Ministerodegli Affari Esteri

Santa Clara University School of Law

Santa Clara LawSanta Clara Law Digital CommonsProtection of Cultural Property in the Event ofArmed Conflict Law Library Collections1-1-1999Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in theEvent of Armed Conflict. Italian commentsMinisterodegli Affari EsteriFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cultpropThis Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Library Collections at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law DigitalCommons. For more information, please contact sculawlibrarian@gmail.com.Automated CitationMinisterodegli Affari Esteri, "Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Italian comments" (1999). Protection of Cultural Property in theEvent of Armed Conflict. Paper 15.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cultprop/15,I T~,- Yu~~~~/DIREZIONE GENERALE PER LA PROMOZIONE E LACOOPERAZIONE CUL TURALEUfficio IIIDraft Guidelines For The Implementation Of The 1999 Second Protocol To TheHague Convention Of 1954 For The Protection Of Cultural Property In TheEvent Of Armed Conflict. Italian commentsItaly fully agrees with the approach embodied in the Draft Guidelines for theImplementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 forthe Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict prepared by theUNESCO Secretariat, which wil1 contribute to a better understanding of the contentof th -, II Protocol and a smoother implementation of this important legal instrument,both internally and internationally. At the same time, Italy desires to attract theattention of the Secretariat on the following particularly important question,examined in paragraph 5.1.3 of the proposed document:"Does Condition ex art. 10. c) imply a Minimum Distance or even a "BufferZone" as an appropriate additional element, though it would not operate as anadditional formal requirement (beyond the three conditions under Article 10)?Even though we believe that the introduction of a minimum distance (i) and, aboveall, of a buffer zone (ii) will represent an effective instrument for the protection ofcultural goods in case of armed conflict, also constituting a way for a more precisedefinition of the legal condition for a military action during an armed conflict, theintroduction of these additional elements, though they would not operate as additionalformal requirements, risks assimilating the criteria envisaged for the request ofenhanced protection under article 10 of the II Protocol to those demanded by article8.l.a) of the Aja Convention of 1954 for the granting of the special protection regime,and could bring to the consequence of a limited possibility to apply the Protocol.As a consequence, it is necessary to clearly state that the mentioned elements(minimum distance and buffer zone) represent additional conditions, but notmandatory formal requirements. For the same reason, paragraph 5.1.3 could be somodified:1. in subparagraph i), the sentence "If this minimum distance fails in a given case, arequest for enhanced protection remains possible under Article 10" should bereplaced by the following: if the minimum distance fails in a given case. or cannot berespected, the enhanced protection can however be agreed, since a minimum distanceis not an additional formal requirement, beyond the three conditions under Article10".2. in subparagraph ii), the sentence "The requesting State party must explain why thebuffer zone is not required for effective protection of the cultural property concernedin the cases where it is not proposed", should be replaced by the following: "Therequesting State Party clarifies why the buffer zone is not required or possible' foreffective protection of the cultural property concerned in the cases where it was notproposed.1 This integration is necessary in order to include also the situations where a buffer zone can not be established.

English

Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Italian comments

bepress Legal Repository

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&amp;context=cultprop

Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Italian comments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Santa Clara University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository