Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in



Download 1.6 Mb.
Page20/21
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size1.6 Mb.
1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21

Evolution of Concepts of Cultural Protection
See for example Beseler & Gottschow, 1988; British Committee on the Preservation and Restitution of Works of Art, 1946A, 1946B, 1946C, 1946D, 1946E; Cassou, 1947; Commission de Récuperation Artistique, 1946; Direction Générale de l'Economie, 1947; Pape, 1975; polish Ministry of Culture and Art, 1949 - 1953; Rorimer, 1950; Roxan, 1964; Valland, 1961; Woolley, 1947.

67 Harris, 1947, p. 105; Harris' action and Hitler's public response is also discussed by McDougal & Feliciano, 1967, p. 686. From my days as Director in Exeter 25 years ago I was well aware that Germany had publicly announced the `Baedeker Raids' as reprisals for the destruction of Lübeck, but I had always believed that this was an unfortunate accident due to the proximity of the medieval city to legitimate naval targets on the nearby estuary and Baltic coast. I am grateful to W. Hays Parks, U.S. Department of Defense, for drawing my attention to the true reason, i.e. the experiment to test out the firestorm theory of `Bomber' Harris.

68 Harris, 1947, p. 177.

69 Discussed further in Chapter 4 of this Report, see especially para. 4.9 - 4.10.

70 Rorimer 1950, p. x.

71 Rorimer, 1950, p. 216.

72 See note 43 above for the details.

73 The outline summary of his report is reproduced as Appendix XI of this Report.

74 Discussed in more detail in Chapter 19 - Future role of the United Nations below.

75 O'Brien, 1972, pp. 195 - 195.

76 I am particularly indebted to M. Robert Lecat of the French Ministry of Culture for giving me a photocopy of this part of the French Government's (apparently unpublished) preparatory report of December 1945 for Nuremberg on alleged war crimes against cultural property during the German occupation.

77 Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression: Opinion and Judgement, 1947 [Nuremberg Judgement 51], quoted by Miller, 1975, p.10.

78 United States v. Krauch el al. 1948 (8 Trials of War Criminals... No. 10), quoted by Miller, 1975, p.10.

79 United Nations Declaration on Genocide, 9 December 1948: Con­vention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno­cide, 1948.

80 Article 27 (United Nations, 1988).

81 Articles 49, 50, 129 and 146 respectively of the First to Fourth Conventions; see for example, Verhaegen, 1987, p.607 and Kalsho­ven, 1987, pp. 67 - 69.

82 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV of 12 August 1949).

83 Particularly by Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Article 53.

84 Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Article 27.

85 See in particular the general reviews of Woolley (1947) for a United Kingdom perspective, Rorimer (1950) for the experience of United States Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives officers in Europe, the French Government's (apparently unpublished) 66 pages of evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal on the Nazi pillag­ing [Délégation française au Ministère Public - Section économi­que, Janvier 1946: Exposé du Ministère Public: le Pillage des Oeuvres d'Art dans les Pays Occupés de l'Europe Occidentale: Doc. ref. XIII, 51], and the published account of Cassous (1947) for France, the publi­cation of the Hungarian Ministry of Culture (1947) for Hungary, the five volumes of reports of the Polish Ministry of Culture (1945), Lorenz (1947), and Polish Ministry of Culture (1949 - 1953) for Poland. Later major studies include Valland (1961) and Simon (1971) on France, Beseler & Gottschow (1988) on West Germany and Berlin, and Varshavsky & Rest (1985) on Leningrad.

86 In press: the French edition is due to be published by UNESCO in late 1993, and it is hoped that an English translation will follow in 1994.

87 1954 Hague Convention Preamble (UNESCO 1985, p. 18); also see the declaration in Article 1 that this is `of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people'. Prof. J. H. Merryman describes this innovation as `a charter for cultural internati­onalism', and points out, with every justification, the profound significance of this new definition of the international inter­est for other areas of the law and policy concerning the inter­national trade in and repatriation of cultural property, (Merry­man, 1966, p. 837).

88 Hague Conference on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 1954, Resolution I.

89 Hague Convention, 1954, Preamble.

90 Hague Convention, 1954, Articles 1, 8 and 12 - 14.

91 Article 5.

92 Article 7.

93 Articles 8 to 11.

94 Convention Articles 12 - 14, and Regulations Articles 17 - 19.

95 Article 16.

96 Articles 15 - 18.

97 Article 19.

98 Article 25.

99 Article 26.

100 See Chapter 8 and Appendix 5 on Periodic Reports by High Con­tacting Parties.

101 Article 28.

102 See para. 2.1 and notes 3 & 4 above.

103 Articles 28 - 40.

104 Hague 1954 Regulations Articles 1 - 10.

105 Hague Regulations, Articles 11 - 16.

106 Regulations Articles 17 - 19.

107 Regulations, Articles 20 - 21.

108 Hague 1954 Protocol, Para. I.

109 See Appendix IV of this report for a detailed comparison of the definitions used in various international instruments, and the discussion of the question of definitions in Chapter 3 of this Report.

110 See Appendix IV and Chapter 3, as in note 87 above.

111 See in particular Chapters 5 and 12 of this Report.

112 Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Geneva, 1974 - 1977): concluded on 8 June 1977: see Kalshoven, 1987, pp. 71 - 145.

113 Additional Geneva Protocol I, Part IV, 1977, Article 53 (interna­tional armed conflicts); Additional Geneva Protocol II, Part IV, 1977, Article 16 (non-international armed conflicts).

114 Kalshoven (1987, p. 71 - 72) records that in during the first nine years (1977 to 1986), only 59 States had become parties to Protocol I and only 52 to Protocol II.

115 Though, against the general trend, France has ratified Protocol II relating to non-international conflicts while, as a nuclear power, declining to ratify Protocol I.

116 Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, boob-traps and other devices (Geneva 1980 Protocol II).

117 Article 6 of Protocol II: Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, boob-traps and other devices (Geneva 1980 Protocol II).

118 United Nations Documents ref. S/RES/808 (1993) and S/2574, February 1993.

119 See the discussions in Chapter 9: Legal enforcement and sanctions.

120 1954 Hague Convention, Article 1.

121 Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, Article 27.

122 Roerich Pact, Article 1 - see para. 2.22 of this Report.

123 Office International des Musées, 1939, p. 181 - see also Appen­dix 3 of this Report.

124 Article 1.

125 Article 1.

126 UNESCO, 1985, pp. 57 - 73.

127 UNESCO, 1985, pp. 75 - 98.

128 The texts of each of these are printed in UNESCO 1985, pp. 103 - 239.

129 See Appendix VI of this Report for detailed comparisons of the various definitions.

130 1954 Convention, Article 2.

131 Article 3.

132 Article 4(1).

133 Detailed by Nahlik, 1967, especially pp. 128 onwards; the debates of the International Conference are also discussed in detail in Dr Jiri Toman's forthcoming study for UNESCO.

134 Article 4(2).

135 Lieber Code, Article 14.

136 O'Brien, 1972, p. 218; Kalshoven, 1987, especially pp. 64 - 67; see also the comprehensive consideration of the legal limits of international coercion of all kinds by McDouglas & Feliciano, 1967, and Kalshoven (1971 & 1990) specifically on the issue of reprisals.

137 O'Brien, 1972, p. 220 - 221.

138 Adler, 1972, p. 295.

139 Adler, 1972, p. 308.

140 Quoted in American Commission, 1946, p. 48.

141 Falk, 1972, p. 309.

142 When the Holy See proposed the designation of the whole of the Vatican City as a `centre containing monuments' with Special Protection under the Convention there had to be detailed nego­tiations with the government of Italy about the measures that it would be necessary for Italy to take, including diverting railway routes and neutralising Italian military and political establishments within a realistic zone of targeting error close to the boundaries of the Vatican City special protection zone. More recently in the Second Gulf War (the `Desert Storm' cam­paign of 1991) the United States claimed that the Iraqis had used cultural property within its control to shield military objects from attack: `A classic example is the positioning of two MiG 21 fighter aircraft at the entrance of the ancient temple of Ur. Although the law of war permitted their attack, and although each could have been destroyed utilizing precisi­on guided munitions, U.S. commanders recognized that the air­craft for all intents and purposes were incapable of military operations from their position, and elected against their attack for fear of collateral damage to the temple.' (U.S. Depar­tment of Defense to Congress, 19 January 1993 - see Appendix VIII).

