Hague Convention

What is the 1954 Hague Convention?

“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.”

-1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Recently, the 1954 Hague Convention has been in the news. When political leaders use the threat of destroying another culture’s historical property, it requires everyone to pause and reflect on the larger picture. What are our highest goals and are our current actions in harmony with those goals? 

The history behind the 1954 Hague Convention begins with lessons learned near the end of the Second World War and the resulting Nuremberg Trials. Near the end of the war, Allied forces recognized the risk to artworks confiscated from persecuted groups in Germany and occupied territories. This “acquisition” of artworks by the Nazi regime was not deemed illegal at the time, despite the loss and destruction of cultural heritage. Therefore, the “Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Disposition Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control” (1943 London Declaration) was issued to specifically put countries on notice that the subsequent sale of these looted art objects would not be recognized AFTER the end of hostilities. We are still dealing with these issues. As recent as 2012, German authorities uncovered 1,400 looted paintings and drawings in the apartment of the heir of a former art dealer appointed by the Nazi politician Joseph Goebbels. (We will address this case and art looted by the Nazis more in depth in later posts.)    

But what to do DURING a war? A few years after the Nuremberg Trials, the international community worked to address this matter specifically and the 1954 Hauge Convention was created. It was the first binding, specialist multiparty agreement for the protection of cultural property during war. It covers cultural heritage that can include: archaeology sites, works of art, books, scientific collections and archives (Article 1). Basically, it states that High Contracting Parties (countries that are required to abide by the rules even if other countries are not) are not allowed to act in retaliation against cultural property and must “prohibit, prevent and stop the theft, pillage and any acts of vandalism directed towards cultural heritage during an armed conflict” (Article 4). 

Armed conflict is fairly self-explanatory and includes wars (although a declaration of war is not necessary for inclusion) as well as military actions (although the group engaged in conflict need not be understood as a recognized government military force). For us, the term cultural property warrants the deepest consideration.  Cultural property is defined by the Hague Convention as “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people…” (Article 1) but importantly reflects that community’s skills, beliefs, personality, and more. Because of all these traits, cultural property is usually most near and dear to a group of people. Moreover, when a person or a country threatens to specifically destroy another’s cultural property it implies a denial of their right to recognition, respect, and history. Destroying their property is a form of stealing culture.

The list of the nation states that have signed in agreement to the 1954 Hague Convention can be found at http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13637&language=E. That 133 nation states have signed is a testament to the importance of these ideals. However, one should also consider the year a nation signed as well as the type of instrument chosen. Not all countries act as though The Convention applies to them in the same way they would have it apply to others. 

View the images and video of the destruction of the colossal Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan in 2001 by the Taliban government. These were no ordinary statues. Bamiyan was one of Afghanistan’s most important cultural sites and named “the Place of Shining Light.”  The intentional destruction of these statues underscores the fragility of these protective systems and the need for support processes that would help deter and respond effectively. All in all, even the mere threat of destruction of cultural sites has long reaching moral and legal consequences. 

IMAGE: The Blue Shield is the internationally recognized symbol that identifies cultural property subject to protection during armed conflict.