Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Introduction
War and art. Together. It's actually a really big deal.
Because wars are won when cultures change. The battle might change the victor, but the victor will not win until it successfully balances its political rule with the organic culture of the vanquished.
Cultural property, as the tangible manifestation of culture, plays a critical role in the waging of wars. Sometimes, victors try to crush the culture, as seen in the acts of the Taliban against the famous Buddha statutes. Others, like Alexander the Great simply try to assimilate: that is, merge the cultures of the victors with that of the vanquished.
Eradicate or assimilate? Current international law has developed to favor the latter. Cultural property cannot be targeted by military operations, although like civilians it may be considered collateral damage.
History
In the Western tradition, both the Greeks and the Romans discouraged the destruction of cultural property by armies. More recently, the prohibition of intentionally targeting cultural property during armed conflicts has been codified in the Roerich Pact, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
But good laws don't guarantee good behavior. In fact, the Mostar Bridge incident in the 1990s demonstrates that cultural property is often directly targeted for destruction as a means of conducting warfare. Also, the looting of archaeological sites in Iraq following the demise of Saddam Hussein's rule highlights the complex relationship between the victor and the vanquished. Still, the elaboration of practical and practicable laws is a positive step toward the protection of cultural property. At times, it even works-- US forces refused to bomb some of Hussein's fighter jets because they were parked next to the Ziggurat of Ur.
See Also
* Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
* Geneva Conventions

Main Menu