The destruction and looting of cultural heritage in the Middle East by terrorist organizations is well-documented by social media and the press. Its brutality and severity have drawn international criticism as the violent destruction of heritage is classified as a war crime. Efforts have been made to preserve objects against bombing and destruction, as archaeologists and other volunteers safeguard sites prior to assault. There is also precedent for prosecuting heritage destruction via national and international tribunals. In term of looting, black-market antiquities provide a revenue stream for ISIS; therefore, efforts must be made to stop this harmful trade. Governmental agencies have taken actions to prevent funding through antiquities. Public institutions have a role in safeguarding looted works by providing asylum to them without fueling the black market. At the same time, private collectors must also not purchase any items from the black market. Through education and enforcement of legislation intended to protect cultural heritage, it may be possible to reduce the market for looted antiquities.

The United States Congress is considering adding new legislation to its current scheme regulating Cultural Property. The proposed law, the Protect and Preserve Cultural Property Act, would create a new Coordinator and Committee and charge them with harmonizing the cultural heritage policing efforts of the United States. These changes do not alter American law in a fundamental way, but rather mark instead the subtle move towards a dedicated group tasked with enforcing, educating, and evaluating this body of cultural property law and policy in the United States.

Several reports reveal that trafficking in antiquities has become one of the sources of funding of the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”. Switzerland, which is one of the principal markets for articles of archaeological interest, has adopted two pieces of legislation that may play an important role in countering the illicit trade of antiquities smuggled from Iraq and Syria. These are the Federal Law on the Protection of Cultural Objects in the Event of Armed Conflict, Catastrophe and Emergency Situations and the Order Establishing Measures against Syria. The objective of this article is twofold: first, to examine the most relevant aspects of these measures and their implications for art trade professionals and collectors; and second, to demonstrate that Switzerland is now keen to support foreign States’ efforts to protect their cultural patrimony when threatened by war, terrorism, pillage and natural or human-induced disasters.

Since its inception in Iraq, ISIS has been responsible for the pillaging and destruction of numerous cultural sites, notwithstanding the protests of the international community. None of the solutions proposed and implemented to stop this devastation have so far obtained adequate results. This article analyzes the legitimacy of organizing a humanitarian intervention aimed at preserving cultural heritage from such kinds of destructive actions. Two critical issues are addressed: first, the legitimacy of using armed force to preserve cultural heritage on the behalf of the international community; second, the technical difficulties associated with the development of such a practice.

This article considers whether there are any gaps within the legal framework protecting cultural heritage from attacks conducted by non-state armed groups. It first looks at the existing obligations of states vis-à-vis non-state armed groups with regard to the protection of such heritage, in particular their obligations stemming from the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. It also examines the obligations of non-state armed groups with regard to cultural heritage, clarifying their obligations under international humanitarian law, including customary international norms, and other sources of international law. Finally, this article discusses accountability mechanisms, in particular with the application of international criminal law to prosecute the members of non-state armed groups who have conducted attacks against cultural property.

This article deals with the international responsibility of States for their breach of cultural heritage obligations in the event of armed conflicts. The topic is both highly important and challenging. In fact, the implementation of State responsibility for the breach of a cultural heritage obligation may meet with serious practical difficulties in attributing unlawful conduct to a given State. Moreover, political circumstances often favour the prosecution of individual perpetrators, even if they acted under the direction or control of a State, rather than invoking the responsibility of that State. Viewed in such light, this article briefly discusses the sources and status of international cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict, then deals with the consequences of their violation in international practice. It also discusses the resolution Succession of States in Matters of International Responsibility, adopted this year by the Institute of International Law (IIL), and analyses its potential outcomes in relation to cultural heritage obligations applicable to States’ conduct in armed conflicts.

The importance of culture has been present in the international human rights field since the compilation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but its prominence re-emerged in the 1990s following the surge of indigenous peoples’ movements. For the attainment of peace and stability, the right to culture needs to be encouraged and “cultural genocide”, the non-physical destruction of an ethnic group, should be punished. International human-rights frameworks, in particular Article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),have attempted to protect such groups and their cultural identity. Despite these developments, cultural rights are the least developed and understood category of human rights, largely with regards to their enforceability, legal understanding, and scope. The granting of cultural rights to minority groups or indigenous people furthermore remains a contested and controversial subject, and one full of complexity. Though it is incorporated in human rights legislation, there exists a lack of understanding about how it works in tandem with other human rights categories. The occupation of China in Tibet has embodied a destructive colonialism that is denying the Tibetan people the freedom to exercise their fundamental cultural rights. Robert Badinter described the disappearance of Tibetan culture as cultural genocide in 1989,5 a stance that has since been adopted by those challenging China’s rule in Tibet. By exploring Article 8 of the UNDRIP and the importance of cultural identity to the Tibetan people, this paper explores how China’s nationalist policies are in breach of Article 8 and, consequently, China is carrying out cultural genocide in Tibet. In concluding, the essay examines how China’s refusal to recognise Tibetans as indigenous leaves them at an impasse, as protection offered by the frameworks is compromised by other factors.

This paper deals with two issues often dismissed when assessing cultural expressions during conflict and post-conflict situations. The first concerns the memories of victims and perpetrators as a resource for cultural heritage identification. The second involves the limitations on institutions trying to incorporate cultural issues into processes and discussions that are mainly political. This dichotomy is also reflected in the UNESCO doctrine. On the one hand, the official narratives endorsed by UNESCO and its Member States dismiss memories (some of which include recollections of conflict) that do not complement or support adopted national narratives. At the same time, UNESCO only honours and recognizes political agreements and actors which are seen as unquestionable and uncontested. Using the specific case of Cyprus, I propose an alternative lens through which to view cultural heritage in conflict and post-conflict areas and situations. In particular, I argue that Transnational Justice offers an effective platform to redress cultural heritage. At the same time I address the two limitations mentioned above.

Two goals motivate the authors of this essay. The first is to examine the legal, historical and political context of the establishment of independence of the Croatian State at the time the Yugoslav crisis was originating. Following up on this issue in the second segment of our analysis we present a framework of the new Croatian cultural policy, which is essentially conditioned by historical events. This constitutes an overview of the founding of the new Croatian national cultural policy since the 1990s, focused on the primary sources of recent Croatian cultural and legal infrastructures in the new context of its European integration.

When art and criminal law cross paths life has some fascinating stories to tell which may well extend beyond national borders. Such stories are closely linked with a multitude of diverse legal issues which can frequently be reduced to two aspects, both of which require clarification: First, what is art? And, second, is everything permitted in art? This paper explores both questions by considering several case studies by way of illustration. Possible solutions are presented and carefully examined. The paper also provides an interesting glimpse of the “Art and Criminal Law” exhibition developed by the team of the Chair of Criminal Law, Law of Criminal Procedure and Criminology under Professor Uwe Scheffler at the European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder). The exhibition is currently on tour in Germany and Poland where it is being shown at a number of universities.

The aim of this article is to analyze the motif of scales in Netherlandish art from the 15th to the 17th century. The motif of scales was present in art from earliest times, but its role and function differed in various historical epochs – antique, the middle ages, and the modern age. The core part of the article is devoted to the symbolic relationship between scales and different aspects of justice. The first painting taken into consideration is Rogier van der Weyden’s Last Judgment (approx. 1445 to 1450), and the last one – Jan Vermeer’s Woman Holding a Balance (approx. 1662-1663). The article attempts to answer some crucial questions. What were the meanings attributed to scales during the two centuries examined? How did these meanings evolve, and was the interpretation of the symbol influenced by the ethos characteristic for particular periods and geographical spaces, as well as transient fashions, religious and political changes? The article presents paintings selected during the query into Netherlandish art, along with a discussion on their content and information about their creators. It analyzes the symbol of scales in the context of images created by the masters of Netherlandish painting and offers a synthesis of the observed changes in the perception of scales as a symbol during the period discussed.

A system to protect cultural property in the event of an armed conflict has been in place since the 1889 and 1907 Hague Regulations. It was solidified by the conclusion of the 1954 Hague Convention, the main document for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, and it was recently augmented by the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention. However, these instruments contain a waiver to the protection provided, linked to the concept of “military necessity”. The purpose of this paper is to examine that concept and its relation to the protection of cultural property in order to demonstrate the true extent of the international protection of cultural property during an armed conflict.

In the Polish legal system there is no general and coherent legal regulation created with the purpose to set the unified rules for acquiring or disposing of culture goods by public entities. Different legal acts contain few regulations in this matter and it results in difficulties in applying the regulations that are presented in this article. The paper presents a short historical background of two major moves within Polish public culture property – nationalization and municipalisation in the scope of museum property. Then the analysis is focused on those regulations of statutory law that are being applied in cases where the issue of acquiring ownership by public entities is examined, together with case law referring to the possibility to acquire ownership in the public domain via adverse possession. Culture goods are also the element of the estate of local government units and state administration units and in this sphere there are no regulations preventing or influencing the unit from disposing of the culture good. It is only when the voivodship is the owner of a movable culture object, when the law introduces the rule that the act of disposition (e.g., sale contract) requires the consent in the form of a resolution of the voivodship management board in order to be valid. When immovable culture goods are to be sold by a public entity, the law requires the consent in the form of the administrative decision of an officer from a historical monument protection office (conservation officer), and there is no reason why the freedom of disposition of movable culture goods in public administration should not be limited in a similar way.

When studying the phenomenon of crime against cultural heritage different methods can be applied to diagnose the level of threat. A year-long study of specific crime cases where the victims are cultural goods allows one to see trends in the activities of the perpetrators and helps one to develop methods to counteract future incidents. Long-term studies of crime cases affecting cultural heritage enable for a complementary way of assessing the level of risk factors and to minimize the risk of their occurrence. The study is expected to begin an annual series of articles aimed at the systematic presentation of the phenomenon of crime against cultural heritage in Poland. The text presents a selection of cases which, in the opinion of the author, may constitute an auxiliary tool to diagnose the level of the threat to cultural goods within the period indicated. There are presented in a shortened form cases of various types of criminal activities against heritage, such as theft, burglary and the destruction of valuable cultural objects.