Content uploaded by Emma Cunliffe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma Cunliffe on Aug 20, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY
IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT:
UNNECESSARY DISTRACTION OR
MISSION-RELEVANT PRIORITY?
OPEN Publications Volume 2 I Number 4 I Summer 2018
DISCLAIMER: OPEN publications are produced by Allied Command Transformation Operational Experimentation; however OPEN
publications are not formal NATO documents and do not represent the official opinions or positions of NATO or individual
nations. OPEN is an information and knowledge management network, focused on improving the understanding of complex
issues, facilitating information sharing and enhancing situational awareness. OPEN products are based upon and link to open-
source information from a wide variety of organisations, research centres, and media sources. However, OPEN does not
endorse and cannot guarantee the accuracy or objectivity of these sources. The intellectual property rights reside with NATO
and absent specific permission OPEN publications cannot be sold or reproduced for commercial purposes. Neither NATO or any
NATO command, organisation, or agency nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may
be made of the information contained therein.
Let us know your thoughts on this report by emailing open@openpublications.org.
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict: Unnecessary Distraction or Mission-
Relevant Priority?
NATO OPEN Publications, July 2018
Editorial Team
Open Contributing Author(s): Emma Cunliffe, Newcastle University / the Blue Shield 1
Paul Fox, Newcastle University / the Blue Shield 2
Peter Stone, Newcastle University / the Blue Shield 3
OPEN Managing Editor: Robin Barnett
OPEN Editorial Review Board: David Beckwith
Sera Gaeta
Tracy Cheasley
1 A Middle Eastern / Syrian archaeologist by background, Dr Emma Cunliffe is a member of the Cultural Property Protection and
Peace team at Newcastle University, where she works to support the Blue Shield network. Their work focuses on the protection
and destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflict, examining the reasons for damage and, and developing proactive
solutions to protect it, with focus on the role of the armed forces, and the implementation of national and international law.
Within this, she specialises in satellite imagery analysis of damage, and in geo-spatial data analysis, developing data capture
methods for heritage protection, and in researching heritage destruction and extremism. After receiving her doctorate from
Durham University, she has worked on a number of large scale damage assessment projects, and as an imagery consultant for
UNOSAT-UNITAR. She is the Secretary for UK Blue Shield, and the Secretariat for Blue Shield International.
2 Dr Paul Fox is a member of the Cultural Property Protection and Peace team at Newcastle University, and a member of the UK
Committee of the Blue Shield, and Blue Shield International, delivering external education and training in cultural property
protection in armed conflict to global audiences. He received his doctorate at University College London and is a historian of
visual culture specialising in the representation of armed conflict. His current research centres on issues relating to the global
protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Previous research included visual representation of battlefield
behaviour in German illustrated histories, 1871-1933; and British imperial cultures of looting and trophy taking (University of
York), on the British Military Encounters with Egypt, 1798—1918 project. He has taught at University College London on the
representation of violence and destruction; the construction of national and gendered identities at war; and the militarisation
of social and geographical landscapes.
3 Professor Peter Stone is the UNESCO Chair in Cultural Property Protection and Peace at Newcastle University, and former
Head of School, as well as serving as Vice President of Blue Shield International, and Chair of the UK Committee of the Blue
Shield. In 2003, Peter was advisor to the UK’s Ministry of Defence regarding the identification and protection of the
archaeological cultural heritage in Iraq. He has remained active in working with the military to develop processes for the better
protection of cultural property in times of conflict. He has written extensively on this topic including co-editing, with Joanne
Farchakh Bajjaly, The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq (2008) and editing Cultural Heritage, Ethics and the Military (2011).
His article ‘The 4 Tier approach’ led directly to the establishment of a Joint Service Cultural Property Protection Unit in UK
forces - to become operational in 2019/20. Peter was awarded an OBE in the 2011 Queen's Birthday Honours List for services to
heritage education.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Historical Background to CPP ................................................................................................................. 2
The Blue Shield .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Why Cultural Heritage Matters ..................................................................................................................... 6
The Importance of Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................ 6
CPP in the Military Mission ....................................................................................................................... 8
Recent Military Activity ............................................................................................................................... 10
CPP: Moving Forward – A New Agenda? .................................................................................................... 11
Safeguarding ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Special and Enhanced Protection ........................................................................................................... 12
The Mission of Control ............................................................................................................................ 13
Training ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Inventories .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18
References .................................................................................................................................................. 19
x
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 2
Introduction
It is inevitable that during armed conflict cultural heritage will be damaged and destroyed. Whilst there
has been widespread consideration of how to protect communities, their heritage has not received the
same consideration. Although their advice was largely ignored, for over 2,500 years military theorists –
from Sun Tzu in 6th century BC China (Sun Tzu 1998) to von Clausewitz in 19th century Europe (von
Clausewitz 1997) – have argued that damaging and destroying the cultural heritage of vanquished
enemies is bad military practice (O’Keefe 2006), highlighting how its destruction and/or pillage can make
occupied communities less easy to control, and can provide justification for the next conflict.
Cultural heritage includes tangible places (such as historic sites and buildings), and moveable artefacts
(like archives, libraries, art, and museum collections). These are collectively often referred to as cultural
property. It also includes intangible remains of the past such as song, dance, and oral traditions
remembered and ‘carried’ by individuals and communities. Intangible cultural heritage can be considered
as part of the wider framework of protecting civilians. However, tangible manifestations of culture, here
"cultural property" (CP)1 are frequently dismissed. This paper questions whether damage and destruction
of cultural property really are inevitable, or whether at least some might be mitigated and avoided if
appropriate action were taken. It begins with the historical background to cultural property protection
(CPP), before introducing the Blue Shield (an NGO that works with the armed forces to protect CP). It
demonstrates why CPP is important to the military, reflects on recent CPP activity, and concludes with
some recommendations.
The Historical Background to CPP
Despite theorists’ advice, CP has been pillaged and destroyed for millennia. The responsibility of victors
to ensure the eventual return of CP to the vanquished was established in the post-Napoleonic settlements
in Europe. The first time intentional damage of CP was specifically prohibited was in the so-called ‘Lieber
Code’ of 1863, during the American Civil War (Miles 2011). Several international treaties followed that
1Although the concept of cultural heritage contains elements of intangible heritage, which is also important to protect, this article
uses cultural property (CP) when referring to military activity, after the definition in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection
of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954HC), and cultural heritage for theoretical discussions.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 3
also prohibited such damage wherever possible2, and some armies tried to follow these new rules.
Despite devastating cultural destruction on the Western Front, the First World War saw some positive
CPP. The Germans created the first specialist CPP team, the Kunstschutz (O’Keefe et al. 2016). In 1917,
after the British Empire’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force occupied Jerusalem, its commander, Allenby,
announced that “every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site … of the three
religions will be maintained and protected” (FirstWorldWar.com 2009). In a thoughtful consideration of
how best to ensure a smooth occupation, Muslim troops from the Indian Army protected the mosques.
This is an excellent example of CPP as good military practice: it took no additional forces (Allenby's troops
all needed something to do), and the outcome would be successful whether it was Indian Army troops
carrying out this duty or their British counterparts. However, the adroit choice showed sensitivity to the
beliefs and values of a large section of the local population and helped in ‘disarming’ those speaking out
against the occupation.
Figure 1: Protection of the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem in 1917. Photo: Courtesy of The Northumberland
Gazette.
2. For example, the Regulations Annexed to the 1907 Hague Conventions IV & IX stipulate some protection for historic
monuments. These regulations underpin customary international law.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 4
In World War II, elements of Axis forces conducted CPP, and the Allies created the Monuments, Fine Arts,
and Archives Commission (MFAA). The so-called ‘Monuments Men’ (and women) of the MFAA protected
thousands of historic buildings, artworks, and artefacts, but sadly the unit was disbanded after the war.
At a political level, however, the international community reacted to the unprecedented destruction by
drafting the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
(1954HC). This expected ratifying States to create their equivalent to the MFAA and set out responsibilities
and practical measures that States and their armed forces should carry out to protect CP. Although the
Convention received 49 State signatures, little was done after the War to continue the MFAA’s work
(although elements were retained within US Civil Affairs units and some European militaries’ J9
capabilities, for example).
Figure 2: Looted artwork stored in Altausse Salt Mine, discovered by the MFAA. Photo by Lieutenants Kern
& Sieber (Lukas Web; Art in Flanders VZW) Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
However, the Convention only applied to States. Following the deliberate targeting of CP during the
internal fighting in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s (Walasek 2015), a Second Protocol was drafted in
1999, which tightened perceived flaws in the original Convention and updated it to deal with Non-
International Armed Conflict (NIAC). Destruction of CP was also prosecuted at the International Criminal
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 5
Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia and included as a war crime in the 1998 Rome Statute for the
International Criminal Court.
Unfortunately, when the USA and UK led the 2003 Coalition invasion of Iraq, neither had ratified the
1954HC or its Protocols: CPP was perceived as an extremely low priority. Fortunately, very little CP was
damaged during the combat phase of the invasion - due more to the lack of resistance from Iraqi forces
than to Coalition forethought. The real damage, however, occurred over the following months and years,
when museums, libraries, archives, galleries, and hundreds of archaeological sites were heavily looted
(Emberling et al. 2008; Stone & Farchakh Bajjaly 2008). The money from the ensuing sales was used,
among other things, to buy weapons3. This failure in CPP planning can be linked to the Coalition’s wider
failure to understand the importance of CP to the social fabric and stability of Iraq, and the key role it
might play in mission success, but also to the apparent disinterest shown by the leading politicians of the
time, and even the wider heritage community, who were largely unprepared.
In 2009, the USA ratified the 1954 Hague Convention (but neither Protocol); and in 2017 the UK ratified it
all. As of Summer 2018, all NATO Member States bar Iceland have ratified the 1954HC; all bar two the
First Protocol (1954); and 23 have signed the Second Protocol (1999), making it applicable in NIAC.
Internationally, the Convention has been ratified by 133 State Parties, and together with its Protocols
(ratified by 111 and 80 State Parties, respectively), it remains the primary international legislation
concerning CPP in the event of armed conflict.
The Blue Shield
The Hague Convention Second Protocol (1999) identifies the Blue Shield as an advisory body to UNESCO
on CPP4. Created in 1996, the Blue Shield is an international NGO working to protect cultural property in
the event of armed conflict and natural disaster5. Its work is focussed primarily on the 1954HC and its
Protocols but sits within the wider context of UN Security Council Resolutions and UNESCO’s strategic
3 According to Col Matthew Bogdanos, a former marine, US Central Command (2003), now head of the Manhattan District
Attorney's Antiquities Unit.
4 Article 11(3), and 27(3)
5 A new website is expected in August 2018: www.theblueshield.org
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 6
agenda6. The Blue Shield sits at the intersection of the heritage community and the armed forces, bringing
the expertise of one to support and enrich the decision making of the other.
This essentially voluntary organisation has nearly 30 national committees, overseen by the Blue Shield
International Board (BSI), and has divided its work into six areas of activity: policy development; proactive
protection and risk preparedness; education, training, and capacity building; supporting emergency
response and armed conflict activity; post-disaster recovery and long-term support; underpinned by co-
ordination (of Blue Shield and with other relevant organisations), all aimed at CPP.
Why Cultural Heritage Matters
The Importance of Cultural Heritage
The Blue Shield’s work is founded on the belief that cultural heritage – tangible and intangible – is a vital
expression of the culture that makes up unique communities, and its loss during conflict and disaster can
be catastrophic. The Preamble to the 1954HC reflected the experiences of World War II:
“The High Contracting Parties, […] Being convinced that 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;
Considering that the preservation of the cultural heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the
world and that it is important that this heritage should receive international protection;”
We value and study culture, particularly the past, to help us understand the present and to help create
the future. Once lost, it is often impossible to replace, denying communities their societal memory by
removing their physical links to a place or idea. This is not to say that such memories are always positive:
memorials and remembered heritage are frequently contested, which can be problematic (Stone &
MacKenzie 1990; Viejo-Rose 2013). However, if important sites are destroyed, problems can follow
(Isakhan 2013; 2018). If the heritage of displaced communities is removed, they are less likely to return
(see examples in Lostal & Cunliffe 2016), thereby cementing the loss of diversity that began when they
6, e.g., UNESCO's cultural conventions, the 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage
and 2016 Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism
in the Event of Armed Conflict.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 7
fled. Destruction of CP also has extensive proven links to genocide (Bevan 2016), both prefiguring it and
as an essential component of it.
Heritage can be so important to communities that attacks can result in increased violence. The Al-Askari
Mosque, Samarra, is one of the holiest shrines in Iraq: it was bombed in 2006. A significant rise in violence,
deaths, and reprisal attacks on heritage followed: the event is credited with moving the conflict in Iraq
from one responding to an international invasion to a largely religious-based civil war (Isakhan 2013).
However, the Blue Shield believes this damage was not inevitable. The mosque left essentially
unprotected reflected a lack of planning and cultural understanding of the significance of the site, the
impact of which ultimately contributed to Coalition forces remaining in Iraq far longer than anticipated.
Conversely, in 2014, Da’esh announced their intent to attack the shrine again: the Iraqi army and Shia
militias mobilised to protect the shrine, pushing ISIS out the city (Isakhan 2018).
Figure 3: the Al-Askari mosque, bombed in 2006. Photo: U.S. Army, via Wikimedia Commons.
Such a lack of planning is one of seven causal factors that contribute to the destruction of CP during
conflict: military lack of awareness; lack of planning; collateral damage; specific targeting / deliberate
damage; spoils of war/pillage; looting; and enforced neglect (Stone 2016). If addressed as part of mission
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 8
planning, mitigating these risks can not only lower the overall threat but can contribute significantly to
eventual mission success.
CPP in the Military Mission
Given this, the Blue Shield believes there are six reasons why CPP should be fully integrated into NATO’s
360-degree awareness approach and planning. First, mission planners, deploying forces and their
commanders must be fully aware of their legal CPP responsibilities: the 1954 Hague Convention and its
Protocols, grounded in the wider Laws of Armed Conflict; the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva
Conventions and the 1998 Rome Statute; international human rights law7; and international customary
law. Without such awareness, there is a clear risk of armed forces acting illegally.
Second, military planners and commanders need awareness of how CP may be used before or during a
conflict as an integral part of political strategy or tactics. Numerous conflicts have demonstrated CP can
be used to target the opposition, from deliberate destruction of CP by all sides fighting in the former
Yugoslavia (Walasek 2015) to the targeted destruction of ancient sites, religious buildings and religious
minorities by Da’esh (Danti et al. 2017; Isakhan & Gonzalez Zarandona 2018; Melc ˇÁk & ˇEj Beránek
2017). Such destruction can be used to widen sectarian divisions and increase recruitment for extremist
groups and the militias fighting against them, prolonging conflict (Cunliffe and Curini in press; Isakhan
2018). In addition, groups like Da’esh deliberately use cultural property to shield activities, hoping to
utilise its protected status to discourage attacks against them (e.g., Danti et al. 2016, p107). CP clearly
has significant potential to impinge on military operations, and its destruction may count as prosecutable
war crimes (e.g., Walasek 2015; Bokova 2015).
