text
stringlengths 9
3.55k
| source
stringlengths 31
280
|
|---|---|
It is unlikely on historical grounds that Linear B writing then existed in the northwest Peloponnese. Finally, the pebble was apparently discovered on the morning of April Fool's Day. If it is indeed a forgery, the symbols spelling a-so-na may spell out the name Iasonas, the first name of the son of Xeni Arapojanni and Jörg Rambach, the alleged discoverers of the pebble.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafkania_pebble
|
Dorymyrmex bicolor is a species of ant in the Dolichoderinae subfamily, known by some as cone ants due to the shape of their mounds. Dorymyrmex bicolor was recently known as Conomyrma bicolor but has been renamed to Dorymyrmex bicolor. Dorymyrmex bicolor has a single petiole and a slit-like orifice which releases chemical compounds. This ant does not have the capability to sting. Dorymyrmex bicolor is primarily found in arid desert regions in Central and South America and the southwestern United States.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorymyrmex_bicolor
|
Dorymyrmex bicolor regularly interacts with three different species of Myrmecocystus, another genus of ants. Between the two genera of ants, in the southwestern region, there is much overlap of food sources and space between Dorymyrmex bicolor and Myrmecocystus. The Myrmecocystus ants secrete a substance from their poison gland onto a food source they find in order to repel other ants. Dorymyrmex bicolor exhibits a different type of interference behavior.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorymyrmex_bicolor
|
The workers of Dorymyrmex bicolor will surround the entrance to a nest of Myrmecocystus and will drop stones and other objects down the entrance, in an attempt to block the entrance. As many as 10-30 workers of Dorymyrmex bicolor have been observed to drop stones in an opposing nest, but only 5 workers are required to drop stones and other small objects at an efficient rate that will affect the Myrmecocystus nest. The number of Dorymyrmex bicolor workers in an area will have a reducing effect on the number of Myrmecocystus workers in an area, sometimes to drastic effects.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorymyrmex_bicolor
|
The known range of Dorymyrmex bicolor stretches from the Southwestern United States (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma), northern and southern Mexico (including Baja California), El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Peru, Honduras, and a few Caribbean island nations (i.e. Jamaica).
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorymyrmex_bicolor
|
Dorymyrmex bicolor has a primarily foraging focused behavior, because of this they are known to influence rates of seed germination and distribution in plants. They move quickly and are active from early to late afternoon. They build crater shaped nests made of fine sand, as they primarily live in desert like areas though they can live in areas with higher humidity levels.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorymyrmex_bicolor
|
Cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth. The word cisgender is the antonym of transgender. The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
The term cisgender was coined in 1994 and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender. The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique. Related concepts are cisnormativity (the presumption that cisgender identity is preferred or normal) and cissexism (bias or prejudice favoring cisgender people).
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
The term cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. This usage can be seen in the cis–trans distinction in chemistry, the cis and trans sides of the Golgi apparatus in cellular biology, the ancient Roman term Cisalpine Gaul (i.e. 'Gaul on this side of the Alps'), and Cisjordan (as distinguished from Transjordan). In cisgender, cis- describes the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Marquis Bey states that "proto-cisgender discourse" arose in German in 1914, when Ernst Burchard introduced the cis/trans distinction to sexology by contrasting "cisvestitismus, or a type of inclination to wear gender-conforming clothing, with transvestitismus, or cross-dressing." German sexologist Volkmar Sigusch stated in 1998 that he coined the term cissexual (zissexuell in German) in his two-part 1991 article "Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick" ("Transsexuals and our nosomorphic view").
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
The term cisgender itself was coined in English in 1994 in a Usenet newsgroup about transgender topics as Dana Defosse, then a graduate student, sought a way to refer to non-transgender people that avoided marginalizing transgender people or implying that transgender people were an other. Correspondingly, some trans activists argued that using terms such as man or woman to mean cis man or cis woman reinforced cisnormativity, and that instead using the prefix cis similarly to trans would counteract the cisnormative connotations within language.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Medical academics use the term and have recognized its importance in transgender studies since the 1990s. After the terms cisgender and cissexual were used in a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies and Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl, the former gained further popularity among English-speaking activists and scholars. Cisgender was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015, defined as "designating a person whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth (in contrast with transgender)". Perspectives on History states that since this inclusion, the term has increasingly become common usage.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
In February 2014, Facebook began offering "custom" gender options, allowing users to identify with one or more gender-related terms from a selected list, including cis, cisgender, and others.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity". A number of derivatives of the terms cisgender and cissexual include cis male for "male assigned male at birth", cis female for "female assigned female at birth", analogously cis man and cis woman, and cissexism and cissexual assumption or cisnormativity (akin to heteronormativity). Eli R. Green wrote in 2006, "cisgendered is used to refer to people who do not identify with a gender diverse experience, without enforcing existence of a normative gender expression".Julia Serano has defined cissexual as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned", while cisgender is a slightly narrower term for those who do not identify as transgender (a larger cultural category than the more clinical transsexual). For Jessica Cadwallader, cissexual is "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".Serano also uses the related term cissexism, "which is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals". In 2010, the term cisgender privilege appeared in academic literature, defined as the "set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity".
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
As of July 2023, use of the term cisgender has been considered controversial.While intended to be a positive descriptor to distinguish between trans and non-trans identity, the term has been met with criticisms in more recent years.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Krista Scott-Dixon wrote in 2009 that she preferred "the term non-trans to other options such as cissexual/cisgendered", saying non-trans is clearer to average people.Women's and gender studies scholar Mimi Marinucci writes that some consider the 'cisgender–transgender' binary distinction to be as dangerous or self-defeating as the masculine–feminine gender binary because it lumps people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) together (over-simplistically, in her view) with a heteronormative class of people in an opposition with transgender people; she says that characterizing LGB individuals together with heterosexual, non-trans people may problematically suggest that LGB individuals, unlike transgender individuals, "experience no mismatch between their own gender identity and gender expression and cultural expectations regarding gender identity and expression".Gender studies professor Chris Freeman criticizes the term, describing it as "clunky, unhelpful and maybe even regressive" and saying it "creates – or re-creates – a gender binary".
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Intersex people are born with atypical physical sex characteristics that can complicate initial sex assignment and lead to involuntary or coercive medical treatment. The term cisgender "can get confusing" in relation to people with intersex conditions, although some intersex people use the term according to the Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth Inter/Act project.Hida Viloria of Intersex Campaign for Equality notes that, as a person born with an intersex body who has a non-binary sense of gender identity that "matches" their body, they are both cisgender and gender non-conforming, presumably opposites according to cisgender's definition, and that this evidences the term's basis on a binary sex model that does not account for intersex people's existence. Viloria also critiques the fact that the term sex assigned at birth is used in one of cisgender's definitions without noting that babies are assigned male or female regardless of intersex status in most of the world, stating that doing so obfuscates the birth of intersex babies and frames gender identity within a binary male/female sex model that fails to account for both the existence of natally congruent gender non-conforming gender identities, and gender-based discrimination against intersex people based on natal sex characteristics rather than on gender identity or expression, such as "normalizing" infant genital surgeries.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Three decades later, in a personal essay, Defosse said she did not intend the word as an insult. She says she does not believe the word cisgender "caused problems – it only revealed them."
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
|
Conjunctive archaeology is a method of studying of the past developed by Walter Taylor in the 1940s that combined elements of both traditional archaeology and the allied field of anthropology. It is exemplified by Taylor's A Study of Archeology (1948). Taylor saw archaeology as an integrated discipline, combining the study of diet, settlement patterns, tools and other elements to provide a holistic view of the past.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
Elements of Taylor's approach are now a standard practice in the discipline, but Taylor's open and specific criticism of leading archaeologists of his day caused dismay amongst many archaeologists. Taylor was one of the first to criticize the descriptive, historical approaches to archaeology that dominated the discipline. According to Patty Jo Watson, Taylor's purpose "was not to generate ill will but rather to stimulate examination ... of aims, goals and purposes by American archaeologists".
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
Walter Taylor was the founder of conjunctive archaeology. He was born in Chicago and studied at Yale. He saw archaeology as a discipline that was multifaceted, and tried to focus on Anthropology and Archaeology to form a well-balanced and all-consuming study. He was frustrated by the focus of his contemporaries on typologies, chronological reconstructions, and other elements of archaeology that he saw as formalist and restricting.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
He put forward his polemical ideas in A Study of Archaeology, which served as a critique of culture-historical archaeology and put forward his prescription of a conjunctive archaeology. Taylor was reacting to what he saw as his contemporaries' limited use of artifacts to produce culture chronologies and identify groups as opposed to their stated goals of reconstructing prehistory. In response, he offered that archaeologists should focus more on quantitative data and spatial distributions of artifacts and features within sites.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
Part of this new focus on sites as units of analysis would require the collection of what might have appeared as trivial data, as well as paying better attention to things like paleoenvironmental data. All this was done with the aim of developing comparative approaches at the site level and beyond. Taylor's A Study of Archaeology provided a number of early impacts.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
First, it was a history of Americanist archaeology. Alongside V. Gordon Childe and especially Grahame Clark, he envisaged an archaeology that saw the necessary goal of archaeology as the reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways with a focus on cultures as "functioning entities embracing social, political, and ideological as well as economic components that the archaeologist must try to study holistically from the inside".Perhaps conjunctive archaeology's most unique legacy was being among the first rigorous attempts at examining archaeology through the lens of Boasian anthropology. Utilizing this lens, Taylor departed from Childe's and Clark's more materialist aims (the former working in something of a Marxist tradition and the latter in an early form of a paleoenvironmental approach). Anticipating psychological anthropology, Taylor held an idealist vision of human culture and sought to learn about the beliefs and ideologies of past peoples through material culture.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
The influence of conjunctive archaeology on the field is somewhat controversial. Taylor claimed until he died that his ideas were a major theoretical contribution that anticipated and directly contributed to The New Archaeology. Perhaps the most public and central debate on the topic of conjunctive archaeology's influence on later archaeologists was the extended debate in publications between Taylor and the major processual theorist Lewis Binford. Taylor claimed that his ideas included testing of hypotheses and a systems approach decades before processual archaeology.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
Taylor's claims are difficult to assess. While he clearly shared some goals with the later processualists, he also very evidently diverged from them in crucial theoretical ways. The core difference was his reliance on Boas.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
The idealist conception of culture that Taylor put forward via Boas is at odds with the more materialist aims of the processualists. Perhaps the core separation between processualists and Walter Taylor is the latter's ambivalence if not rejection of the idea of Material culture. Taylor instead believed that all culture was ideational and that artifacts merely reflected it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
Some scholars have contributed to an edited volume reflecting on Taylor's impact in an ambivalent way. In this book, the argument is partially laid out that Taylor's work might have had influence on Post-processual archaeology rather than processual, given his focus on ideational elements of culture as well as his deep conviction of the importance of a historical and historiographic approach (as compared to the processualists' aims for objectivity). Perhaps the most difficult part of interpreting Taylor's influence on the discipline as a whole is that neither he nor anyone else ever produced a substantive work within the framework of conjunctive archaeology. While his theoretical goals were clear, Taylor's methodology was left somewhat vague. Because of the multifaceted nature of Taylor's work and the fact that his work unites many strains of archaeology that are today seen as being at odds, Taylor's legacy in the field will likely always be at least somewhat controversial.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology
|
MSU Faculty of Psychology (Russian: Факультет психологии МГУ) is a faculty of the Moscow State University, which was established in 1966 and headed by Aleksei Leontiev until his death in 1979. At various times, a number of researchers have worked at the Faculty, such as Sergei Rubinstein, Alexander Luria, Eugene Sokolov, Chingis Izmailov, Galperin, Bluma Zeigarnik, and Daniil Yelkonin.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_Faculty_of_Psychology
|
An avian veterinarian is a veterinarian who specializes in treating birds. All veterinarians, upon first qualification from a certified veterinary college, may treat any species. Additional training is required for qualification to become a recognized specialist in the care of birds.In the United States, a veterinarian can specialize in avian medicine and surgery via post-graduate training through the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners and become a Diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners (Avian Practice). Avian veterinarians can become members of the Association of Avian Veterinarians for additional education opportunities including a journal and an annual conference. In Europe, veterinarians become recognized as avian specialists by qualifying as a Diplomate of the European College of Zoological Medicine (Avian), and in Australia and New Zealand by qualifying as a Member or Fellow of the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_veterinarian
|
Inis Beag (Irish, 'Little Island') is a pseudonymous Irish island in the 1960s, as described by American cultural anthropologist John Cowan Messenger. Messenger lived on the island and studied the community in 1959 and 1960. He subsequently wrote several academic works about his experience, including Inis Beag: Isle of Ireland and Sex and Repression in an Irish Folk Community.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Messenger describes Inis Beag as a remote island off the coast of Connemara, Ireland, near the Aran Islands in the 1960s. It contains a small, isolated, Irish-speaking, Catholic population. Messenger states that during the period of his study between 1958 and 1966, Inis Beag supported a population of around 350, mostly living by subsistence farming and fishing. The name "Inis Beag" is a pseudonym and was used by Messenger to protect the privacy of the island's people. Subsequent texts have stated that the island's true identity is Inisheer.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Messenger characterises the Gaelic revival movement as nativism. He states that members of the revival and those involved in the Irish independence movement held up the island the surrounding areas as examples of true Irish identity. Messenger argues that many of the written works by these members were "romanticized," focusing on cultural forms that outsiders found attractive. These included "the traditional garb of the folk, their skill in rowing the famed canoe, called curach, the manner in which they manufacture soils and grow in them a variety of crops, and their Gaelic speech.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
"Messenger argues that these customs were as not as pure as other outsiders stated. He found that 11 of the 111 adult males and 9 of the 85 adult females had given up the traditional local clothing for imported styles from the mainland.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
This behaviour was especially prevalent among the younger women, with no adherents between the ages of 18 and 29. He also found that use of the local curach had declined in recent decades, from 30 to 50 three-man crews fishing nearly all year in the early 1900s to nine crews working from the island in 1960. Messenger found that essentially all of the islanders older than eight spoke English proficiently, mixed English regularly into their speech, and even confessed to their priests in English. He attributed the rise in English to a practical view of language; many young people emigrate and would be disadvantaged by speaking only Irish.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Messenger reported that Inis Beag had no formal sex education, and sexual intercourse was treated by both sexes and the local curate as a "duty" which must be "endured." Messenger proposed that the institutionalisation of repression of sexual conduct was due to early replacement of physical affection with verbal affection by the time a child can walk. He stated that "any forms of direct or indirect sexual expression—masturbation, mutual exploration of bodies, use of either standard or slang words relating to sex, and open urination and defecation" were "punished severely by word and deed." He found that children were separated by gender in almost all activities.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
He also reported that islanders tended to bathe only the hands, face, and feet and developed an "obsessive fear" of nudity early in life. In some households, "dogs whipped for licking their genitals and soon to indulge in this behavior outside when unobserved. "He argues that repression of sexuality also manifested in intercourse.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Elders of the island boasted that there was no premarital sex, although some young men did admit to it in rumor. Messenger states that when couples did have sex with each other the husband always initiated and the wife was commonly passive. Messenger found that couples left their underclothes only partially removed and used only the male superior position, and when the man orgasmed, he fell asleep almost immediately.Messenger argues that people of the island behaved like this due to informal and formal social control and extreme ignorance.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
He states that menstruation and menopause were regarded with profound misgivings. He states that women asked Messenger's wife about the female cycle more than any other question about sex phenomena. He states that young women were often traumatized by menarche, and that in 1960 at least three older women had confined themselves entirely to bed to avoid a potential "madness" induced by menopause.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Women sent their children out of the room when Messenger's wife would inquire about their pregnancies. Messenger viewed the men as grossly ignorant about sex. He found that female orgasm was unknown to the men, not experienced by the women, or shunned and hidden.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Messenger reported that one middle-aged bachelor who considered himself "wise in the ways of the outside world . .
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
. described the violent bodily reactions of a girl to his fondling" and when Messenger explained, he "admitted not knowing that women also could achieve climax." Men of the island thought sexual intercourse would weaken them, and would abstain the night before an exhausting task.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
Despite all this, Messenger could not report a single family that was childless due to ignorance. He states that this was a phenomenon in some other regions of Ireland. When Messenger inquired how newly married couples learned how to copulate, he was told that "after marriage, nature takes its course."
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
In Marriage in Ireland, a collection of essays edited by Art Cosgrove covering history of marriage practices and norms in Ireland from the 8th century to the 1980s, Trinity College Dublin historian David Fitzpatrick is critical of this work. He describes Messenger's account in Inis Beag (1969), along with two other American anthropological works on Irish society from that time as “highly coloured”. In the context of these works he states that Irish post-famine sexual mores were common across European peasant communities. He argues that if Ireland was sick (as implied by these works), so was rural Europe.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inis_Beag
|
A cowl is a usually hood-shaped covering used to increase the draft of a chimney and prevent backflow. The cowl, usually made of galvanized iron, is fitted to the chimney pot to prevent wind blowing the smoke back down into the room below. Undoubtedly named after the resemblance of many designs to the cowl garment worn by monks, they have been in use for centuries. When using an open fire to heat a room the smoke rises through a flue to a chimney pot on the roof.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
Under normal conditions the warm air from the fire will rise up the chimney emitting the smoke with it and dispersing it at rooftop level where it is less of a nuisance. In strong winds the pressure of the wind may overwhelm the updraft and push the airflow in reverse down the flue. Smoke will then fill the room it is intended to heat posing a health and fire risk, causing discomfort and dirtying furnishings in its path.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
When raw coal rather than smokeless fuel is burnt, the amount of smoke may be considerable and measures to prevent backflow occurring are a necessity. A secondary function is to prevent birds and squirrels from nesting in the chimney. Cowls often also act as a rain guard to keep rain from going down the chimney.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
A metal wire mesh is sometimes added as a spark arrestor. Wooden cowls were used on oasts to prevent the ingress of rain into kilns, and create a flow of air through the kiln.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
An H-style cap (cowl) is a chimney top constructed from chimney pipes shaped like the letter H. It is an age-old method to regulate draft in situations where prevailing winds or turbulence cause downdraft and back-puffing. Although the H-cap has a distinctive advantage over most other downdraft caps, it fell out of favor because of its bulky looks. It is found mainly in marine use but has been gaining popularity again for its energy saving functionality. The H-cap stabilizes the draft rather than increasing it. Other downdraft caps are based on the Venturi effect, solving downdraft problems by increasing the updraft constantly resulting in much higher fuel consumption.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
Cowls are also used where flues are no longer in use and therefore need to be capped off for protection against ingress of precipitation and nesting birds. Such cowls are designed to afford protection to the flue while still allowing a degree of ventilation.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowl_(chimney)
|
The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is the first international treaty that focuses exclusively on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. It was signed at The Hague, Netherlands, on 14 May 1954 and entered into force on 7 August 1956. As of July 2021, it has been ratified by 133 states.The provisions of the 1954 Convention were supplemented and clarified by two protocols concluded in 1954 and 1999.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
All three agreements are part of International Humanitarian Law, which, in the form of further agreements, primarily includes provisions defining the permissible means and methods of warfare and aiming at the widest possible protection of persons not involved in the fighting. In contrast to these parts of International Humanitarian Law, the agreements on the protection of cultural property were drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations (UN); the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is primarily responsible for the dissemination and monitoring of compliance. In addition to rules designed to ensure the protection and respect of cultural property during an armed conflict, these agreements also provide for security measures to be implemented in times of peace. Blue Shield International, based in The Hague, is active in the field of international coordination with regard to military and civil structures for the protection of cultural assets. The guiding principles of the Convention and the motivation for its conclusion, dissemination and respect are summarised in the preamble, which states, among other things: ... that any damage to cultural property, irrespective of the people it belongs to, is a damage to the cultural heritage of all humanity, because every people contributes to the world's culture ...
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
As of July 2021, 133 states are party to the treaty and there are 110 States Parties to the First Protocol, while the Second Protocol has 84 States Parties.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 'cultural property' shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership: (a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above; (b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a); (c) centers containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as 'centers containing monuments'.Cultural property is the manifestation and expression of the cultural heritage of a group of people or a society. It is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including the customs of a people, their practices, places, objects, artistic endeavours and values. The protection of cultural property during times of armed conflict or occupation is of great importance, because such property reflects the life, history and identity of communities; its preservation helps to rebuild communities, re-establish identities, and link people's past with their present and future.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 preceded the Hague Convention of 1954. The multilateral agreement of 1899 and the slightly amended later version of 1907 contained in Article 27 the commandment for the attacking party to spare historical monuments, educational institutions and institutions of religious, not-for-profit, artistic or scientific significance as far as possible during sieges and bombardments. The party under attack is called upon to mark appropriate buildings.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Article 56 also contained a general ban on the confiscation, destruction or damage of such facilities. However, during the First World War, acceptance of these first Hague Conventions was severely restricted by the so-called all-participation clause.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
It stated that, in the event of war or armed conflict, this Agreement should apply only if all States involved in that conflict are parties to the Convention. The Russian lawyer, painter and writer Nicholas Roerich, who witnessed the destruction of cultural assets in Russia during the First World War and the October Revolution, initiated the development of an independent treaty at the beginning of the 1930s to protect cultural assets during armed conflicts. On his initiative, Georges Chklaver of the Institute for Higher International Studies at the University of Paris drew up a corresponding draft in 1929.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
This proposal was subsequently discussed by the International Museum Office of the League of Nations and at private conferences in Bruges in 1931 and 1932 and in Washington, D.C. in 1933. The seventh international conference of American states, which took place in Buenos Aires in 1933, recommended the adoption of the draft.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Board of the Pan-American Union subsequently presented a treaty "on the protection of artistic and scientific institutions and historical monuments", which was signed on 15 April 1935 in the White House by 21 states in North, Central and South America. Ten of the signatory states also became parties by ratification, the first of which was the United States on 13 July 1935 and the last of which was Colombia on 20 February 1937. The agreement, also known as the Roerich Pact after its initiator, entered into force on 26 August 1935.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Roerich Pact contained eight articles and several significant innovations compared with the general provisions of Articles 27 and 56 of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. On the one hand, the treaty established the status of neutrality for historical monuments, museums, scientific and artistic institutions as well as educational and cultural institutions. This legal position, comparable to the neutrality of medical personnel and comparable institutions during a war, resulted in respect for these goods by all parties involved in a conflict and thus their protection.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Parties should send lists of monuments and sites for which they claimed protection under the Treaty to the Pan-American Union, which should forward them to all States Parties. In addition, the Treaty defined a protection mark for the marking of cultural objects, consisting of three red dots in a red circle on a white background. Nicholas Roerich, who designed it with early symbolism in mind, described the significance of the three points as a symbol of art, science and religion as the three most important cultural activities of humanity, with the circle as the element that linked these three aspects in the past, present and future.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The symbol was also called the "Banner of Peace", the movement based on the Roerich Pact under the name Pax Cultura in analogy to the Geneva Conventions as the "Red Cross of Culture". However, the acceptance of the Roerich Pact was limited to the United States and the countries of Central and South America. Not a single country in Europe and Asia, the geopolitical focus of the Second World War that began a few years later, signed or ratified the treaty.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Even though it remains valid in relations between the parties and the Organization of American States (OAS) and continues to act as a depositary in succession to the Pan-American Union, the Roerich Pact remained without significant practical relevance. As the USA is not party to the 1999 Second Protocol of the Hague Convention, the Roerich Pact is therefore still of importance as a contractual obligation in the area of cultural property protection. Nevertheless, with the establishment of a protective label and the administration of lists of cultural assets worthy of protection by a central international institution, this treaty introduced two important far-reaching principles in the area of the protection of cultural assets in armed conflicts that remain important today.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Only four years after the Roerich Pact was signed, the government of the Netherlands presented a draft for a new convention, in the drafting of which the International Museum Office of the League of Nations was also significantly involved. However, the start of the Second World War in the same year prevented all further steps to develop and implement this proposal. After the end of the war, in 1948 the Netherlands again submitted a proposal to UNESCO, which had been founded three years earlier.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
In 1951, the General Conference of UNESCO decided to set up a committee of governmental experts to draft a new convention. A year later, this committee submitted a draft to the General Conference, which forwarded it to the national governments for further discussion. From 21 April to 14 May 1954, an international conference was held in The Hague with the participation of 56 states, which drew up a final version and adopted it as the "Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict". The agreement entered into force on 7 August 1956. After the 1948 Genocide Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this was the second important agreement in the field of international humanitarian law to which the United Nations played a major role in its creation and implementation.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Nazi Party headed by Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany in 1933 after the country's crippling defeat, and its socioeconomic distress during the years following World War I. World War II was aimed at reclaiming the glory of the once great Germanic state. Cultural property of many European nations and significant ethnic and social groups within them fell victim to Nazi Germany. The Nazi party, through the Third Reich, confiscated close to 20% of all Western European art during the war. By the end of the Second World War, the Nazi party had looted and collected thousands of objects, art works and artefacts from occupied nations, destroyed many, or stored them in secret.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
With artists depicting the hardship of the German people after World War I, and further expressing the fear of anti-Semitism and fascism, the Nazi party and Hitler himself soon realised the dangerous power of art, and began to clamp down on artistic production and forcing both artists and the public alike to adhere to a Nazi-approved style.Inherent within the Nazi's ideology was the idea of supremacy of the Aryan Race and all that it produced; as such the Nazi campaign's aims were to neutralize non-Germanic cultures and this was done through the destruction of culturally significant art and artefacts. This is illustrated greatest in the Jewish communities throughout Europe; by devising a series of laws that allowed them to justify and regulate the legal confiscation of cultural and personal property. Within Germany the looting of German Jewish cultural property began with the confiscation of non-Germanic artwork in the German state collection.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Further, artists that were Jewish and artworks that did not match the Nazi ideology, or posed a threat to it, were stamped as degenerate art. Degenerate works of art, culminating in the infamous exhibition with the same name, were those whose subject, artist, or art was either Jewish or expressed Anti-Nazi sentiments, and was as such offensive to the Third Reich. Jewish collections were looted the most throughout the war.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
German Jews were ordered to report their personal assets, which were then privatized by the country. Jewish owned art galleries were forced to sell the works of art they housed.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Nazis concentrated their efforts on ensuring that all art within Germany would be Aryan in nature, speaking to the might of the Germanic state rather than Jewish art which was deemed as a blight on society. In a feat to "purge" German museums and collections, confiscation committees seized approximately 16,000 items within Germany. The remaining unexploited art was destroyed in massive bonfires. As the war progressed, the Nazi party elite ordered the confiscation of cultural property throughout various European countries.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
In the Soviet Union, Nazi plunder of cultural significant art is best illustrated in the Third Reich's pillage of the Catherine Palace near St Petersburg and its famous Amber Room dating to the early 1700s. In October 1941, the Nazis had occupied the western portion of the Soviet Union, and began removing art treasures to the west. The entirety of the Amber Room was removed to Königsberg and reconstructed there. In January 1945, with the Russian army advancing on the city, the Amber Room was ordered to be moved again but its fate is thereafter unclear.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
A post-war Russian report concluded that 'summarizing all the facts, we can say that the Amber Room was destroyed between 9 and 11 April 1945' during the battle to take the city. However, in the absence of definitive proof, other theories about its fate continue to be entertained to the present day. With financial assistance from German donors, Russian craftsmen reconstructed a new Amber Room during the 1990s. The new room was dedicated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the 300th anniversary of the city of Saint Petersburg.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
With the conclusion of the Second World War and the subsequent defeat of the Axis Powers, the atrocities which the Nazi leadership condoned, leading to the removal of culturally significant items and the destruction of numerous others could not be allowed to occur in future generations. This led the victorious Allied forces to create provisions to ensure safeguards for culturally significant items in times of war. As a result, following the signature of the Roerich Pact by the American States in 1935, attempts were undertaken to draft a more comprehensive convention for the protection of monuments and works of art in time of war. In 1939, a draft convention, elaborated under the auspices of the International Museums Office, was presented to governments by the Netherlands.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Due to the onset of the Second World War the draft convention was shelved with no further steps being taken. With the conclusion of the war, a new proposal was submitted to UNESCO by the Netherlands in 1948.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The General Conference of UNESCO in 1951 decided to convene a committee of government experts to draft a convention. This committee met in 1952 and thereafter submitted its drafts to the General Conference. The intergovernmental Conference, which drew up and adopted the Convention and the further Acts, took place at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954 where 56 States were represented. Following this international agreement The Hague Convention For the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict would come into force in 1956 in order to be an instrument of non derogation for the states bound by the document to stop the looting and destruction of cultural property.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Hague Convention outlines various prohibitions and obligations which States Parties are expected to observe, both in peacetime and in times of conflict. Broadly, the Hague Convention requires that States Parties adopt protection measures during peacetime for the safeguarding of cultural property. Such measures include the preparation of inventories, preparation for the removal of movable cultural property and the designation of competent authorities responsible for the safeguarding of cultural property. States Parties undertake to respect cultural property, not only located within their own territory, but also within the territory of other States Parties, during times of conflict and occupation.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
In doing so, they agree to refrain from using cultural property and its immediate surroundings for purposes likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict. States Parties also agree to refrain from any act of hostility directed against such property. The Convention also requires the establishment of special units within national military forces, to be charged with responsibility for the protection of cultural property. Furthermore, States Parties are required to implement criminal sanctions for breaches of the Convention, and to undertake promotion of the Convention to the general public, cultural heritage professionals, the military and law-enforcement agencies. An example of the successful implementation of the Hague Convention was the Gulf War, in which many members of the coalition forces (who were either party to the Convention or who, in the instance of the US, were not party to the Convention) accepted the Convention's rules, most notably by creating a "no-fire target list" of places where cultural property was known to exist.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The obligation of States Parties to safeguard cultural property in peacetime is outlined in Article 3. It stipulates: 'The High Contracting Parties undertake to prepare in time of peace for the safeguarding of cultural property situated within their own territory against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict, by taking such measures, as they consider appropriate.'
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Hague Convention sets out a minimum level of respect which all States Parties must observe, both in relation to their own national heritage as well as the heritage of other States Parties. States are obliged not to attack cultural property, nor to remove or misappropriate movable property from its territory of origin. Only exceptional cases of 'military necessity' will excuse derogation from this obligation.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
However, a State Party is not entitled to ignore the Convention's rules by reason of another Party's failure to implement safeguarding measures alone. This is set out in Article 4 of the Hague Convention: Article 4: (1) The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property. (2) The obligations mentioned in paragraph I of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
(3) The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property. They shall, refrain from requisitioning movable cultural property situated in the territory of another High Contracting Party. (4) They shall refrain from any act directed by way of reprisals against cultural property. (5) No High Contracting Party may evade the obligations incumbent upon it under the present Article, in respect of another High Contracting Party, by reason of the fact that the latter has not applied the measures of safeguard referred to in Article 3.'
