REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ITS TWO (1954 AND 1999) PROTOCOLS 2005 – 2010 2 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 I. Historical Background 4 II. Secretariat’s Activities with respect to the implementation of the Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols (2005 – 2010) 5 III. Cooperation with International Institutions 13 III. (i) Cooperation with the United Nations and NATO 13 III. (ii) Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 14 IV. Specific Country Activities 19 V. Customary Humanitarian International Law (ICRC Study) 23 VI. List of Issues used for the Preparation of National Reports 24 VII. Summary of National Reports 26 VII. (i) National Reports on the Implementation of the Convention, the 1954 (First) Protocol and Resolution II of the Hague Conference 26 VII. (ii) National Reports on the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol 98 Annex I: The Danish National Report on the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention 122 Annex II: Reports on the Implementation of the Second Protocol submitted by States not party to the Second Protocol 124 3 INTRODUCTION Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted at The Hague in 1954 (hereafter “Convention”), stipulates that at least every four years the High Contracting Parties “shall forward to the Director-General a report giving whatever information they think suitable concerning any measures being taken, prepared or contemplated by their respective administrations in fulfilment of the present Convention and of the Regulations for its execution”. The Director-General received reports in 1962, 1965-1966, 1969-1970, 1977-1978, 1984, 1989, 1995 and, following his request, in October 1998. The Director-General then published these reports in the documents: UNESCO/CA/RBC/1/3 and Add. 1-6, SHC/MD/1 dated 19 May 1967; SHC/MD/6 dated 30 April 1970; CC/MD/41 of July 1979; CLT/MD/3 of December 1984; CC/MD/11 of December 1989; CLT-95/WS/13 of December 1995; and CLT- 2005/WS/6 of 2005. In October 2007, the Director-General again invited the High Contracting Parties to forward to him the reports referred to in Article 26 of the Convention. The Director-General also called upon those High Contracting Parties that are also Parties to the Second Protocol to forward a national report on the implementation of the Second Protocol to the Secretariat. A reminder was sent in October 2008. By 31 December 2010, the Director-General had received national reports from Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,1 Lithuania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey.2 The reports from Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland contain information on their national implementation of the Second Protocol.3 The summary of these reports is published in the present document, together with an overview of the Secretariat's activities on the implementation up to 31 December 2010, the date on which this report was finalized. I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Adoption of the Convention 1 A letter from the Liechtenstein Minister of Foreign Affairs dated 21 April 2010 reports that since the submission of Liechtenstein’s last National Report on the Protection of Cultural Property in August 2000, there have been no major changes in the relevant legislation. Liechtenstein is, however, preparing new legislation to implement the Hague Convention and its two Protocols as part of a revision of legislation on the protection of cultural property and will submit a more substantial report reflecting legislative changes as soon as the revision of legislation on the protection of cultural property will have been put into place. This periodic report therefore refers the reader to the Report on the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Two 1954 and 1999 Protocols: Report on the Activities from 1995 to 2004 (CLT-2005/WS/6) concerning the reporting of Liechtenstein. 2 The Danish national report on the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention was received on February 10, 2011. This report has been appended in its entirety in Annex I of this document. 3 Reports containing information on the implementation of the provisions of the Second Protocol were also submitted by four countries not party to the Second Protocol: Latvia, Norway, Poland and Syria. As such, information regarding their reports is included in Annex II: Reports on the implementation of the provisions of the Second Protocol by countries not party to the Second Protocol. As of the date of reporting, Belgium was not party to the Second Protocol; the Second Protocol entered into force three months after Belgium’s deposit of its instrument of ratification on 13 October 2010. As such, information related to Belgium’s implementation of the Second Protocol is also included in Annex II. 4 The Convention and the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereafter “1954 Protocol”) were adopted at an intergovernmental conference convened by the Executive Board of UNESCO in pursuant of a resolution of the General Conference. At the invitation of the Netherlands Government, this Conference was held at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954. All Member States of UNESCO, together with a number of non-Member States, as decided by the Executive Board (33 EX/Decision 8.3.1), were invited to send delegations empowered to sign international agreements. Of the 86 States thus invited, 56 were represented at the Conference. Signature The Convention and Protocol were open for signature (from 14 May to 31 December 1954) to all States invited to the Conference. As of the latter date, the Convention had been signed by 50 States and the Protocol by 40 States. Entry into force In accordance with the ratification requirements of Article 33, the Convention entered into force on 7 August 1956. This is subject, however, to the provisions of Article 33, paragraph 3, which stipulates that ratifications and accessions shall take effect immediately when the States ratifying or acceding are Parties to a conflict as defined in the Convention. States invited to accede Article 32 of the Convention stipulates that, from the date of its entry into force, it shall be open for accession by States that were invited to the Hague Conference, as well as by any other State invited to accede to it by the Executive Board. Availing itself of this clause, the Board adopted at its fifty-third session a resolution inviting all States that were becoming members of UNESCO and had not been invited to the Hague Conference in 1954 to accede to the Convention. As of 31 December 2010, 123 States were party to the Convention, 100 of which were bound by the Protocol and 59 of which were party to the Second Protocol, or had deposited instruments to become party to the Second Protocol. Since the last periodic report (1995 - 2004) on the implementation of the Convention, the following ten States have become party to the Convention: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chad, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Montenegro, New Zealand, Paraguay, the United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivian Republic of). New instruments of acceptance, accession, ratification, or notification of succession of the 1954 (First) Protocol were deposited by: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Japan, Montenegro, Paraguay, Portugal and Saudi Arabia. Finally, the following countries have become party to, or have deposited instruments of acceptance, accession, ratification, or notification of succession o the Second Protocol were deposited by: Armenia, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium,4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,5 Croatia, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia,6, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Jordan, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay,7 Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Uruguay. 4 Belgium deposited its instrument of ratification on 13/10/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 5 Columbia deposited its instrument of accession on 24/11/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 6 Georgia deposited its instrument of accession on 13/09/2010, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 7 Paraguay deposited its instrument of accession 9/11/2004, which entered into force three months after the date of deposit. 5 II. SECRETARIAT’S ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION (2005 – 2010) International List of Persons Article 1 of the Regulations for the Execution of the Convention (hereafter “Regulations”) provides that on the entry into force of the Convention, the Director-General “shall compile an international list consisting of all persons nominated by the High Contracting Parties as qualified to carry out the functions of Commissioner-General for Cultural Property”. In accordance with this article, the list must also be periodically revised pursuant to requests submitted by the High Contracting Parties. Revised lists were published on 24 May 1984, 9 October 1984 and 14 October 1985. The last list was published on 12 September 1986. The review of the Convention which led to the adoption of the Second Protocol has proved the limited efficiency of the system of Commissioners-General, particularly in conflicts that are not of an international character.