Third, whilst the looting of CP has almost certainly occurred since war was first waged, it appears to have
become a more organised and important aspect of modern warfare. Several UN Security Council
resolutions8 identify looting as an important contributory element to the funding of armed non-state
actors (ANSAs). Claims vary; no-one knows how much funding looting raises – but it is almost certainly in
the millions of US dollars and is widely considered to contribute to the purchase of weapons. Although
7 Access to cultural heritage is a universal human right according to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
(UNHROHC 2018).
8 1483 [2003]; 2199 [2015]; 2347 [2017]; and 2368 [2017].
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 9
most reports highlight the ANSA organised nature of such looting (e.g., Fanusie & Joffe 2015), others
highlight the poverty of many looters, and the underlying “coping economy” (Brodie & Sabrine 2017). As
such, armed forces should take the issue seriously, but also tread with care.
Fourth, armed forces now frequently find themselves tasked to help deliver an economically viable and
stable post-conflict country before they can withdraw—in other words, the victor(s) must also win the
peace (Hammes 2004). Cultural tourism can be an important element of post-conflict economies: it
creates jobs and businesses, diversifies local economies, attracts high-spending visitors, and generates
local investment in historic resources. A recent World Bank report noted the “highly valuable cultural
endowments in all the [the Middle East and North Africa] region’s countries” opened up “major
opportunities for development, providing a major source of employment, and thereby contributing to the
reduction of poverty and the decrease of chronic joblessness” (World Bank 2001, p vii). CP is perceived to
be at the heart of the region’s economic development. Allowing its destruction can undermine economic
recovery, potentially contributing to longer military deployments.
Lastly, CPP can be deployed as soft power or a ‘force-multiplier.' There are recent examples where
Western troops failed to conduct CPP effectively and antagonised local populations, in some instances
leading to an escalation of hostilities and casualties (e.g., Corn 2005; Curtis 2004; Phillips 2009). However,
there are also excellent examples. For example, the Kandahar Airport Rose Garden in Afghanistan was
proposed as an airport expansion site. “Had NATO personnel failed to listen to representatives of the local
population and destroyed the rose garden at Kandahar Airfield, it would have created extreme hard
feelings, and possibly compromised their own force protection” (Rush nd, p18). Proactive action during
missions is also possible. In Libya in 2011, the Blue Shield facilitated a CP list for NATO to protect if possible
(Kane 2013). Loyalists of President Gadhafi parked six communications and radar vehicles at a listed
Roman building (Ras Almargeb) and identified as a target. As the site was on the no-strike list,
weaponeering options were reviewed, and precision weapons rather than a large weapon was chosen
thereby destroying the vehicles whilst protecting the site.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 10
Figure 4: Ras Almargeb, where forces loyal to President Gadhafi stationed vehicles hoping they would not
be targeted because of the proximity to the site. All six were destroyed leaving the building virtually
untouched. Photo: Karl Habsburg
Recent Military Activity
Recent widespread media coverage of heritage destruction has brought CPP back to the forefront of
politics and policy, leading to a surge in ratifications of the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols9, and
many armed forces have begun to consider their CPP responsibilities. CPP now features in military
conferences in, for example, Germany, the UK, the USA, Australia, the Pacific islands, and elsewhere.
Although these have provided useful explorations of the issue, arguably they have had little practical
impact on military doctrine, strategy, or tactics. Reflecting the international interest in CP, there have
also been several CPP publications for – and by – the Armed Forces (Foliant & CCOE 2015; CDEF Division
of Doctrine 2015; O’ Keefe et al. 2016).
9 In 2017-2018, 6 more countries signed the Convention, 7 signed the First Protocol, and 11 signed the Second Protocol.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 11
The positive CPP media coverage in Operation Unified Protector in Libya (2011) led NATO to conduct an
internal review of practice, which recommended the development of a NATO CPP doctrine (NATO 2012).
NATO has completed a two-year project examining CPP best practice in NATO operations (Rosén 2017)
and dedicated a special issue of the NATO Legal Gazette to CPP (NATO 2017). As of yet, doctrine has not
materialised, but a Centre of Excellence is now under consideration that would include CPP, and a draft
CPP Directive is in review at strategic levels within NATO.
At the national level, some forces have taken more proactive steps (Rush 2010). In some countries, like
the USA, heritage professionals work with the Department of Defense (DoD) to support troops and the
military mission by developing reference, education, and training tools. The USA and Switzerland both
conduct regular CPP training for military personnel but have no dedicated CP staff. Austria maintains
reservist CPP Officers. The MINMUSA peacekeeping mandate for Mali includes “support for cultural
preservation”: soldiers are tasked to protect Mali’s World Heritage mosques. In Lebanon, the national
armed forces set-up a CPP unit following discussions with local archaeologists. An initial training
workshop was carried out in June 2013 in association with UNESCO and the Blue Shield, with a second
organised for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. Following ratification of the 1954HC, the UK is establishing
a new joint service reservist unit (operational by 2020) – a 21st-century version of the MFAA.
Perhaps the most impressive practical response has been Italy’s creation of the Carabinieri Tutela
Patrimonio Culturale (TPC) (Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Property), a
military/police organisation created in 1969 and dedicated to CPP (Rush & Millington 2015). The
Carabinieri work primarily in Italy, but have also deployed overseas during armed conflict (e.g., Parapetti
2008; Russell 2008) and have trained other nations’ armed forces in CPP. The Carabinieri showcases the
way forward: a partnership between the military and heritage community supported by politicians aware
of the importance of CP to the economy and community well-being. There is a case for such a partnership
in NATO to deliver CPP in missions in the future.
CPP: Moving Forward – A New Agenda?
Ratification of the 1954HC does not equal implementation, and the operational implications of the
Convention and Protocols – and its interaction with LOAC, which underpins it – have yet to be thoroughly
tested; nor is there widespread awareness of CPP responsibility at all levels. Although usually considered
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 12
a wartime Convention for the armed forces, it also contains measures directed at States, and peacetime
activities for both. The Convention (and Protocols) are dependent on three pillars: the implementation
of safeguarding measures in peacetime; the use of the regimes of Special and Enhanced Protection; and
the Mission of Control. These all require appropriate training and enduring awareness. To this, we can
add inventories, which underpin CPP.
Safeguarding
Article 3 of the 1954HC directs States to “prepare in time of peace for the safeguarding of cultural property
[…] against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict.” Article 5 (Second Protocol) clarifies this
obligation to include “the preparation of inventories, the planning of emergency measures for protection
against fire or structural collapse, the preparation for the removal of movable cultural property or the
provision for adequate in situ protection of such property, and the designation of competent authorities.”
Although many state-run cultural institutions require disaster planning, many privately-run institutions
(and some national state-run institutions in some parts of the world) lack such plans. For example,
although the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums instituted numerous new security
measures when the current conflict broke out, few of their regional staff had any formal training in
disaster planning, and few of their institutions had disaster plans, necessitating emergency workshops
organised by international heritage organisations.
Such planning is best conducted in partnership with security and emergency services, who can advise on
threats and corresponding mitigation measures. For example, the Discovery Museum in Newcastle-Upon-
Tyne, UK, exhibits a working Challenger II tank by the entrance. A training exercise by the UK Committee
of the Blue Shield with the UK’s Defence Cultural Specialist Unit identified the tank as a legitimate target,
something not previously considered by the museum. Partnerships are essential to appropriate threat
identification and mitigation.
Special and Enhanced Protection
The 1954HC applies to “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of
every people” (article 1). There is an excellent debate about what this constitutes (Chamberlain 2013;
Stone 2003; Toman 1996), with some nations’ inventories containing less than 100 sites, ranging to the
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 13
UK’s list which is estimated at more than 15,000 sites10. However, prioritisation is an inherent part of
conflict: sometimes choices must be made. The Convention directly equates value to the level of
command required to authorise a strike against CP: targeting sites under general protection requires
authorisation by a Battalion commander. However, the Convention also recommends that a limited
number of locations of very great importance be placed under Special Protection (subject to certain
conditions, such as military non-use). These sites require a Divisional commander to authorise targeting.
The Second Protocol (1999) brought in an additional regime, for sites of the most vital importance to
humanity, which require authorisation from the Force Commander. For many reasons (see Chamberlain
2013) few sites have been placed on the International Register of Cultural Property under Special
Protection, and there has been little uptake of Enhanced Protection11. However, prioritisation is
fundamental to the successful operation of the Convention in conflict and requires high-level awareness
of command responsibility. Partnership between the military and the heritage community is again
essential: military commanders are not able to assess value but are authorised and required to act based
on these distinctions to ensure mission success, so understanding CPP is on the critical path of
commanders.
The Mission of Control
The third pillar of the Convention is the Mission of Control. This lays out a system to supervise the
application of the Convention and to ensure the protection of CP by nominating national and international
personnel who then act within a designated framework of responsibilities. The system has been little
used: Chamberlain notes potential reasons but indicates the role of the personnel in “securing observance
of the Convention should not be underestimated” (2013, p75). BSI recently tested the system during
10 In 2017, the UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport issued implementation guidance (Available
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-cultural-property-in-the-event-of-armed-conflict).
The categories of sites included are on Page 6. Although the list is not available, using open source data UK Blue
Shield estimates more than 15,000 sites are included.
11 International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/protection/special-protection/
International List of Cultural Property Under Enhanced Protection:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/protection/enhanced-protection/
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 14
NATO’s Exercise Trident Jaguar (2018). It was considered highly successful, and extremely useful. To
continue this applicability in NIAC, the Second Protocol emphasises the role of the Intergovernmental
Committee in monitoring compliance.
Figure 5: BSI staff on NATO Exercise Trident Jaguar, 2018, roleplaying as the 1954HC-mandated
Commissioner General for CPP, meeting the Commanding General. Photo: Blue Shield International
Training
During peace, the armed forces should also introduce military regulations or instructions to ensure
observance of the Convention, and “foster […] a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of
all peoples” (1954HC Article 7). CPP training is essential regardless of command level, or role, or mission
phase. General CPP awareness should be ongoing (before NATO Crisis Management Process Phase 1) but
should be bolstered by mission-specific training pre-deployment (Phase 3 Response Options
Development) (Rush 2010; Stone 2013). Practical exercises, written into scenarios at the outset, are key
to the generation of realistic CP challenges requiring detailed planning by the training audience in line
with the core imperatives of the 1954HC.
CPP training should address the fact that CP poses a significant information operations challenge (the
failure of which was witnessed in Iraq in 2003, and successfully addressed in Libya in 2011), and that CPP
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 15
goes far beyond the integration of a received CP inventory into the ‘no-strike’ list. BSI involvement in
Exercise TRIDENT JAGUAR 18 (TRJR18) indicated that to enable best practice in operational planning
requires a depth of knowledge and experience that goes beyond annual awareness training. Proactive
training is needed to understand operational implications, legal compliance in practice, and the
ramifications of CP exploitation in armed conflict to ensure effective CPP implementation during
operations.
In addition, specific training, such as emergency evacuation procedures, can be beneficial. The Syrian army
gave real emergency assistance evacuating the Palmyra museum just hours before Da’esh overran the
site. The Smithsonian Institution recently ran disaster emergency evacuation training: “The […] organizers
did not make it easy: The museum’s collection was scattered and uncatalogued, the staff were largely
absent, [a] reporter was snooping around for dirt, and the museum’s director was [engaged in personal
looting]. To successfully evacuate the museum, the team would have to navigate egos, bureaucracies, and
public opinion—plus move dozens of fragile objects” (Zhang 2017). Similarly, in a recent UK Blue Shield
exercise for their Defence Cultural Specialist Unit, syndicates had to conduct a CP estimate, reconnoitre
the situation (a briefed museum), establish threats, work their way through possible courses of action,
and recommend one in a commander’s decision brief. Such training is best done during peacetime while
building partnerships with the heritage community.
Inventories
“The most fundamental preconditions to protecting cultural property during hostilities are to identify what
and where the cultural property to be protected is and to communicate this information effectively to
those engaged in the planning and execution of military operations.” (O’ Keefe et al. 2016, p23). Likewise,
the 2017 NATO and Cultural Property report12 “recommends that NATO establish a NATO CPP framework”
(Rosén 2017: 9) and that a “CPP data layer [i]s a critical decision support tool and precondition for
engaging […] on a strategic and tactical level” (Rosén 2017: 33).
12 The NATO and Cultural Property report (Rosén 2017) is the final report from the ‘Best Practices for Cultural Property Protection
in NATO-led Military Operations’ Project, NATO Science for Peace and Security.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 16
However, few States have prepared site inventories, some from disinterest, and some out of concern that
they will be used for targeting (as happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina). Some States lack the underlying data
to populate inventories. New work by NATO staff in partnership with BSI has identified globally applicable
standards for data, for example highlighting the importance of polygon extents as a best practice, rather
than more traditional centre points13. In addition, they note the distinction between legal protection and
community significance: experience shows that State-listed CP may miss sites of community significance
which can still have significant effects in theatre. Such lists are inherently based on value judgments of
what is "of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people," a determination the armed forces
are rarely if ever, equipped to make. This work is best conducted when supported by heritage
professionals in a format suited for military need. However, the practical task of inventory data capture
and validation – which experience from Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen has shown to be extremely time-
consuming – remains unaddressed. Despite the pressing need for inventory data, few States have
dedicated resources to its collection.
13 A single centre point is frequently used to identify an entire site. A polygon is a shape that is drawn to indicate a boundary. This
can encompass the outside edges of a site, but additional polygons can be drawn within that to identify the extent of features
within the site – for example, drawing the boundary of the Tentative World Heritage site Babylon - Cultural Landscape and
Archaeological City (which would encompass all the buried remains), and then additional polygons can be drawn delineate
individual features such as temples.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 17
Figure 6: Babylon archaeological site, Iraq. Red indicates approximate site extent, and the visible (above
ground) archaeological and reconstructed areas. Large parts are still buried and may not be identified
without expert input. Digital Globe satellite image, 10/08/2004, via Google Earth.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 18
Conclusion
The destruction of cultural heritage, once considered inevitable and unavoidable, has now come to the
forefront of issues of concern to contemporary armed forces. The importance of heritage to communities
is becoming more clearly understood, as are the consequences of destruction. CPP then is not a luxury,
but an essential part of a modern mission, underpinned by moral, strategic, and legal imperatives. By
identifying the risks to CP, they can be mitigated to aid in the achievement of mission success.
The 1954 Hague Convention is a focussed legal framework, based on real military experience after World
War II, which identifies measures for the armed forces to protect CP within the laws of armed conflict and
the bounds of military necessity. The Convention has received such widespread uptake that many parts
are now viewed as customary international law. However, challenges remain in moving implementation
beyond the creation of no-strike lists. Even in such lists, questions of what should be included, who gets
to choose, and where the data comes from remain to be addressed. However, proactive CPP requires
comprehensive, cross-cutting approaches that address the nuances of the Convention and its Protocols,
and developing a practical understanding of its application, supported by a high-level awareness of CP
responsibility. This is best achieved through close teamwork with governments, heritage professionals,
and NGOs like the Blue Shield, established and developed during peace, to prepare for the event of armed
conflict and emergency disaster response.
“Why do we feel more pain looking at the image of the destroyed bridge than the image of massacred
people? Perhaps because we see our own mortality in the collapse of the bridge. We expect people to
die; we count on our lives to end. The destruction of a monument to civilisation is something else. The
bridge in all its beauty and grace was built to outlive us; it was an attempt to grasp eternity … A dead
woman is one of us – but the bridge is all of us forever."
- Croatian writer Slavenka Drauliç in Bevan (2006, p26).
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 19
References
Bevan, R. (2016). The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. Reaktion Books.
Bokova, I. (2015). UNESCO Director General condemns destruction of Nimrud in Iraq. UNESCO World
Heritage Centre News, 6 March 2015. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1244
[accessed 29/6/18]
Brodie, N., & Sabrine, I. (2017) The Illegal Excavation and Trade of Syrian Cultural Objects: A View from
the Ground, Journal of Field Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2017.1410919
CDEF Division of Doctrine. (2015) Handbook on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict. PFT 5.3.2 (EMP 50.655). Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/EMP-EN-Edition2015.pdf
Chamberlain, K. (2013). War and Cultural Heritage. A commentary on the Hague Convention 1954 and
tis Two Protocols. Institute of Art and Law.
Corn, G. (2005). “Snipers in the Minaret: What is the rule?” The law of war and the protection of cultural
property: a complex equation, The Army Lawyer, July 2005, 28-40
Cunliffe, E., & Curini, L. (forthcoming 2018). ISIS and heritage destruction: A sentiment analysis,
Antiquity
Curtis, J. (2004) Report on Meeting at Babylon 11th – 13th December 2004. Available at:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/BabylonReport04.pdf [accessed 29/6/2018]
Danti, M, Cuneo, A., Penahco, Gabriel, M., Kaercher, K., O’Connell, J., Zettler, R., & Jabuuri, A. (2016).
ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and
Iraq. NEA-PSHSS-14-001. Weekly Report 117–118 — November 1-15, 2016. Available at:
http://www.asor-syrianheritage.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/ASOR_CHI_Weekly_Report_117%E2%80%93118r.pdf [accessed
29/06/2018]
Danti, M., Branting, S., & Penacho, S. (2017). The American Schools of Oriental Research Cultural
Heritage Initiatives: Monitoring Cultural Heritage in Syria and Northern Iraq by Geospatial
Imagery. Geosciences 7 (95), DOI: 10.3390/geosciences7040095
Emberling, G., Hanson, K., & Gibson, M. (2008). Catastrophe! The Looting and Destruction of Iraq’s Past.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Available at:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp28.pdf
Fanusie, Y. J., & Joffe, A. (2015). Monumental Fight Countering the Islamic State’s Antiquities
Trafficking. Centre for Sanctions and Illicit Finance: Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Available at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/yaya-j-fanusie-monumental-fight-
countering-the-islamic-states-antiquities-trafficking/
Firstworldwar.com. 2009. Primary Documents - Sir Edmund Allenby on the Fall of Jerusalem, 9
December 1917. Available at: http://firstworldwar.com/source/jerusalem_allenbyprocl.htm
[accessed 29/05/2018]
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 20
Foliant, Y, & Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence. (CCOE). 2015. Cultural Property Protection
Makes Sense: A Way to Improve Your Mission. Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence.
Available at: https://www.cimic-coe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CPP-Makes-Sense-final-
version-29-10-15.pdf
Kane, S. (2013). Lessons Learned from Libya. SAA Archaeological Record 13(3), 9-14. Available at:
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=160407&article_id=1409619&view=articleBrowser
&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:160407,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:
%221409619%22}
Hammes, T. X. (2004). The Sling and The Stone: On War in the 21st Century. Zenith Press, St Paul, MN.
Isakhan, B. (2013). Heritage destruction and spikes in violence: the Case of Iraq. In Kila, J. and Zeidler, J
(eds). Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs. Brill, 237-238
Isakhan, B. (2018). The Islamic State attacks on Shia holy sites and the "shrine protection narrative":
threats to sacred space as a mobilization frame. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1-25
DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2017.1398741
Isakhan, B., & Gonzalez Zarandona, J. (2018). Layers of religious and political iconoclasm under the
Islamic State: symbolic sectarianism and pre-monotheistic iconoclasm, International Journal of
Heritage Studies 24(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1325769
Lostal, M & Cunliffe, E. (2016) Cultural heritage that heals: factoring in cultural heritage discourses in the
Syrian peacebuilding process, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 7(2-3), 248-
259. DOI: 10.1080/17567505.2016.1172781
Melc ˇÁk, M., & ˇEj Beránek, O. (2017) ISIS’s Destruction of Mosul’s Historical Monuments: Between
Media Spectacle and Religious Doctrine, International Journal of Islamic Architecture 6(2), 389-
415. DOI: 10.1386/ijia.6.2.389_1
Miles, M. (2011) Still in the aftermath of Waterloo: a brief history of decisions about restitution. In:
Stone, P.G. (ed.) Cultural heritage, ethics and the military. Woodbridge: Boydell, 29–42.
NATO. (2012). Cultural property protection in the Operations Planning Process. Unclassified Report.
NATO's Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre, Lisbon, Portugal.
NATO. (2017). Cultural Property Protection: NATO and other Perspectives, NATO Legal Gazette 38
(September 2017). Available at:
http://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/doclibrary/legal_gazette_38.pdf
O’Keefe, R. (2006). The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
O’Keefe, R., Péron, C., Musayev, T., & Ferrari, G. (2016) Protection of Cultural Property Military Manual.
UNESCO and the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002466/246633e.pdf
Parapetti, R. (2008) The contribution of the Centro Scavi di Torino to the reconstruction of Iraqi
antiquities. In: Stone, P. G. & Farchakh Bajjaly, J. The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq.
Woodbridge, Boydell, 229-234.
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 21
Phillips, M. (2009). Learning a Hard History Lesson in 'Talibanistan', The Wall Street Journal May 13,
2009. Available at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124224652409516525.html#articleTabs_slideshow%26articleTa
bs%3Darticle [accessed 6 May 2016]
Rosén, F., & Rush, L. (2017). NATO AND CULTURAL PROPERTY. Embracing New Challenges in the Era of
Identity Wars. Nordic Centre for Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict, and the NATO Science for
Peace and Security Programme.
Rush, L. (Nd). Cultural Property Protection as a Force Multiplier: Implementation For All Phases of a
Military Operation.
Rush, L. (2010). Archaeology, Cultural Property and the Military. Boydell and Brewer.
Rush, L. & Millington, L. B. (2015). The Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Property
Saving the World's Heritage. Woodbridge: Boydell.
Russell, J. (2004) Efforts to Protect Archaeological Sites and Monuments in Iraq, 2003-2004. In:
Emberling, G., & Hanson, K. (eds). CATASTROPHE! The Looting and Destruction of Iraq’s Past.
Oriental Institute Museum Publications No. 28. The Oriential Institute, Chicago, 29-44.
Available at:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp28.pdf
Stone, P.G. (2003). War and Heritage. Using Inventories to Protect Cultural Property. Conservation
Perspectives: the Getty Conservation Institute. Fall 2013. Available at:
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/28_2/war_heritage.ht
ml [accessed 28/6/2018]
Stone, P.G. (2013). A four-tier approach to the protection of cultural property in the event of armed
conflict, Antiquity 87, 166-177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00048699
Stone, P. G. (2016) The challenge of protecting heritage in times of armed conflict, Museum
International 67(1-4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/muse.12079
Stone, P. G., & MacKenzie, R. (1990). The Excluded Past: archaeology in education. London and New
York, Routledge.
Stone, P.G. & Farchakh-Bajjaly J. (2008). The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq, Woodbridge,
Suffolk: Boydell Press.
Sun Tzu, (1998 edn), The Art of War, translated by T Cleary, Boston and London, Shambhala
Toman, J. (1996). The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Dartmouth:
UNESCO Publishing. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/monographs/11/
UNHROHC. (2018). The intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights.
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner website. Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/CulturalRights/Pages/IntentionalDestruction.aspx [accessed
29/6/2018]
Viejo-Rose, D. (2013). Reconstructing Heritage in the Aftermath of Civil War: Re-Visioning the Nation
and the Implications of International Involvement. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding
7(2), 125-148. DOI: 10.1080/17502977.2012.714241
OPEN Publications
The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 22
von Clausewitz, C. (1997). On War, Wordsworth Editions, Ware (first published in 1832 as Vom Kreige)
Walasek, H. (2015). Bosnia and the Destruction of Cultural Heritage. Surrey: Ashgate
World Bank. (2001). Cultural Heritage and Development: A Framework for Action in the Middle East and
North Africa, Washington, World Bank. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/406981468278943948/Cultural-heritage-and-
development-a-framework-for-action-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa
Zhang, S. (2017). What It's Like to Evacuate a Museum in a Natural Disaster, The Atlantic 14 Dec 2017.
Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/museum-
evacuation/547514/ [accessed 28/6/2018]
Images:
Figure 1. Protection of the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem in 1917
Photo: Courtesy of The Northumberland Gazette
(out of copyright and email from NG agrees use for publication)
Figure 2: Looted artwork stored in Altausse Salt Mine, discovered by the MFAA. Photo by Lieutenants
Kern & Sieber (Lukas Web; Art in Flanders VZW) Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 3: the Al-Askari mosque, bombed in 2006. Photo: U.S. Army, via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 4: Ras Almargeb, where forces loyal to President Gadhafi stationed vehicles hoping they would
not be targeted because of the proximity to the site. All six were destroyed leaving the building
virtually untouched.
Photo: Karl Habsburg - General permission for use granted by KH to the authors
Figure 5: BSI staff on NATO Exercise Trident Jaguar, 2018, roleplaying as the 1954HC-mandated
Commissioner General for CPP, meeting the Commanding General.
Photo: Blue Shield International
Figure 6: Babylon archaeological site, Iraq. Red indicates the visible (above ground) archaeological and
reconstructed areas, and site extent. Large parts are still buried, and not always identified
without expert input.
Digital Globe image, 10/08/2004, via Google Earth.
x