і з розвитком міжнародного гуманітарного права. Починаючи з IX Конвенції «Про бомбардування морськими силами» під час війни 1907 р., яка вперше передбачала маркування культурних об'єктів, у низці конвенцій (Вашингтонська Угода 1935 р., Гаазька Конвенція «Про захист культурних цінностей у випадку збройних конфліктів» 1954 р. та - опосередковано - Другий протокол до неї 1999 р.) були запроваджені відповідні розпізнавальні знаки для культурних цінностей. Однак лише синьо-білий щит Гаазької конвенції 1954 р. (включно з двома уточненнями емблеми, що стосуються «спеціального захисту» та «посиленого захисту») став широко відомим і запровадженим у глобальному масштабі. Пізніше, наприклад, знаки, що символізують Всесвітню спадщину (1972 р.), «Культурні шляхи» Ради Європи та спадщину, визнану Європейським Союзом (знак Європейської спадщини), стали широко застосовуватися з невійськовими цілями, символізуючи важливу цінність «спільної спадщини людства» та сприяючи взаємному визнанню культурних цінностей, заснованих на культурному розмаїтті.

Дана стаття зосереджена на практиці маркування культурних цінностей в Австрії, яка була започаткована на основі Гаазької конвенції 1954 р. Діяльність щодо захисту культурних надбань, яка розпочалася понад 50 років тому, є цікавим прикладом тлумачення та застосування міжнародної конвенції. Після того, як Австрія ратифікувала 1964 р. Гаазьку конвенцію 1954 р., наприкінці 1960-х рр. Уряд створив у Відні Бюро у справах конвенцій (Conventionsburo). Протягом 1971-1984 рр. було зареєстровано понад 80 000 культурних цінностей, а також розповсюджено близько 20 000 синьо-білих емблем. Зрештою, ці знаки стали звичним елементом австрійського ландшафту. Однак, велика кількість зареєстрованих і позначених об'єктів іноді скоріше сприяла плутанині серед військовослужбовців та реставраторів, ніж допомагала їм захищати культурну спадщину при виконанні своїх завдань.

Відповідно, після внесення змін до Закону «Про охорону пам'яток Австрії» у 2008 р., необхідно було підготувати новий Реєстр культурних цінностей. Як наслідок, усі синьо-білі емблеми, що були розміщені до цього часу, втратили свою чинність. Однак багато з них не були прибрані з об'єктів культурного спадку. Більше того, деякі з них навіть були продані (звісно, нелегально) на «чорному ринку». Нова інвентаризація об'єктів (яка була визнана Наказом Міністра) охоплює 135 об'єктів і нині доступна в інтернеті.

Ключові слова: маркування, захист культурних цінностей, конвенції, гуманітарне право, ЮНЕСКО, емблеми Блакитного Щита.

Formulation of the research problem and its significance

Ongoing armed conflicts, which cause not only the death of innocent civilians, women, men and children, as well as of military personnel, but also the loss of cultural heritage, remind us of the importance (but also of the limits) of the rules of humanitarian law. In this regard, the protection and respect of cultural property forms an intrinsic part of these humanitarian regulations.

The military attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022 put on a sudden the issue of cultural property protection (CPP) in UkraineSee the assessment of damages at cultural sites: UNESCO (2023). Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO in the centre of concern. In this regard, already in 2022 UNESCO provided technical assistance to the Government of Ukraine on the marking of cultural sites as outlined in the Committee Report of the 1999 Second Protocol:

As a result, cultural properties in Ukraine were marked with the distinctive Blue Shield emblem of the 1954 Hague Convention, including at the World Heritage properties of “Kyiv: Saint -Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kyiv Pechersk Lavra” and “L'viv - the Ensemble of the Historic Centre”, as well as over 50 cultural sites in Odesa, a site on the Tentative List of UkraineChapter II, point 15, UNESCO (2022). Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 17^th meeting, Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 15-16 December 2022, Item 7 of the provisional agenda: Protection of cultural property in Ukraine, Doc. C54/22/17.COM/7, Paris, 31 November 2022..

