Delegation of Norway

English

Santa Clara University School of Law

Santa Clara LawSanta Clara Law Digital CommonsProtection of Cultural Property in the Event ofArmed Conflict Law Library Collections1-1-1999Comments on the Draft Guidelines for theImplementation of the 1999 Second Protocol tothe Hague ConventionDelegation of NorwayFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cultpropPart of the International Law CommonsThis 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 CitationDelegation of Norway, "Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the HagueConvention" (1999). Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Paper 30.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cultprop/30Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the implementation of the 1999Second Protocol to the Hague ConventionNorway finds it very important that such guidelines have been made and would like tocongratulate the secretariat for the work done. Speaking from the experience with the WorldHeritage Convention it is of vital importance to have good operational guidelines to be able toimplement the convention according to rules. We believe that the guidelines should beexpanded to include all aspects of the implementation of the protocol and in this way makethe implementation easier for the State Parties.We are very satisfied with the work done, but a few comments must be made on some points.Chapter 1.1Norway suggests that the guidelines should include a description of the work of thecommittee, meeting frequency and rules of procedure, which already has been passed by thefirst meeting of the committee.Chapter 5.1.3Norway agrees that a distance between the military object and the cultural property should bedefined. We suggest that the question of "Buffer zones", as in the World HeritageConvention, should be considered in the committee. We believe that the question ofintroducing a buffer zone should be optional.Chapter 5.2Norway would like to suggest that a form should be made in order to make the request forenhanced protection easy. We recommend this form to be a part of the guidelines.Chapter 5.6.2Norway finds the use of the distinctive emblem to be the main problem with theimplementation ofthe Protocol. The Draft guidelines emphasises that there are twoautonomous protection regimes and that the State Parties to both regimes must make two Listsand mark the sites according to both the convention and the protocol. Being aware that this isformally so, one must however try to find ways to simplify this.During the diplomatic conference in The Hague 1999, it was discussed whether specialprotection according to the Convention should be substituted with enhanced protection of theProtocol. Several countries declared that they would only list sites with enhanced protection.Unfortunately this is not reflected in the text of the Protocol.In the Draft Guidelines the following regime is suggested:Distinctive emblem alone general protection ConventionDistinctive emblem two times general protection ProtocolDistinctive emblem three times special protection ConventionDistinctive emblem four times enhanced protection ProtocolNorway finds a system with four different markings on the sites, in the field during combat,too complicated. We recommend that one must find a simpler system. The system with oneemblem for general protection and three for special protection must be considered knowntoday. It is wise to build on this.In section B of this chapter it is said that general protection of the Convention and theProtocol share the same definition. We tend to believe that the emblem alone could cover boththese even though they legally are different and have different implications.Norway would like to recommend the committee to discuss how to differ between enhancedprotection of the Protocol and special protection of the convention or whether there is a pointat all to differ between these categories in the field.However Norway is generally sceptical to mark the monuments covered by the Conventionand Protocol in the field. This is due to experiences during the hostilities in formerYugoslavia were it was reported situations where buildings with the Hague emblem weresought out and destroyed. It might seem that the emblem of protection did not protect thesebuildings.Norway proposes that the State Parties to the Convention create individual systems to takecare of this issue. At the State Party meeting of The Hague Convention in 2005 Norwaymentioned that the Norwegian culture heritage management is working to create an electronicregister for monuments protected by the convention. The inventory should be kept in Norway,but UNESCO will be given a password to this register in order to get access to theinformation when needed.Norway believes that there might be alternatives to the physical marking of the culturalmonuments by using modem technology. This could solve the problem of differing betweenthe Convention and the Protocol. Norway proposes that this question being furtherconsidered.HandbookNorway suggests that when the guidelines are formerly adopted, they should be printedtogether with the text of the protocol and rules of procedure. One might consider including thetext of the convention and first protocol and regulations for implementation in thispublication. This will form a handbook for all the protection work in armed conflicts. Asimilar publication has been made on the World Heritage Convention.

Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention

bepress Legal Repository

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&amp;context=cultprop

Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Santa Clara University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository