The Lawfulness of Destroying Cultural Heritage During Peacetime
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Monumental Challenges: The Lawfulness of Destroying Cultural Heritage During Peacetime Kanchana Wangkeot "It is understandable that the view is sometimes expressed that 'things' are not as important as human beings... and that consideration of the fate of objects should always be secondary to that of the alleviation of human suffering. Yet we at UNESCO are constantly confronted by the pleas of people who are physically suffering to help them save their cultural heritage, for their suffering is greatly increased by the destruction of what is dear to them. Their cultural heritage represents their history, their community, and their own identity. Preservation is sought, not for the sake of the objects, but for the sake of the people for whom they have a meaningful life."' . IN TRO D U CTIO N ............................................................................................................................185 A . C on text................................................................................................................................ 18 5 B . O verview .............................................................................................................................188 1. D efinitions............................................................................................................... 188 2. Significance ............................................................................................................. 189 a. Association/Sym bolism .................................................................................189 b. Information ..................................................................................................190 c. A esthetics...................................................................................................... 190 d . Econom ics ....................................................................................................190 C. Peacetime Threats to the CulturalHeritage ....................................................................... 191 1. Econom ic Developm ent ..........................................................................................191 2. Iconoclasm ..............................................................................................................192 D. Difficulty ofAgreeing on an InternationalNorm ..............................................................192 E. Lack of A uthority on Subject ...............................................................................................195 1. The Rise of Lawmaking on CulturalHeritage ........................................................ 195 2. Dom estic Legislation ..............................................................................................196 3. InternationalConventions and Agreements............................................................ 197 F. M ethodology .......................................................................................................................200 II. CASE 1:THE ASWAN HIGH DAM AND THE THREAT TO ABU SIMBEL AND PHILAE ISLAND (1955- 19 80 ) ........................................................................................................................................... 20 2 A . Introduction .........................................................................................................................202 B . F acts .................................................................................................................................... 202 1. Contex t ....................................................................................................................202 2 . Threa t ......................................................................................................................20 5 3 . R eaction ..................................................................................................................2 06 4 . O utcom e ..................................................................................................................207 C. A nalysis of Claim s ...............................................................................................................209 t J.D., Yale Law School, 2002; A.B., Duke University, 1998; Fulbright Scholar 1998-99. My deepest gratitude to Professor Michael Reisman for his helpful comments and encouragement on previous drafts of this Article. Thank you also to my family for their unerring support, and to the YJIL staff and my Articles Editors, Anya McMurray and Michael Becker for their dedication to this piece. All opinions, omissions, and errors of fact are of course my own. 1. Lyndel V. Prott, Principlesfor the Resolution of Disputes Concerning Cultural Heritage Displaced Duringthe Second World War, in THE SPOILS OF WAR 225 (Elizabeth Simpson ed., 1997). 184 THE YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 28: 183 I. Egypt's Claim.......................................................................................................... 209 2. Counterclaims......................................................................................................... 210 D. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Decision-Making ........................................................... 210 1. Su d a n ....................................................................................................................... 2 11 2. Soviet Union ............................................................................................................ 212 3. United States and Great Britain.............................................................................. 213 E. Appraisal............................................................................................................................. 214 III. CASE 2: CEAUSESCU'S SYSTEMIZATION PROGRAM AND THE THREAT TO ROMANIA'S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE (1971-1989) ............................................................................................................... 215 A. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 215 B. Facts ....................................................................................................................................216 1. Context .................................................................................................................... 216 2 . T h reat ...................................................................................................................... 2 17 3. Reaction .................................................................................................................. 218 4. Outcome .................................................................................................................. 220 C. Analysis of Claims............................................................................................................... 221 1. Ceausescu's Claims ................................................................................................ 221 2. Counterclaims......................................................................................................... 223 D. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Decision-Making ........................................................... 224 1. Hungary ..................................................................................................................224 2. West Germany ......................................................................................................... 225 3. Great Britain........................................................................................................... 225 4. Non-Governmental Organizations.......................................................................... 226 E. Appraisal............................................................................................................................. 227 IV. CASE 3: THE ILISU DAM AND THE THREAT TO HASANKEYF (1982-2002) .................................... 228 A. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 228 B. Facts ....................................................................................................................................228 1. Context ....................................................................................................................228 2. Threat ...................................................................................................................... 230 3. Reaction .................................................................................................................. 232 4. Outcome .................................................................................................................. 234 C. Analysis of Claims............................................................................................................... 235 1. Turkey's Claims ...................................................................................................... 235 2. Counterclaims ......................................................................................................... 237 D. The Role of CulturalHeritage in Decision-Making ........................................................... 238 1. Syria and Iraq ......................................................................................................... 239 2. Non-Governmental Organizations.........................................................................