Analysis of the recent research on the problem. In the last years, research on CPP, especially on the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, focused on the international jurisdiction and criminal responsibility concerning offences against cultural property (see O'Keefe 2010O'Keefe R. (2010). Protection of Cultural Property under International Criminal Law. In: Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 11, p. 1-54., Elekiaby 2021Elekiaby S. (2021). Enhancing International Law with Respect to The Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict: A Comparative Analysis. In: Journal of Law, Cairo University, Alkhartoum Branch, Article 5, Volume 10, Issue 8, (November), p. 2515-2594.). The marking of cultural property was assessed in detail by Toman 2009 in his Commentary of the 1999 Second Protocol (Toman 20 09Toman J. (2009). Cultural Property in War: Improvement in Protection - Commentary on the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Paris.). In 2021, UNESCO in cooperation with Blue Shield International published a leaflet, which provided a brief overview about the history of marking and gave practical advise on the marking-methods (UNESCO 2021UNESCO (2021). Blue Shield International: Distinctive Marking of Cultural Property: Rules and practices. Paris). However, this publication, although of importance as it reminded about the regulations of the 1954 Hague Convention and both additional protocols, focused on best practise-cases without applying a critical approach based on scientific methods.

Research Methodology. The research is based on the interpretation of literature (see bibliography), consultations of the archive of the author with regard to the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and frequent talks with (former) staff of UNESCO, Austrian Army and Austrian Bundes-denkmalamt. Moreover, the author could benefit from his long-lasting experience in the field of CPP on national and international level.

Formulation of the Purposes and tasks of the article. The article should provide an analysis of the demands of marking of cultural property as stipulated in international law on the one hand and - on the other hand - of the implementation of these rules on national level. In the contribution the situation in Austria was analysed. The case of Austria demonstrates that the former “best practises model” (in the eyes of UNESCO) lost much of its former significance. By demonstrating good practises, but also adverse developments from Austria, the article should provide support in marking cultural property and thus contribute to the protection of cultural heritage, also in times of armed conflicts.

Research Results

History of marking of cultural property. The blue-white shield as emblem for cultural property as well as the World Heritage Emblem are well-known logos of UNESCO symbolising cultural heritageThe World Heritage Emblem symbolizes also natural heritage.Article 5, Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague, 18 October 1907: “In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes”. However, they are not the only (and first) symbols for cultural property. More than hundred- twenty years ago, in 1907, the first logo, symbolising not only cultural heritage, but also sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, appeared in the IXth (Hague) Convention concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. Its Article 5 specified the obligation (to be done “by the inhabitants”) to mark these buildings - under the condition “that they are not used at the same time for military purposes”: It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices, or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white.

Illustration 1: The IXth (Hague) Convention concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, referres in its Article 5 to "visible signs", "which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white"

The use of cultural sites for “military purposes” (what will cause the loss of the immunity of cultural, scientific and spiritual buildings - a condition which was stipulated already in 1907) remains one of the guiding principles until today in the field of cultural property protection. The rule was incorporated also in the 1935 Washington Agreement and in the 1954 Hague Convention. For sure, the marking-approach in 1907 was of somehow revolutionary character. However, the author is not aware that this sign was ever implemented.

In 1935 the principle of marking was applied in the first Convention which was solely dedicated to the protection of cultural property, the “Washington Agreement”Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). Washington, 15 April 1935: In order to identify the monuments and institutions mentioned in article I, use may be made of a distinctive flag (red circle with a triple red sphere in the circle on a white background) in accordance with the model attached to this treatyArticle III, 1935 Washington Agreement..

Although this Agreement applies only to the United States of America and nine countries in Latin AmericaNamely: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, USA, Venezuela, see, its stipulations about the marking of cultural property were referenced in the 1954 Hague Convention (see beneath).

Illustration 2: The “Banner of Peace”, designed by the artist Nicholas Roerich (18741947), represents the “distinctive flag” mentioned in Article III of the 1935 Washington Agreement. Its use became model for the later emblem of the 1954 Hague Convention. (Source: Annex to the Washington Agreement)

It should be noted that the draft from 1938 of the later 1954 Hague Convention had already foreseen an emblem, which was simpler than the present blue- white shield, namely "a light blue triangle inscribed in a white disc”Toman J. (1996). The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: Commentary on the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Protocol, signed on

14 May 1954 in The Hague, and on other instruments of international law concerning such protection. Hants - Paris, p. 178

There are a series of other emblems symbolising cultural (and natural) properties, designed e.g. by UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Illustration 2 (left): The emblem of World Heritage was designed by the Belgian Michel OlyffMichel Olyff, https://cutt.ly/Owrznyhk (accessed 2 April 2023) and adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its second session in 1978

“This Emblem symbolizes the interdependence of cultural and natural properties: the central square is a form created by humans and the circle represents nature, the two being intimately linked. The Emblem is round, like the world, but at the same time it is a symbol of protection. It symbolizes the Convention, signifies the adherence of States Parties to the Convention, and serves to identify properties inscribed in the World Heritage List. It is associated with public knowledge about the Convention and is the imprimatur of the Convention's credibility and prestige. Above all, it is a representation of the universal values for which the Convention stands”Para 258, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO, version 2021, (Doc. WHC.21/01, 31 July 2021), https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 2 April 2023).

Illustration 3 (centre): The Cultural Routes programme, launched by the Council of Europe in 1987, demonstrates by means of a journey through space and time, how the heritage of the different countries and cultures of Europe represent a shared cultural heritage. Like UNESCO for its World Heritage emblem, the Council of Europe has published visibility guidelines for the use of the logoVisibilityguidelines for the use of the logo “Cultural routeof the Council of Europe” (2016)

Illustration 4 (right): Since 2013, selected heritage sites across the European Union are awarded with the European Heritage Label. The initiative was designed to label heritage sites that symbolize European history, culture and integration. It intends to highlight values such as peace, democracy, tolerance and solidarity which are all accomplishments of the European unity. Currently there are 60 sites awarded with this labelEuropean Heritage Label sites (2021) First Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, 14 May 1954; Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1999) Full title: “Regulations for the Execution of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”. Article 6, Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, with Regulations for the for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954 Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual (no more detailed data available), p. 56, para 215. Ukraine joined all three legal instruments (1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols), while e.g. the Russian Federation ahere to both instruments from 1954, but did not adopt the 1999 Second Protocol. However, both states ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972 Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual, p. 58, para 223. Article 8 para 6, 1954 Hague Convention, Article 12, Regulations for the Execution of the Convention. Articles 27, para 1.b., 1999 Second Protocol..

hague convention sign marking cultural heritage

Principal rules

As mentioned, in 1954 the “blue shield emblem” was introduced through the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954 (1954 Hague Convention). The Convention was already drawn-up before the outbreak of World War II, however, the planned expert meeting scheduled for autumn 1939 couldn't take place anymore. The final draft, which was adopted on 14 May 1954 in The Hague, endorses the protection of cultural heritage and its respect during armed conflicts. It is supplemented by two additional protocols from 1954 and 1999 and also by “Regulations for the Execution of the Convention”.

The 1954 Hague Convention introduces in its Articles 6 and 16 the blue-white shield: In accordance with Article 16, cultural property may bear a distinctive emblem so as to facilitate its recognition. This emblem is to designate objects, ensembles and other structures as cultural property (which is defined in Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention). Therefore, the use of the emblem is not restricted to immovable property but can be also applied vis-a-vis movable goods (what constitutes rather an exception). The emblem should facilitate the recognition of cultural property. The regulations about the marking remain rather general to leave the discretion to the states' responsibility. Ge nerally, there is neither an obligation to indicate cultural property through this emblem, nor is the use of the emblem restricted to the state parties to the 1954 Hague Convention. Therefore, also states, which haven't ratified the Convention, may apply this emblem. It is important to note, however, that the status of a good as cultural property is not defined by fixing an emblem, but only if it fits under the definition of Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention. In other words, the misuse of the distinctive emblem (or of similar labels) during armed conflicts is prohibited (e.g. by marking a military installation with the emblem). In many cases, the emblems will be installed by civilian authorities (e.g. by monuments protection offices) already during “peace times” as a preparatory measure. Moreover, the responsible institutions should be aware, that the marking of cultural heritage could trigger adverse effects, as e.g. the marked property could serve as target destined for the intentional destruction of cultural goods. As it will be shown beneath, the using of the emblem should be accompanied by inventories. Only in connection with such inventories, the military forces and other authorities, who oversee the safeguarding of the cultural property, can identify the location of the goods and provide the relevant measures for military-, safeguarding- and rescue operations. However, the creation of such registers is not mentioned in the 1954 Hague Convention - with the exceptions of the “International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection” and of the “List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection” which was established under the 1999 Second Protocol. Although Article 10 of the 1954 Hague Convention stipulates the marking of cultural property “under special protection” to be done “during an armed conflict”, in practise, however, shelters for cultur al property under special protection (Article 8) were marked already during peace time. However, the handful sites under “special protection” in Austria, Germany, Holy See, Mexico and in the Netherlands - so far it is known to the author - were - at least since their inscription in the Register - never involved in an armed conflict anyway.

While the use of the emblem itself is not mandatory to indicate cultural property, the 1954 Hague Convention introduced regulations about the different protection levels which will be expressed through different (numbers of) emblems:

- The single shield will indicate cultural property under general protection and personnel engaged in protection activities,

- The blue shield emblem repeated three times in a triangular formation indicates cultural property “under special protection” and transports of cultural property under certain conditions. This “special protection” applies e.g. to shelters for cultural goods. The state parties ensure maintaining the immunity of such property by refraining from any act of hostility directed against it and from any use of such property or its surroundings for military purposes.

- The blue shield emblem outlined by a detached external red band symbolises the distinctive emblem for cultural property under enhanced protection. It is outlined in chapter 3 of the 1999 Second Protocol. Cultural heritage “of the greatest importance for humanity” shall benefit as the Parties to a conflict shall ensure the immunity of cultural property under enhanced protection by refraining from making such property the object of attack or from any use of the property or its immediate surroundings in support of military action.

As stipulated in the Austrian Monuments Protection Act, all these lists, maps and certificates ceased to be valid. Consequently, more than 20.000 emblems including thousands of supporting documents should have been officially collected. However, as examples show, there are still many blue-white shields displayed at monuments. While these emblems have nowadays no legal meaning (as they are not included in Austria's list of protected property in line with the 1954 Hague Convention), they bear witness when in Austria some 20.000 emblems contributed to the cultural property protected under the 1954 Hague Convention.

I

llustration 11: The blue-white shield is still displayed at many sites in Austria, as here at the church of the small village of Friedersbach in Lower Austria. However, apart from its “decorative” nature, the emblem has meanwhile no legal meaning. (Photo: author, 7 March 2023)

Conclusion

Austria's efforts to fulfill the stipulations of the 1954 Hague Convention were characterized by a “atmosphere of departure” after Austria's adhesion to the Convention in 1964. Also, later, Austria contributed largely to the codification-procedure of the 1999 Second Protocol. However, its good intentions to determine cultural property through lists containing A-D categories resulted not only in some 20.000 displayed emblems and some 80.000 registered properties, but demonstrated also the in-operability of thousands of D-categorized sites for military demands.

Consequently, the drastic reduction to 135 sites has surely not fulfilled the requirement to apply the principle of rule of law (as these thousands of sites were never officially “abandoned” by declaring the protection status as invalid), but the new approach provided now a clarification for many “stakeholders” (military forces, monument protection authorizes, local administration and owners of the sites).

References

1. Bundesdenkmalamt (2022). Kulturguterschutzliste.

2. Bundesgesetz betreffend den Schutz von Denkmalen wegen ihrer geschichtlichen, kunstleri- schen oder sonstigen kulturellen Bedeutung, BGBl. Nr. 533/1923 idF. BGBl I Nr.92/2013.

3. Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague, 18 October 1907

4. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972

5. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, with Regulations for the for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954

6. Desch T. (1999). Revision der Haager Konvention zum Schutz von Kulturgut bei bewaffneten Konflikten 1954 - wozu? Wien (Schriften der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Kulturguterschutz, Nr. 5).

7. Elekiaby S. (2021). Enhancing International Law with Respect to The Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict: A Comparative Analysis. In: Journal of Law, Cairo University, Alkhartoum Branch, Article 5, Volume 10, Issue 8, (November), p. 2515-2594.

8. European Heritage Label sites (2021)

9. First Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, 14 May 1954

10. Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (UNESCO, 16 December 2021)

11. Marte H. (1997). Das Weltkulturerbe: Symbol einer globalen Identitat. Wien (Schriften der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Kulturguterschutz, Nr. 4).

12. Micewski E.R. / Sladek G. (ed.) (2002). Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict - A Challenge in Peace Support Operations. Vienna (Publication of the National Defense Academy Vienna, No. 4/02 and the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property, No. 7).