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The rules set out in the Hague Convention also apply to States who are Occupying Powers of territory during conflict or otherwise. The Convention obliges Occupying Powers to respect the cultural property of the occupied territory, and to support local national authorities in its preservation and repair when necessary. This obligation is articulated in Article 5: Article 5: (1) Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural property. (2) Should it prove necessary to take measures to preserve cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by military operations, and should the competent national authorities be unable to take such measures, the Occupying Power shall, as far as possible, and in close co-operation with such authorities, take the most necessary measures of preservation. (3) Any High Contracting Party whose government is considered their legitimate government by members of a resistance movement, shall, if possible, draw their attention to the obligation to comply with those provisions of the Conventions dealing with respect for cultural property.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Hague Convention establishes a 'special protection' regime, which obliges States Parties to ensure the immunity of cultural property under special protection from acts of hostility (Articles 8 and 9). Under Article 8, this protection may be granted to one of three categories of cultural property: (1) refuges intended to shelter movable cultural property in the event of armed conflict; (2) centers containing monuments; and (3) other immovable cultural property of very great importance. To receive special protection, cultural property must also be located an adequate distance from an industrial center or location which would render it vulnerable to attack, and must not be used for military purposes.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The First Protocol was adopted at the same time as the Hague Convention, on 14 May 1954. It specifically applies to movable cultural property only, and prohibits the export of movable property from occupied territory and also requires its return to its original territory at the conclusion of hostilities (Article 1). States Parties under the obligation to prevent the export of such property may be required to pay an indemnity to States whose property was removed during hostilities.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Criminal acts committed against cultural property in the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s highlighted the deficiencies in the implementation of the Hague Convention and its First Protocol. As a result of the 'Boylan review' (a review of the Convention led by Professor Patrick Boylan), the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention was adopted at a Diplomatic Conference held at The Hague in March 1999. The Second Protocol seeks complement and expand upon the provisions of the Hague Convention, by including developments in international humanitarian law and cultural property protection which had emerged since 1954. It builds on the provisions contained in the Convention relating to the safeguarding of and respect for cultural property, as well as the conduct of hostilities; thereby providing greater protection for cultural property than that conferred by the Hague Convention and its First Protocol.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
One of the most important features of the Second Protocol is the 'enhanced protection' regime it establishes. This new category of cultural property is outlined in Chapter Three of the Second Protocol. Enhanced protection status means that the relevant cultural property must remain immune from military attack, once it is inscribed on the List of Cultural Property Under Enhanced Protection. While the 1954 Hague Convention requires States not to make any cultural property the object of attack except for cases of 'military necessity', the Second Protocol stipulates that cultural property under enhanced protection must not be made a military target, even if it has (by its use) become a 'military objective'.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
An attack against cultural property which enjoys enhanced protection status is only excusable if such an attack is the 'only feasible means of terminating the use of property ' (Article 13).To be granted enhanced protection, the cultural property in question must satisfy the three criteria stipulated in Article 10 of the Second Protocol. The three conditions are: Currently there are 13 cultural properties from 8 States Parties inscribed on the Enhanced Protection List. These include sites in Azerbaijan, Belgium, Cambodia, Cyprus, Georgia, Italy, Lithuania, and Mali.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Article 24 of the Second Protocol establishes a 12-member Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Its members are elected for a term of four years, and an equitable geographic representation is taken into account at the election of its members. The Committee meets once a year in ordinary session, and in extraordinary sessions if and when it deems necessary.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Committee is responsible for the granting, suspension and cancellation of enhanced protection to cultural properties nominated by States Parties. It also receives and considers requests for international assistance which are submitted by States, as well as determining the use of the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Under Article 27 of the Second Protocol, the Committee also has a mandate to develop Guidelines for the implementation of the Second Protocol.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Article 29 of the Second Protocol establishes the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Its purpose is to provide financial or other assistance for 'preparatory or other measures to be taken in peacetime'. It also provides financial or other assistance in relation to 'emergency, provisional or other measures to protect cultural property during periods of armed conflict', or for recovery at the end of hostilities. The Fund consists of voluntary contributions from States Parties to the Second Protocol. In 2016, the sums of US$50,000 and US$40,000 were provided to Libya and Mali respectively from the Fund, in response to their requests for assistance in the installation of emergency and safeguarding measures.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Chapter Four of the Second Protocol specifies sanctions to be imposed for serious violations against cultural property, and defines the conditions in which individual criminal responsibility should apply. This reflects an increased effort to fight impunity through effective criminal prosecution since the adoption of the Hague Convention in 1954. The Second Protocol defines five 'serious violations' for which it establishes individual criminal responsibility (Article 15): making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack; using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action; extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol; making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack; and theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.States are obligated to adopt appropriate legislation to make these violations criminal offences under their domestic legislation, to stipulate appropriate penalties for these offences, and to establish jurisdiction over these offences (including universal jurisdiction for three of the five serious violations, as set out in Article 16(1)(c)).An example of prosecution for crimes against cultural property is The Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi case, handed down by the International Criminal Court on 27 September 2016. Al Mahdi was charged with and pleaded guilty to the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against historic monuments and buildings dedicated to religion, and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Al Mahdi was a member of the Ansar Eddine group (a group associated with Al Qaeda), and a co-perpetrator of damaging and destroying nine mausoleums and one mosque in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
