CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE LAWS OF WAR distinguishes not only between public and private property, but also between movable and immovable things. Inter alia , the section concerning rules of conduct as to things. 32 The descriptive part of Article 34 covers only cases of bombardment and not siege. However, the rule should not be construed literally, but in favour of the protection of cultural property under siege as well. The rule obliges the attacker to take all necessary military measures beforehand. Nevertheless, the provision does not specify the nature or scope of such war steps. In the reality of war, military measures depend upon the will and choice of the officer in command. In order to maintain an equilibrium between the demands of war and the protection of cultural property, these objects must not be used directly or indirectly for defence by the besieged. The second condition is the causal possibility, whether the situation even permits the officer to take the necessary measures. Another category of normative balance is the mutual conditionality of the duties of the besieging army and the besieged. The besieged population is under a duty to mark edifices with visible signs and to notify the besieging troops in advance. In the section concerning rules as to property, Article 53 does not regulate the legal forms of the ownership of municipalities or other similar political units, as well as the ownership of religious, charitable, educational and scientific institutions. It is evident that the provision is not based upon a legal fiction. The rule preserves the very nature and function of public property. 33 The rule states that such property may not be seized ( sont insaisissables ). Recognizably, the rule may cause, no doubts, an ambiguous interpretation in relation to the forms of confiscation of cultural property. The rule embedded in the second paragraph of Article 53 strictly ( formellement ) prohibits all destruction, wilful damage to institutions of cultural character, historical monuments, works of art, or science. Furthermore, archives have been added to the collection of protected items. The provision introduces another novelty: it refers to the exception of military necessity. Military necessity was then expounded by Article 14 of the Lieber Instructions. 34 In accordance with this provision, military necessity justified the adoption of those measures, which were not banned by the laws and customs and were indispensable for securing the ends of the war. Military necessity permits a belligerent to use such degree and range of force that enables it to subdue the adversary. IV. Duties in the Hague Regulations The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 responded to a project written in Brussels. Where the Conference of Brussels failed, there the conventions were successfully codified. 32 See Article 34 which states in French: “En cas de bombardement, toutes les mesures nécessaires doivent être prises pour épargner, si faire se peut, les édifices consacrés aux cultes, aux arts, aux sciences et à la bienfaisance, les hôpitaux et les lieux de rassemblement de malades et de blessés, à la condition qu’ils ne soient pas utilisés en même temps, directement ou indirectement, pour la défense. Le devoir de l’assiégé est de désigner ces édifices par des signes visibles, indiqués d’avance à l’assiégeant.” 33 Article 53 states in French: “Les biens des communes et ceux des établissements consacrés aux cultes, à la charité, à l’instruction, aux arts ou aux sciences, sont insaisissables. Toute destruction ou dégradation intentionnelle de semblables établissements, de monuments historiques, d’archives, d’oeuvres d’art ou de science, est formellement interdite, si elle n’est pas impérieusement commandée par les nécessités de la guerre.” 34 Article 14 of the Lieber Instructions states: “Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.”

291