143 First Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 46; Second Geneva Convention, Article 47; Third Geneva Convention, Article 13; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 33.

144 Pictet, 1952 - 1960.

145 First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, Article 53.

146 Washington (Roerich) Pact, Article 1.

147 See the records of the Intergovernmental Conference, (Govern­ment of the Netherlands, 1961) and Dr Jiri Toman's forthcoming UNESCO study; other published considerations of the Conferen­ce's handling of the `military necessity' issue are those of Nahlik (1967 & 1988).

148 Article 4.

149 Article 5 (1 & 2).

150 Article 5 (3).

151 1954 Hague Convention Article 3.

152 Lavachery & Noblecourt, 1954 (1st, French, edition); Noblecourt, 1958 (2nd, English, edition).

153 Chapter 5: Peacetime preparation for the application of the 1954 Convention.

154 Paras. 4.21 - 4.23.

155 Article 6.

156 Article 7 - Military measures.

157

Peacetime Preparation
Noblecourt, 1953.

158

Peacetime Preparation
Royaume de Belgique, 1953.

159 For example, Renan, 1937; International Museums Office, 1939; British Museum, 1939; Government of The Netherlands, 1939; Coremans, 1946; Smallcombe, 1946.

160 Noblecourt, 1954.

161 International Museums Office, 1939.

162 Noblecourt, 1958.

163 See examples listed in note (6) above.

164 UNESCO Doc. No. WS/0562.68 of 15 June 1962.

165 1962 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. WS/0562.68 of 15 June 1962; 1967 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. SCH/MD/1 of 19 May 1967; 1970 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. SCH/MD/6 OF 30 April 1970; 1979 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD/41 of 25 June 1979; 1984 Report: Doc. No. CLT/M­D/3 of 3 December 1984; 1989 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD-11, December 1989.

166 Noblecourt 1954 & 1958.

167 The progress of Austria's practical programme for implementing the Convention are detailed in the Director-General's compila­tions of periodic reports for 1967, 1979 and 1984 - see note 12 above for details.

168 Switzerland's peacetime preparations are outlined in its reports to the Director-General for 1967, 1970, 1984 and 1989 - see note 12 above.

169 India established a national Advisory Committee as early as 1959. More recent progress and current initiatives are detailed in the most recent report to UNESCO (UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD-11 of December 1989)

170 Personal communication from Prof. Partsch.

171 See Chapter 17 below.

172 Boylan, 1992.

173 See for example Cassou, 1947; Rorimer, 1950 and Valland, 1961.

174

Peacetime Preparation
I am very much indebted to M. Robert Lecat, Inspecteur Général de l'Administration, and M. Bruno Favel, Chargé de Mission, Département des Affaires Internationales (Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Culture, France), for a detailed briefing, and for follow-up documentation.

175 I am very grateful indeed to Mrs Sabine Gimbrère, (Cultural Policy Department - Division of Multilateral Co-operation), Mr G.C. Lodder (Director, Cultural Heritage Directorate) and Mr J. Evenblij (Cultural Protection Inspector), (all in the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Culture), for explaining and giving me so much information on the Dutch cultural protection system, and for arranging meetings with representatives of all those involved, including the Ministry of Defence, museums, monuments and archives staff, and volunteer inspectors.

176 Government of the Netherlands Handbook (1991), p. 4 (translated as Appendix IX of this Report: I an very much indebted to Mrs Sabine Gimbrère for commissioning the English translation of this).

177 Government of the Netherlands, 1991, p. 4.

178 Government of the Netherlands, 1991, p. 5.

179 Government of the Netherlands, 1991, p. 1.

180 Interview with John Tomblin, Head of Disaster Mitigation Branch, UNDRO, Geneva, on 15 April 1993.

181 An full archaeological-style excavation was carried out on the site of the former Hull Museum during a seven month period in the summer of 1989, prior to the construction of a new commercial building on the site, at a cost of over £200,000. This `Phoenix Project' recovered a substantial amount of additional material deep in the former basements of the museum which, in the emergency conditions of wartime, had been bulldozed flat for safety reasons following only a brief search to recover the lost collections. (It is to be hoped that in due course a full report of this remarkable exercise will be published, not least so that the techniques developed in it could be applied elsewhere in attempting to recover material from the ruins of museums devastated by disasters, whether natural or humanly made.

182 Discussions with Leo Van Nispen, Secretary-General and the Secretariat of US-ICOMOS.

183 Particularly through its International Committee for Museum Security (discussions with and documents from its Secretary, David Liston, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, USA) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Disaster Preparedness (discussions with and documents from its Convenor, Ms Barbara Roberts, Museum Consultant, Seattle, USA).

184 Discussions with Mrs Marta De La Torre and Ms Jane Siena, Getty Conservation Institute, and Wilbur Falk, Director of Security for the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, for which he has prepared an outstanding Emergency Planning Handbook and a staff training video: The John Paul Getty Museum Emergency Drill. (On 1 March 1993 Wilbur Falk was promoted to Director of Security for the Getty Foundation overall, and all its subsidiary divisions.)

185 For example, the National Fire Protection Association produces excellent guides to the required standards of protection for Libraries, Museums and `Historic Structures and Sites', (National Fire Protection Association 1991A, 1991B and 1992 respectively) in association with the American National Standards Institute, (ANSI).

186 A good brief survey of current weapons research and development has recently been published by Doswald-Beck and Cauderey (1990) of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

187 1954 Hague Intergovernmental Conference, Resolution II annexed to the 1954 Hague Convention and Protocol.

188 International Museums Office, October 1936, Preliminary Draft Convention for the Protection of Historic Buildings and Works of Art in Time of War, paras. 4 and 5: see Appendix V of this Report.

189 1954 Convention, Article 8.

190 1954 Convention, Article 8 (6) and Regulations, Article 12.

191 Regulations, Article 14.

192 Regulations, Article 11.

193 Rules Established by the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 18 August 1956, concerning the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection. UNESCO Doc. No. CL/1136(G).

194 International Register for The Netherlands, Austria, German Federal Republic: UNESCO Doc. No. MUS/BC/8 (20)

195 Mainly personal communications from local experts, but this is mentioned in Yugoslavia's 1979 periodic report to the Director-General of UNESCO on the implementation of the 1954 Conven­tion: UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD/41, 25 June 1979, p. 28 col. 2.

196 Private communications; there is also some information in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Report (in sections not reproduced in Appendix XII of this Report.

197 International Register for The State of Vatican City, UNESCO Doc. No. MUS/BC/8 (20)

198 UNESCO administrative files; private communications; interview with W. Hays Parks, Chief, International Law Branch, Office of Judge Advocate General of the US Army, 1 March 1993.

199 See paras. 5.33 - 5.36 above; also Appendix IX.

200 1954 Convention, Article 12; Regulations, Chapter III (Articles 17 - 19).

201

Special Protection
1954 Convention, Articles 13 and 14.

202 Regulations, Article 20 (2).

203 1954 Convention, Articles 20 and 21; Regulations, Articles 2 - 8.

204 Regulations, Article 9: Substitutes for Protecting Powers.

205 Regulations, Article 1.

206 Regulations, Articles 2 - 6.

207 See Director-General's compilation of periodic reports of High Contracting Parties, 1970: UNESCO Doc. No. SCH/MD/6 for an outline of the action taken: this also has a full list of references to UNESCO Executive Board papers and resolutions relating to this.

208 1954 Convention, Article 23: Assistance of UNESCO.

209 Tyre presented a particularly complex situation, with long-term occupation of the unfinished archaeological excavations themselves by Palestinian groups for at least four years before the Israeli invasion, and a well-organised and well-armed though irregular south Lebanon militia outside the control of the Lebanese government and army by allied with Israel also involved.

210 1954 Convention, Article 26 (2).

211 UNESCO Doc. No. WS/0562.68, dated 15 June 1962.

212 As provided for in the Convention, Article 27 (1).

213 1962 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. WS/0562.68 of 15 June 1962; 1967 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. SCH/MD/1 of 19 May 1967; 1970 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. SCH/MD/6 OF 30 April 1970; 1979 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD/41 of 25 June 1979; 1984 Report: Doc. No. CLT/M­D/3 of 3 December 1984; 1989 Report: UNESCO Doc. No. CC/MD-11, December 1989.

214 Since reaching this view, Prof. Dr.Jur. Josef Partsch, Professor Emeritus, University of Bonn, Germany, and an eminent legal expert in the field, has written to me making a similar proposal, which he and Prof. Stanislav Nahlik have previously proposed at meetings of experts on the 1954 Hague Convention.

215 Sandoz, 1988.

216 See in particular para. 2.50 of this Report and O'Brien, 1972, pp. 195 - 195.

217 Geneva Protocol I of 1977, Article 53.

218 Interim Report of Commission, p. 13, para. 37, annexed to report of Secretary-General to Security Council dated 9 February 1993, U.N. Doc. No. S/2574.

219 Report of Commission of Experts (see note 4 above), p. 13, paras. 39 - 40.

220 Report of Commission of Experts (see note 4 above), p. 14, paras. 43 - 45.

221 Security Council Resolution No. 764 of 13 July 1992, U.N. Doc. No. S/RES/764.

222 Report of Commission of Experts Report (see note 4 above), pp. 15 - 16, paras. 52 - 53. The United States of America experts assisting in the preparation of evidence for the proposed United Nations war crimes actions are also convinced that the issue of command responsibility must encompass any failure of local and regional military commanders in occupied areas to exercise adequate military control over both irregular forces and the civilian population responsible for individual war crimes: interview with W. Hays Parks, United States Department of Defense, and Edward R. Cummings, Department of State, 1 March 1993.

223 Report of Commission of Experts, (see note 4), p. 16, para. 56.

224 United Nations Security Council Resolution 808 (U.N. Doc. Ref. S/RES/808 (1993), adopted by the 3175th meeting of the Security Council, 22 February 1993.

225 1954 Convention, Article 28.

226 1949 Geneva Convention I, articles 49 and 50; 1949 Geneva Convention II, articles 50 and 51. Under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2391 of 26 November 1968 (Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity), war crimes are deemed to be imprescriptible and punishable everywhere. Though General Assembly resolutions are not in themselves binding, the same principle was subsequently incorporated in Article 85 of Additional Protocol I of 1977, and hence applicable, at least in the case of the States parties to Additional Protocol I: see the discussion of Sandoz (1988) generally, and especially p. 277.

227 Examples of the penal sanctions of different countries under cultural protection law are detailed in the two volume UNESCO Compendium of legislative texts (UNESCO 1984).

228 Appendix C: War damage to the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in Council of Europe Doc. 6756, Parliamentary Assembly, 2 February 1993: Information Report on the destruction by war of the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

229 Under Security Council Resolution 808 of February 1993. In view of the confused status of the disintegrating former Yugoslavia during at least part of the period during which the various reported serious outrages took place within an international conflict, the Security Council's decisions are especially important. If such crimes occurred during an international conflict then they could be considered as `grave breaches' of the Geneva Conventions, and hence subject to possible international jurisdiction, while if the conflicts are classified as non-international conflicts at the relevant time then the `grave breaches' provisions are not applicable, hence excluding the possibility of international jurisdiction.

230 Examples of important issues still outstanding include disputes between Jordan and Israel, Lebanon and Israel and Cyprus and Turkey, (as the State regarded internationally as responsible for northern Cyprus). (Another example - that between Panama and the United States of America over damage to and looting from the national museums in the 1989 operation - appears to have been abandoned following the change of government in Panama.)

231 1954 Hague Convention, Article 22.

232 1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 90.

233 Additional Protocol I of 1977, Article 89.

234 Sandoz, 1988, p. 279.

235 United Nations, 1990, (Doc. DPI/511).

236 Bassiouni, 1983, p. 297.

237 Bassiouni, 1983, p. 308.

238 In addition to the specific study of Bassiouni, 1983 on general criminal jurisdiction issues in relation to cultural property, Toman, 1984, and Merryman, 1986 also considers related issues, (see particularly Merryman, 1986, pp. 833 - 842) in respect of the 1954 Hague Convention. The need for a joint approach between international lawyers and criminal lawyers must be stressed; one of the significant and recurring criticisms of the 1945 London Treaty and the Nuremberg war crimes trials following the London principles over the past forty year or more was that the whole exercise was dominated by experts in, and by the philosophy of, public international law, rather than criminal law. In relation to Nuremberg I am much indebted to Prof. Charles Arnold-Baker, Barrister of the Middle Temple, who was with the British occupying forces in Germany at the end of the War and subsequently, for much information on the internal debate amongst British lawyers at the time.

239 This is problem is not confined to belligerent troops: foreign forces giving international assistance, whether in a bilateral or United Nations monitoring, peace-keeping or peacemaking role, also present a significant threat in terms of smuggling and other illicit trafficking, not least because they usually have access to their own international transportation facilities outside normal national regulation.

240 Nine States attending the Conference signed the Convention but refused to sign the Protocol: Andorra, Australia, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

241 Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 1954.

242 Hague Convention, 1954, Articles 1 - 3.

243 The legal aspects of this problem is discussed in detail by Lyndel Prott (1989), while the same author, jointly with Patrick O'Keefe, has in progress the encyclopedic 5 volume Law and the Cultural Heritage: of the volumes published so far Vol. III - Movement (O'Keefe and Prott, 1989) is particularly relevant.

244 Hague Protocol 1954, Article 5.

245 Hague Protocol 1954, Article 4.

246 For purposes of comparison with adherence to the 1954 Hague Protocol the list of States Parties to the 1971 Convention as at April 1993 is incorporated in the tabulation in Appendix II of this Report.

247 1970 UNESCO Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership Convention, Article 11.

248 Except, of course, for legitimate temporary transfers of cultural property under proper authorization and supervision, e.g. by Commissioners-General, to refuges and other places of safety outside the war zone.

249 See para. 2.3 of this Report.

250 See para. 2.40, and Chapter 13 of this Report.

251 I am greatly indebted to W. Hays Parks, Chief, International Law Branch, Office of Judge Advocate General of the Army, U.S. Department of Defense for his historical analysis of this important matter; see also the brief comment on this in the January 1993 Department of Defense report to Congress reproduced as Appendix VIII to this Report.

252 Information from W. Hays Parks, see note 2 above.

253 January 1993 U.S. Defense Department report, see note 3, and information from W. Hays Parks, see note 2.

254 W. Hays Parks of the U.S. Department of Defense has explained the formalised United States procedure in some detail in discussions and correspondence, and this procedure ought to be more widely known and generally adopted. In strike planning, the target provisionally selected is identified and located, as are the defences surrounding it and on the likely routes of ingress and egress to the target. A large area surrounding the target is then searched by map, aerial photograph and other information sources (such as academic information in the case of features of possible cultural interest), and areas of civilian population, schools, hospitals, religious sites and cultural property. All such features are thereafter identified as `no bomb' areas, and if there is something of special significance and importance this is highlighted. The next stage in the process is the selection of the weapons system to be used: for example it was decided that only precision guided weapons should be used in the Baghdad area during the Desert Storm campaign. The actual training of the aircrew concerned in relation to the attack then focuses on the strict requirement that in the absence of positive identification of the allotted target the ordnance may not be released.

255 January 1993 Department of Defense Report - see Appendix VIII.

256 Information from W. Hays Parks, see note 2 above.

257 Discussion with Edward R. Cummings, Assistant Legal Adviser, Politico-Legal Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

258 Though the Republic of China administration of Chiang Kai-sheck, based in Taiwan, attended the 1954 Intergovernmental Conference and signed both the Convention and Protocol on 14 May 1954, when the People's Republic of China replaced the Nationalist government in the United Nations and its various organisations in 1971 it repudiated all treaties and agreements signed in the name of China from 1949 onwards, pending a review of whether China should formally succeed to these, (UNESCO, 1985, pp. 53 - 54). The People's Republic has not yet agreed to adopt the 1954 Convention and Protocol.

259 For a full list of the present position in relation to the Convention and Protocol for these (and all other) States in membership of the United Nations is given in Appendix 2 of this Report.

260 Private communications. (However, those who harbour such suspicions can point to the documentary evidence that more than 15 years later the various right wing organisations in the United States campaigning for the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from UNESCO were still attacking UNESCO's (entirely legitimate and proper) attempts to apply the 1954 in the Arab - Israeli conflicts as evidence of alleged anti-Israeli and anti-American bias and hence a reason for the United States to leave the world body.)

261
1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page