In 2016 UNESCO, in collaboration with the Sanremo International Institute of Humanitarian Law, published a manual titled 'Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual'. This manual outlines the rules and obligations contained in the Second Protocol, and provides practical guidance on how these rules should be implemented by military forces around the world. It also contains suggestions as to best military practices in relation to these obligations. It relates only to the international laws governing armed conflict, and does not discuss military assistance that is provided in connection with other circumstances such as natural disasters.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Rome Statute, adopted in July 1998 and entering into force four years later, as the legal basis of the International Criminal Court (ICC), defines in Article 8(2) deliberate attacks against buildings of a religious, educational, artistic, scientific or non-profit nature and against historical monuments as war crimes in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The International Criminal Court is thus authorised to prosecute such crimes if such an act was committed either by a national of a Contracting Party or on the territory of a Contracting Party. However, it only exercises its competence if the country concerned is unwilling or unable to ensure effective prosecution itself. Since September 2015, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi has been charged with the destruction of mausoleums in Timbuktu in the first trial before the ICC over the destruction of cultural assets.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Article 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia also contains provisions that allow the prosecution of violations of the fundamental principles of the Hague Convention of 1954. On the basis of this article, for the first time since the conclusion of the Convention, proceedings were brought in an international court for the destruction of cultural property during an armed conflict.From the time of its establishment the city of Dubrovnik was under the protection of the Byzantine Empire; after the Fourth Crusade the city came under the sovereignty of Venice 1205–1358 CE, and by the Treaty of Zadar in 1358, it became part of the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom. Following the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the city was annexed by Austria and remained part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until the conclusion of the First World War. From 1918 to 1939 Dubrovnik was part of the Zetska Banovina District that established its Croatian connections.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
From 1945 to 1990 Croatia would become part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. One of the most striking features of the historic city of Dubrovnik, and that which gives its characteristic appearance are its intact medieval fortifications. Its historic city walls run uninterrupted encircling the Old-City.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
This complex structure of fortification is one of the most complete depictions of medieval construction in the Mediterranean, consisting of a series of forts, bastions, casemates, towers and detached forts. Within the Old City are many medieval churches, cathedrals, and palaces from the Baroque period, encircled by its fortified wall, which would ensure its listed place by UNESCO as a world heritage site in 1972. The Old Town is not only an architectural and urban ensemble of high quality, but it is also full of museums and libraries, such as the collection of the Ragusan masters in the Dominican Monastery, the Museum of the History of Dubrovnik, the Icon Museum, and the libraries of the Franciscan and Dominican Monasteries.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
It also houses the archives of Ragusa, which have been kept continuously since the 13th century and are a very important source for Mediterranean history. The archives hold materials created by the civil service in the Republic of Ragusa. The Siege of Dubrovnik was a military engagement fought between the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and Croatian forces which defended the city of Dubrovnik and its surroundings during the Croatian War of Independence.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The Old Town was specifically targeted by the JNA even though it served no military purpose to bomb this town. At the heart of the bombing efforts by the JNA elite was the complete eradication of the memory of the Croatian people and history by erasing their cultural heritage and destroying their cultural property. The court's convictions, which among other charges were also based on this article, were issued in February 2001 against Dario Kordić, a commander of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) during the war in Bosnia, against Miodrag Jokić, a senior commander in the navy of the Yugoslav People's Army during the Battle of Dubrovnik in 1991, and against Milan Martić, a politician and military leader of the internationally unrecognized Republic of Serbian Krajina.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
The attacks on the Herzegovinian city of Mostar, which in November 1993 led to the destruction of the Stari most bridge, internationally recognised as an outstanding cultural asset, led to the trial of six defendants before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in April 2006. Among them is the Croatian General Slobodan Praljak, who is suspected of having ordered the fire on the bridge. The historic town of Mostar, spanning a deep valley of the Neretva River, developed in the 15th and 16th centuries as an Ottoman frontier town and during the Austro-Hungarian period in the 19th and 20th centuries.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Mostar was mostly known for its old Turkish houses and specifically the Old Bridge; the Stari Mostar, after which it is named. In the 1990s conflict with the former Yugoslavia, however, most of the historic town and the Old Bridge were destroyed purposely by Croatian Army and their allies. This type of destruction was in step with that of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, where the aim was the eradication of the memory of the people that once occupied the land, an effort reminiscent of the Third Reich and the Nazi party. The attacks on the Herzegovinian city of Mostar, which in November 1993 led to the destruction of the Stari most bridge, internationally recognised as an outstanding cultural asset, led to the trial of six defendants before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in April 2006. Among them is the Croatian General Slobodan Praljak, who is suspected of having ordered the firing of the bridge.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Cultural_Property_in_the_Event_of_Armed_Conflict
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.