AIA Condemns Threats to Cultural Heritage Sites in Iran

The Archaeological Institute of America has issued the following statement:

AIA Statement Condemning Intentional Targeting Of Iranian Cultural Heritage Sites

The AIA, an advocate for the preservation of the world's archaeological heritage, condemns any intentional targeting of Iranian cultural heritage sites in unequivocal terms. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the U.S. Department of Defense's Law of War Manual prohibit the intentional destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflict except in situations when targeting is imperative for a legitimate military goal. The AIA calls upon President Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense to protect civilians and cultural heritage in Iran, and to reaffirm that U.S. military forces will comply only with lawful military orders.

Lord Ashton on the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill

Heritage Alliance, 2016 © David Gill

Lord Ashton used the Heritage Alliance "Heritage Day" on 1 December 2016 to draw attention to the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill that is currently moving its way through Parliament. In his speech (available here from DCMS) he noted:

I have responsibility in the House of Lords for the passage of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill. It will protect cultural property at home and abroad; introduces the Blue Shield – an emblem which is the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross; and makes it a prosecutable offence to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property from an occupied territory. 

More than six decades after signing it, we will become the first Permanent Member of the UN Security Council to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols.

Lord Ashton also answered some questions.

For some of the themes of the "Heritage Day" see here.

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill

Photo: David Gill

The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [pdf] will have its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 31 October 2016 (see timetable).

The Bill will "enable the United Kingdom to implement the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and the Protocols to that Convention of 1954 and 1999".

The House of Commons Library analysis (25 October 2016) can be found here.

The aims of the Bill are as follows:

• create offences to protect cultural property (as defined by the Convention) in the event of armed conflict 
• create offences relating to the unauthorised use of the “Blue Shield” – the emblem used to identify cultural property protected under the Convention and its Protocols 
• make it an offence to deal in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory 
• introduce immunity from seizure for cultural property which is being transported to, or through, the UK for safekeeping

There has been considerable discussion and debate through the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Cultural Heritage.

The UK Intends to Ratify the Hague Convention

© David Gill

The Queen's Speech today highlighted legislation for the year ahead (BBC May 18, 2016). This highlights:

Cultural Property Bill (UK-wide) 

• The UK to ratify the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict

• Dealing in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory to be made criminal offence 

• Property protected under the convention and its protocols to be identified by new Blue Shield

The briefing notes for the speech identify this as the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill. It identifies the main elements as:

The Bill would introduce a number of measures that would enable the UK to ratify the [Hague] Convention and its two Protocols: 

● Introduction of offences designed to protect cultural property in the event of an armed conflict at home and abroad. These include an offence of making such property the object of attack. 

● Introduction of the Blue Shield as an emblem that signifies cultural property protected under the Convention and its two Protocols. 

● Introduction of an offence of dealing in cultural property that has been illegally exported from occupied territory and a provision for such property to be seized and returned to the occupied territory after the close of hostilities, where appropriate. 

● Introduction of immunity from seizure for cultural property in the UK which is being transported for safekeeping during a conflict between two or more other states.

Clearly some of the driving force behind the proposed legislation relates to the present conflict in Syria and northern Iraq.