Skip to content
Skip to main content

About this free course

Download this course

Share this free course

The ethics of cultural heritage
The ethics of cultural heritage

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

3.1 Applying Hague Convention Guidelines

The animation below gives an overview of the structure of the 1954 Hague Convention and the various methods through which it promotes respect for cultural heritage.

Download this video clip.Video player: Video 3
Copy this transcript to the clipboard
Print this transcript
Show transcript|Hide transcript
Video 3
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

As indicated in the above video, the Convention is complex, and sets out a number of different obligations for the states which have signed up to it. For instance, during peacetime, states are expected to make necessary preparations to ensure that the significant cultural heritage in their territory can be safeguarded. This includes creating inventories listing all significant heritage and plans for the emergency protection of that heritage.

The Convention also includes details of how states can register their heritage and how it should be marked. The lowest level of protection is offered to heritage of ‘great importance’ to the people and should be labelled with the Blue Shield (Figure 7). The middle level of protection is offered only to heritage of ‘very great importance’ to the people and should be labelled with three Blue Shield emblems arranged in a triangle. Finally, the highest level of protection is offered only to heritage which is of ‘greatest importance to humanity’ and should be labelled with the Blue Shield outlined in red (Figure 8).

This is a colour photo of the Blue Shield emblem. It shows the emblem attached to a stone wall and labelled in German. The logo takes the shape of a pointed shield divided by two intersecting diagonal lines, which create three triangles at the top of the shield and a single square at the bottom. The square and top triangle are light blue, while the two side triangles are white.
Figure 7 A Blue Shield emblem in Salzburg, Austria
This is a graphical representation, titled Regimes of value: Hague Convention & 2nd Protocol. A main central triangle has ‘Enhanced Protection’ at the top, ‘Special Protection’ located centrally, and ‘Protection’ at the bottom. There is a rectangle at the base of the triangle which reads ‘No conflict protection under HC1954, though some under other legal frameworks. On the right-hand side of the diagram are the Blue Shield International categories. On the left are the Value in the Convention/Second Protocol groupings.
Figure 8 Structure of the Hague Convention regulations called Blue Shield International

During wartime, the primary and main directive of the Convention is that state parties must refrain from directing any hostile attack towards cultural heritage protected by the treaty. It is impermissible to deliberately fire on, assault or damage cultural heritage. However, the Convention stipulates that such action may become permissible in cases of ‘imperative military necessity’. More specifically, some cultural sites or buildings may be directly targeted as long as:

  • That property has been made into a military objective. This means that the heritage is effectively contributing to the enemy’s military activities and attacking it would grant the attacking force a military advantage. For instance, if the enemy are using the building to store their weapons, or have stationed a sniper in a tower.
  • There is no feasible way of achieving the same military advantage without attacking the heritage.
  • The enemy have been warned that the attack is imminent, so that they have the opportunity to stop using the cultural heritage, if possible.
  • The attack has been authorised by an appropriately high-ranking commander, if circumstances permit. (This must be at least a Battalion Commander for heritage under regular protection, a Divisional Commander for heritage under Special Protection, and a Force Commander for heritage under Enhanced Protection.)

If hostile action is taken towards cultural heritage, in line with the above waiver, the Convention requires that everything feasible is done to limit harm to the heritage. This means methods of attack which aim to minimise damage must be chosen (such as using light weaponry instead of a heavy aerial bombardment). In addition, the attack should be called off if it appears likely to cause damage which is excessive in relation to the military advantage it would secure.

States are also forbidden from using cultural heritage in any way that is likely to expose it to destruction or damage. However, this obligation can also be waived in cases of imperative military necessity, as described above. For example, a military unit could occupy an ancient fort, provided it was the only feasible way of defending themselves from an enemy attack, and the foreseen damage to the fort would not be disproportionate to the advantage gained.

You can now test your understanding of the Hague Convention by considering the following scenarios.

Activity 3 Choosing the correct action

Timing: Allow about 15 minutes

Use the rules set out by the Hague Convention to decide whether the following actions would be permissible or impermissible.

a. 

impermissible


b. 

permissible


The correct answer is a.

Answer

Impermissible: this constitutes a direct attack on cultural heritage which has not been made into a legitimate military objective.

a. 

impermissible


b. 

permissible


The correct answer is a.

Answer

Impermissible: this is using a building containing cultural heritage in a way that attracts the risk of attack.

a. 

impermissible


b. 

permissible


The correct answer is b.

Answer

Permissible: the military advantage to be gained from the attack (getting the message to their commanding officer) is proportional to the damage they foresee causing to the heritage site. Also, there is no feasible alternative to this course of action which would provide the same advantage. In addition, they could not have feasibly warned the enemy combatants, nor sought approval for their own attack from their commanding officer, so they are released from these duties.

a. 

impermissible


b. 

permissible


The correct answer is a.

Answer

Impermissible: although there is a military justification for destroying the bridge, the corporal neglected to get approval for the attack from the Division Commander, which would have been possible given the timescale. She also failed to consider alternative courses of action which could have protected the townspeople without destroying the bridge.

a. 

impermissible


b. 

permissible


The correct answer is a.

Answer

Impermissible: although the archaeological ruins have become a legitimate military objective, and the Battalion Commander remembered to issue a warning, in selecting the means of attack, they neglected to consider alternatives to an airstrike which would have inflicted lesser harm on the heritage. For instance, an assault with lighter weaponry could have succeeded in driving out the enemy and capturing the base without completely obliterating the ruins.