Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/fre/docs/v2_rul_rule41
Timestamp: 2020-03-31 02:22:19
Document Index: 262066394

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 67', '§ 68', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 17', '§ 2', '§ 15', '§ 14', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 17', '§ 259']

DIH Coutumier - Practice Relating to Rule 41. Export and Return of Cultural Property in Occupied Territory
2. Pratique\L’exportation et la restitution des biens culturels d’un territoire occupé
Règle 41 (current)
Paragraph 1 of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
Each High Contracting Party undertakes to prevent the exportation, from a territory occupied by it during an armed conflict, of cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, signed at The Hague on 14 May 1954.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, para. 1.
Paragraph 2 of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
Each High Contracting Party undertakes to take into its custody cultural property imported into its territory either directly or indirectly from any occupied territory. This shall either be effected automatically upon the importation of the property or, failing this, at the request of the authorities of that territory.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, para. 2.
Article 11 of the 1970 Convention on the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property provides: “The export and transfer of ownership of cultural property under compulsion arising directly or indirectly from the occupation of a country by a foreign power shall be regarded as illicit.”
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the 16th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, Paris, 14 November 1970, Article 11.
Article 9(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, which refers to the protection of cultural property in occupied territory, stipulates:
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, a Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another Party shall prohibit and prevent in relation to the occupied territory:
(a) any illicit export, other removal or transfer of ownership of cultural property.
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 9(1).
Article 21 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
Each Party shall adopt such legislative, administrative or disciplinary measures as may be necessary to suppress the following acts when committed intentionally:
(b) any illicit export, other removal or transfer of ownership of cultural property from occupied territory in violation of the Convention or this Protocol.
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 21.
In the 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession (also known as the London Declaration), the Allied governments expressed their intention
Article 1(4) of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document provides: “Without limiting the provisions of the 1954 Protocol [for the Protection of Cultural Property], it is prohibited to export or otherwise illicitly remove cultural property from occupied territory or from a part of the territory of a State Party.”
Draft Provisions for the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention and Commentary from the UNESCO Secretariat, Paris, October 1997, UNESCO Doc. CLT-97/CONF.208/2, Article 1(4).
All the provisions of this instrument, the provisions of the Convention and its 1954 Protocol [for the Protection of Cultural Property] which relate to safeguarding of, and respect for, cultural property shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the States Parties.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Each party to the conflict shall be bound to prevent the exportation of cultural property from a territory occupied by it during an international armed conflict.”
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 922.
Germany’s Law Implementing the 1954 Cultural Property Convention (2007) states:
§ 2 Prohibition on movement and seizure
(1) Every movement of cultural property from occupied territory of a Contracting State to the federal territory during an armed conflict, contrary to Paragraph I No. 2 of the Protocol, is prohibited. This does not apply to cultural property which, according to Paragraph II No. 5 of the Protocol, is intended to be deposited in the federal territory for the purpose of protection against the dangers of an armed conflict.
(5) Cultural property which, contrary to the prohibition in paragraph 1, is moved into the federal territory directly from a third country is subject to seizure by the competent customs authorities. The seizure shall be reported without undue delay to the Federal Foreign Office and to the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media.
(6) Without undue delay, the Federal Foreign Office shall notify the authorities of the Contracting States of the seizure.
(7) After the close of hostilities, seized property shall be returned to the person entitled to dispose of it, if the Contracting State, after inquiry, declares that no request is made. The property is also returned to the person entitled to dispose of it if the Contracting State does not make a declaration within one year …
(8) The Federal Foreign Office publishes the occupied territories of the Contracting States in the Federal Gazette.
Germany, Law Implementing the 1954 Cultural Property Convention, 2007, Section 2(1) and (5)–(8).
Japan’s Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (2007) states:
1. A person who damages or disposes of trafficked cultural properties from occupied territories … and imported into the country shall be sentenced to less than five years’ imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or fined for less than three hundred thousand yen.
2. When the person prescribed in the previous paragraph is the possessor of the concerned cultural properties from occupied territories, he or she shall be sentenced to less than two years’ imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or fined for less than two hundred thousand yen or for a lighter fine.
A person who transfers or who received trafficked cultural properties from occupied territories … and imported into the country shall be sentenced to less than one year imprisonment with hard labour, or fined for less than one million yen.
Japan, Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 2007, Articles 9 and 10.
Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947) provides for the punishment of “the exportation, by any means, from the territory of Luxembourg, of objects of whatever nature”.
Peru’s Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (2006) states: “Any form of export or transfer of unlawfully obtained cultural property from occupied territory … is prohibited.”
Peru, Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation, 2006, Article 82.
In 1970, two antiquity dealers in East Jerusalem were charged in the Military Court of Hebron under Jordanian law with exporting antiquities into “foreign territory” (i.e., from Hebron, in Judaea, to East Jerusalem) without obtaining an export licence.
Case referred to in Shoshana Berman, “Antiquities in Israel in a Maze of Controversy”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 356–360.
It has been reported that, during the Gulf War, large amounts of cultural property, including almost the entire contents of the Kuwait National Museum, were removed to Baghdad. After the Gulf War, Iraq stated that thousands of objects had been stolen from its provincial museums during the period of the military intervention and its immediate aftermath. Four volumes listing this catalogued material have been drawn up by the Iraqi authorities and deposited with UNESCO.
Lyndel V. Prott, “The Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention) 1954”, Humanitäres Völkerrecht – Informationsschriften, No. 4/1993, pp. 192–193.
9. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, … and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts;
10. Urges Member States to introduce effective national and international measures to prevent and combat illicit trafficking in cultural property, including special training for police, customs and border services.
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/52, 4 December 2006, preamble and §§ 7–10, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the prevention of crimes that infringe on the cultural heritage of peoples in the form of movable property, ECOSOC:
Aware of the serious harm done to States and to the objects themselves by the theft and illicit export of objects regarded as part of States’ cultural heritage, in particular as a result of the plundering of archaeological sites and of other sites of historical and cultural value,
Recognizing the importance for States of protecting and preserving their cultural heritage in accordance with the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on 14 November 1970, the preamble to which refers, inter alia, to the duty of every State to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation and illicit export, and also the commitment by States and relevant international organizations to combat such practices with all the means at their disposal, in particular with regard to international cooperation on the return of such property.
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/29, 22 July 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on trafficking in cultural property, ECOSOC:
Emphasizing the importance for States of protecting and preserving their cultural heritage in accordance with the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on 14 November 1970, and other relevant instruments such as the 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols,
5. Urges Member States to continue to strengthen international cooperation and mutual assistance in the prevention and prosecution of crimes against movable property that forms part of the cultural heritage of peoples, as well as to ratify and implement the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the other relevant conventions.
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/34, 21 July 2004, preamble and § 5, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UNESCO General Conference reaffirmed that “the fundamental principles of protecting and preserving cultural property in the event of armed conflict could be considered part of customary international law”.
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the destruction and desecration of the Islamic historical and cultural relics and shrines in the occupied Azeri territories resulting from the Republic of Armenia’s aggression against the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Summit Conference, referring to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, noted: “Where an armed conflict erupts, the states undertake to prevent the smuggling of valuable cultural items from the territories under occupation.”
Islamic Summit Conference, Ninth Session, Doha, 12–13 November 2000, Res. 25/8-C (IS), § 3.
Section B. Return of cultural property exported or taken from occupied territory
Article 12 of the 1947 Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy provides:
Italy shall restore to Yugoslavia all objects of artistic, historical, scientific, educational or religious character … which, as the result of the Italian occupation, were removed between 4 November 1918 and 2 March 1924 from the territories ceded to Yugoslavia under the treaties signed in Rapallo on 12 November 1920 and in Rome on 27 January 1924.
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part and Italy on the other part, Paris, 10 February 1947, Article 12.
Under Article 37 of the 1947 Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy, Italy was obliged to “restore all works of art, religious objects, archives and objects of historical value belonging to Ethiopia or its nationals and removed from Ethiopia to Italy since 3 October 1935”.
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part and Italy on the other part, Paris, 10 February 1947, Article 37.
Article 1, paragraph 1, of Chapter Five (“External Restitution”) of the 1952 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation provides:
Upon the entry into force of the present Convention, the Federal Republic [of Germany] shall establish, staff and equip an administrative agency which shall … search for, recover, and restitute jewellery, silverware and antique furniture … and cultural property, if such articles or cultural property were, during the occupation of any territory, removed therefrom by the forces or authorities of Germany or its Allies or their individual members (whether or not pursuant to orders) after acquisition by duress (with or without violence), by larceny, by requisitioning or by other forms of dispossession by force.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Régime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter 5, Article 1, para. 1.
Articles 3 and 4 of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property provide:
3. Each High Contracting Party undertakes to return, at the close of hostilities, to the competent authorities of the territory previously occupied, cultural property which is in its territory, if such property has been exported in contravention of the principle laid down in the first paragraph. Such property shall never be retained as war reparations.
4. The High Contracting Party whose obligation was to prevent the exportation of cultural property from the territory occupied by it, shall pay an indemnity to the holders in good faith of any cultural property which has to be returned in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Articles 3 and 4.
Article 2(2) of the 1970 Convention on the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property provides:
The States Parties undertake to oppose [the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property] with the means at their disposal, and particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the 16th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, Paris, 14 November 1970, Article 2(2).
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that, amongst the measures to be taken following a conflict: “Cultural property must … be repatriated.”
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 94.
Each party to the conflict shall be bound to prevent the exportation of cultural property from a territory occupied by it during an international armed conflict. If, in spite of this prohibition, cultural property should nevertheless be transferred from the occupied territory into the territory of another party, the latter shall be bound to place such property under its protection. This shall be effected either immediately upon the importation of the property or, failing this, at a later date, at the request of the authorities of the occupied territory concerned.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Cultural objects moved during the armed conflict must be returned to the party to the conflict in whose territory they were located before the armed conflict.”
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 67.c.
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Cultural objects moved during the armed conflict must be returned to the party to the conflict in whose territory they were previously located.”
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 68(c), p. 268.
§ 1 Obligation to return
(1) Cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 (Federal Law Gazette 1967, Part II, p. 1233) coming from occupied territory of a Contracting State shall, after the close of hostilities, be returned to the respective competent authorities of the previously occupied territory, if
1. after 11 November 1967, it was moved from the territory of that State into the federal territory during an armed conflict, and
2. the authorities of the Contracting State address a request for return to the Federal Foreign Office through the diplomatic channel.
(2) Deposited cultural property in the sense of Paragraph II No. 5 of the Protocol to the Convention of 14 May 1954 (Federal Law Gazette 1967, Part II, p. 1233, 1300) shall be returned after the close of hostilities, without the further conditions of paragraph 1 needing to be fulfilled.
(3) The costs of the return are borne by the requesting State.
(4) A person who, for himself or for someone else, exercises actual physical control of cultural property (person under the obligation to return), is obligated to return the cultural property only in reciprocal and simultaneous exchange for adequate compensation. The obligation to compensate is not applicable if the requesting State proves that the person under the obligation to return knew or as a result of gross negligence did not know when acquiring the cultural property that the property was moved from occupied territory or was deposited for the purpose of protection.
(5) If the person under the obligation to return acquired the cultural property through donation, inheritance or legacy, he assumes responsibility for the duties of care of the donor or the deceased.
Germany, Law Implementing the 1954 Cultural Property Convention, 2007, Section 1.
In the event of an armed conflict, restitution and/or recovery of cultural property shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property] and its two protocols of 1954 and 1999. In such a case, competent authorities shall reciprocally facilitate the process of restitution and/or recovery of cultural property belonging to the cultural heritage of another State (obtained in violation of international law in the context of an armed conflict) if the property is located on Peruvian territory.
The Russian Federation’s Law on Removed Cultural Property (1997) declares federal property of the Russian Federation:
all cultural values located in the territory of the Russian Federation that were brought [as a result of the Second World War] into the USSR by way of exercise of its right to compensatory restitution … pursuant to orders of the Soviet Army Military Command, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany or instructions of other competent bodies in the USSR.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Article 6.
By the term “cultural values” is meant “any property of a religious or secular nature which has historic, artistic, scientific or any other cultural importance”, either owned by the State or privately.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Article 4.
However, the following types of properties may be claimed under the law: a) the cultural values plundered by Germany or its allies that were the national property of the former Soviet republics; b) the property of religious organizations or private charities which, being used exclusively for religious or charitable aims, did not serve the interest of militarism and/or Fascism; c) the cultural values previously owned by victims of Nazi/Fascist persecutions; d) all other removed cultural values located in Russia and originating from territories of States, other than the former Soviet republics, that were occupied during the war by Germany or its allies; and e) family relics.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Articles 7–12.
In 2010, in the Kaplan case, the Paris Administrative Court ruled on a matter of compensation regarding the failure of the occupying power to return art works despoiled in occupied France during World War II:
[T]he Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Despoliation received an application for compensation regarding … pieces of art that were deposited in the safe of a bank in Bordeaux in 1941. According to the inventory of the deposit, there were 151 pieces, including 78 paintings, and all of them were seized by the occupying forces on 15 March 1943, while three of them were returned after the conflict …
France, Paris Administrative Court, Kaplan case, Judgment, 25 June 2010, p. 1.
[A]ccording to article 1 of the Decree [No. 99-778] of 10 September 1999: “ … a commission is established before the prime minister with the mandate of reviewing individual claims submitted by victims or their legal heirs or assignees in order to receive reparation for damages following the despoliation of their property resulting from anti-Semitic legislation adopted during the Occupation by either the occupying power or the Vichy government”.
France, Paris Administrative Court, Kaplan case, Judgment, 25 June 2010, p. 2.
In its decision in 1999 concerning verification of the constitutionality of the Law on Removed Cultural Property, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court ruled that cultural property legally transferred from the territory of former enemy States had become the property of the Russian Federation. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Law insofar as it dealt with “the rights of Russia to cultural property imported into Russia from former enemy states [Germany and its allies] by way of compensatory restitution”. In the Court’s opinion:
The obligation of former enemy states to compensate their victims in the form of common restitution and compensatory restitution is based on the well-established principle of international law recognised well before World War II, concerning international legal responsibility of an aggressor state.
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Law on Removed Cultural Property case, 20 July 1999.
In 1991, the Government of Germany declared that it “fully accepts the fact that cultural property has to be returned after the end of hostilities”. Germany has returned cultural property in all cases in which the cultural goods were found and could be identified. In other cases, Germany has paid compensation to the original owner countries.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, Dr. Werner Schuster, 21 June 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/35, p. 2966.
In 1997, the Government of Germany reiterated the principles contained in a general declaration made in 1984, whereby “thefts and destruction of cultural property by the Nazi regime as well as the removal of cultural property by the Soviet Union during and after the Second World War were breaches of international law”. Furthermore, it pointed out that the basic principles of the protection of cultural property are not only binding upon the vanquished but also upon the victor.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Answer by the government to a question in Parliament, BT-Drucksache 13/8111, 27 June 1997, p. 7.
In 1998, during a parliamentary debate concerning a dispute between Germany and the Russian Federation over a Russian parliamentary draft law to nationalize formerly German cultural property confiscated by the Soviet Union during the occupation of Germany after the Second World War, a representative of the Government of Germany stated:
The theft of cultural property committed by the German Nationalist-Socialist regime during the Second World War, as well as the transporting of cultural objects from Germany to Russia by the Soviet Union after the Second World War, represent violations of international law.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Government, Plenarprotokoll 13/221, 4 March 1998.
It was reported that during the Gulf War, large amounts of cultural property, including almost the entire contents of the Kuwait National Museum, were removed to Baghdad but later returned.
In 1991, in identical letters to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq stated: “The Iraqi Government has decided to return the following property seized by the Iraqi authorities after 2 August 1990: … 3. Museum objects.”
Iraq, Identical letters dated 5 March 1991 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, annexed to Identical letters dated 5 March 1991 to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22330, 5 March 1991, p. 2.
In a letter to a number of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member States of the UN Security Council in 1991, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq stated:
Mr. J. Richard Foran, Assistant Secretary-General and official responsible for coordinating the return of [Kuwaiti] property, visited Iraq twice during the month of May 1991. The competent Iraqi authorities expressed their readiness to hand over the Kuwaiti property of which Iraq had already notified the Secretariat of the United Nations … Mr. Foran also undertook a wide-ranging field visit and saw for himself the … museum antiquities and books that will be returned to Kuwait immediately [after] an agreement is reached establishing a location for the handing over, it being understood that it is this property whose handing over Mr. Foran has determined should have priority at the present stage. The same procedures will doubtless be applied to other Kuwaiti property.
Iraq, Letter dated 8 June 1991 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a number of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States members of the UN Security Council, annexed to Letter dated 16 August 1991 addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22957, 16 August 1991, Annex II, § 4.
In a letter to the UN Secretary-General in September 1994, Iraq claimed that it had returned all the Kuwaiti property in its possession, “having nothing else whatsoever to return”.
Iraq, Letter dated 26 September 1994 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1994/1099, 27 September 1994, p. 1.
In 1997, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Iraq declared, in response to allegations by Kuwait that Iraqi soldiers had robbed and looted Kuwaiti cultural property during the Gulf War, that all the cultural property taken out of Kuwait by Iraq had either been returned or would be in the future.
Iraq, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.55, 25 November 1997, p. 20.
In 2012, Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Handing Over of Kuwaiti Property”, which stated:
In execution of UN [S]ecurity [C]ouncil related resolutions, and within the efforts of the Iraqi [M]inistry of [F]oreign [A]ffairs to close down the file of Kuwaiti property seized by the previous regime in 1990, the Kuwaiti side was handed over 27 boxes containing the archives of Kuwait Radio and two books belonging to Kuwait [U]niversity on June 27, 2012 at the HQ [headquarters] of the Kuwaiti [M]inistry of [F]oreign [A]ffairs.
Iraq, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Handing Over of Kuwaiti Property”, Press Release, 8 July 2012.
In 2012, Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Iraq informs the UN [of] its intent to return found Kuwaiti archives”, which stated:
Iraq has informed the UN [of] its intention to return national Kuwait[i] archives found in Iraqi territories. This was stated in a letter addressed by Hamid Al-Bayati, Iraq’s ambassador to the UN, to the head of [the] UN [S]ecurity [C]ouncil[,] stating that Iraq has formed a ministerial committee to coordinate with the [S]tate of Kuwait regarding the return of its national archives. He added that the [G]overnment of Iraq had officially informed the Kuwaiti embassy in Baghdad of [the] finding of 136 microfilm tapes containing official archives of Kuwait, adding that such tapes were handed over to the Iraqi [F]oreign [M]inister by an Iraqi citizen.
Iraq, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Iraq informs the UN [of] its intent to return found Kuwaiti archives”, Press Release, 23 December 2012.
In 1997, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Kuwait reiterated the allegation that Iraqi soldiers had robbed and looted Kuwaiti cultural property during the Gulf War, including manuscripts and historical documents, adding that many treasures which had been returned had been damaged. He then appealed to the international community to urge the return of Kuwait’s cultural property.
Kuwait, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.55, 25 November 1997, p. 15.
In 1995, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Kuwait stated that it attached
the utmost importance to the return by Iraq of all the official documents looted by Iraqi forces from the Office of the Amir, the Office of the Crown Prince, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No price can compensate for such documents.
Kuwait, Letter dated 6 March 1995 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/1995/184, 7 March 1995, p. 2; see also UN Secretary-General, Report on the return of Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, UN Doc. S/1996/1042, 16 December 1996, p. 1 and Second report pursuant to paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999), UN Doc. S/2000/575, 14 June 2000, § 17(a).
During the diplomatic conference which led to the adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Norway proposed that “restitution cannot, however, be required later than twenty years after the object has got into the hands of the present holder, this holder having acted in good faith in acquiring it”. The proposal was not adopted by the conference.
Jirí Toman, The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Dartmouth and UNESCO Publishing, Hants and Paris, 1996, p. 345.
Upon ratification of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property, Norway entered a reservation whereby “restitution of cultural property in accordance with the provisions of Sections I and II of the Protocol could not be required more than twenty years from the date on which the property in question had come into the possession of a holder acting in good faith”. In 1979, Norway withdrew this reservation.
In March 2001, the Russian Federation and Belgium reached an agreement on the return to Belgium of the military archives stolen by the Nazis during the Second World War and then taken to Moscow by Soviet forces. The Russian authorities accepted to return the archives to Belgium, provided that they be compensated for the cost of having maintained them.
Ch. Laporte, “Les archives belges quittent Moscou”, Le Soir, 24 March 2001.
In 1999, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, the United Arab Emirates called on Iraq to return Kuwaiti cultural property.
United Arab Emirates, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/54/PV.7, 21 September 1999, p. 36.
In 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 686, in which, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it demanded that Iraq “immediately begin to return all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, the return to be completed in the shortest possible period”.
UN Security Council, Res. 686, 2 March 1991, § 2(d), voting record: 11-1-3.
The same demand was implicitly reiterated the same year in Resolution 687, in which the Security Council requested that the UN Secretary-General report on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq.
UN Security Council, Res. 687, 3 April 1991, § 15, voting record: 12-1-2.
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the UN Security Council, recalling Resolutions 686 and 687 of 1991, noted “with regret” that Iraq had still not complied fully with its obligation to return in the shortest possible time all Kuwaiti property it had seized, and requested that the UN Secretary-General “report every six months on the return of all Kuwaiti property, including archives, seized by Iraq”.
UN Security Council, Res. 1284, 17 December 1999, preamble and § 14, voting record: 11-0-4.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the UN Security Council:
Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library, and other locations in Iraq since the adoption of resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, including by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed, and calls upon the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Interpol, and other international organizations, as appropriate, to assist in the implementation of this paragraph.
UN Security Council, Res. 1483, 22 May 2003, § 7, voting record: 14-0-0-1.
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
(h) Pillaging of archaeological and cultural property;
25. Condemns Israel’s attack against the Sharia Islamic Court in occupied Jerusalem on 18 November 1991, when Israeli forces took away important documents and papers;
26. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, return immediately all documents and papers that were taken away from the Sharia Islamic Court in occupied Jerusalem, to the officials of the said Court.
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/47, 9 December 1991, Part A, §§ 8(h) and 25–26, voting record: 96-5-52-13.
5. Also reaffirms the importance of the Second Protocol to the Convention, adopted at The Hague on 26 March 1999, and invites all States Parties to the Convention to consider becoming parties to the Second Protocol;
6. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, including the safe return to those countries of cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific and religious importance that have been illegally removed, and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/17, 3 December 2003, preamble and §§ 4–6, adopted without a vote.
9. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, including the safe return to those countries of cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific and religious importance that have been illegally removed, and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts.
Recognizing the importance for States of protecting and preserving their cultural heritage in accordance with the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on 14 November 1970, the preamble to which refers, inter alia, to the duty of every State to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation and illicit export, and also the commitment by States and relevant international organizations to combat such practices with all the means at their disposal, in particular with regard to international cooperation on the return of such property,
Aware of the urgent need to establish standards for the restitution and return of movable property forming part of the cultural heritage of peoples after it has been stolen or illicitly exported, and for its protection and preservation.
Expressing the need to enhance or to establish, as appropriate, standards for the restitution and return of movable property forming part of the cultural heritage of peoples after it has been stolen or trafficked and for its protection and preservation,
In 1992, in a report on compliance by Iraq with obligations placed upon it under certain UN Security Council resolutions, the UN Secretary-General noted:
The return of the property has commenced and, to date, properties of the Central Bank of Kuwait, the Central Library of Kuwait, the National Museum of Kuwait, the Kuwait News Agency … have been returned. A number of additional items are ready for return and the process is continuing. In addition, Kuwait has submitted lists of properties from other ministries, corporations and individuals that are being pursued. The Iraqi and Kuwaiti officials involved with the return of property have extended maximum cooperation to the United Nations to facilitate the return.
UN Secretary-General, Further report on the status of compliance by Iraq with the obligations placed upon it under certain of the Security-Council resolutions relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/23687, 7 March 1992; see also “Kuwait’s Art Comes Home”, The Washington Post, 17 February 1992.
In 2000, in a report on the return of Kuwaiti property from Iraq, the UN Secretary-General confirmed that, although Iraq had returned a substantial quantity of property since the end of the Gulf War, there remained “many items which Iraq is under obligation to return to Kuwait”. In this respect, he stressed that “priority should be given to the return by Iraq of the Kuwaiti archives … and museum items”.
UN Secretary-General, Second report pursuant to paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999), UN Doc. S/2000/575, 14 June 2000, §§ 17(a) and 20.
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the destruction and desecration of the Islamic historical and cultural relics and shrines in the occupied Azeri territories resulting from the Republic of Armenia’s aggression against the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Summit Conference recalled that the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property “prohibits the confiscation of cultural assets moved to the territories of other countries”.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Cultural objects transferred during the war shall be returned to the belligerent Party in whose territory they were previously situated.”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 259.