CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020)



To Jiří Toman Abstract : The article scrutinizes the descriptive and prescriptive components in the rules protecting the property of cultural character in the war. It pursues two interlinked lines of inquiry. The first lies in providing an overview of the progress in the codification of such rules. Whereas the second line aims at deontic analysis. The objects of the survey are the duties protecting cultural things and property in their context. The survey is temporarily limited to the nineteen-century period, its second half. Then the interest in codification arose. Resumé : Článek rozebírá deskriptivní a preskriptivní složky pravidel chránící kulturní stat- ky v ozbrojených konfliktech. Sleduje dvě navzájem propojené linie zkoumání. První ulpívá v zaznamenání přehledu kodifikačního pokroku v této normativní oblasti. Kdežto druhá linie poskytuje deontickou analýzu povinností válčících stran vzhledem ke kulturním ob- jektům. Zkoumání je omezeno časově. Soustředí se na druhou polovinu 19. století, kdy se probudil kodifikační zájem států i nevládních organizací. Key words : culture, war, codification, rule, duty, protection, property, movable and immovable things. About the Author : Prof. JUDr. Dalibor Jílek, CSc. , is a professor of public international law at the Faculty of Law, Pan-European University in Bratislava, at the Faculty of Law, Palacký University in Olomouc, and a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. I. Preface Toman’s life work is in service to international law, especially international humanitarian law. His commendable and above all extensively developed subject is the protection of cultural property in armed conflicts. This article bears in its title the phrase “cultural property”. The term “cultural” had not been contained in a single normative act in the period observed. In the 19th century the term “culture” entered the anthropology as a principal object of research. At the same time, in the nomenclature of the law of war, the adjective was neither shared by protagonists nor attached to the noun “property”. Despite the absence of the phrase in the Lieber Instructions, the Brussels Declaration, the Oxford Manual, or the Hague Regulations, it is used together with the phrase “property of cultural character” in the text. There are simple linguistic and logical reasons for doing so. Roughly explained, the article examines rules recorded in the laws of war or their drafts with respect to the protection of cultural property. One of fundamental principles under the laws of war is that of distinction. The protection of cultural property hinges upon this principle taking here in the broadest sense. This normative vector comes from the moral thesis of distinction. The principle itself is binarily structured and divided towards cultural objects. First, the laws of war contain rules in relation to immovable things such as buildings


Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker