Scope Of The Second Protocol To The Hague Convention Of 1954 For The Protection Of Cultural Property In Event Of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999

Original Language Title: Geltungsbereich des Zweiten Protokolls zur Haager Konvention von 1954 zum Schutz von Kulturgut bei bewaffneten Konflikten, Den Haag, 26. März 1999

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
141. Proclamation of the Federal Chancellor concerning the scope of the second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in event of armed conflict, the Hague, 26 March 1999

According to Communications Director of General of organisation for education, science and culture of the United Nations following States have their instruments of ratification or accession to the second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in event of armed conflict, the Hague, 26 March 1999 (BGBl. III No. 113/2004) deposited:

 







States:









Date of deposit of the





Instrument of ratification or instrument of accession:









Egypt





August 3, 2005







Armenia





May 18, 2006







Brazil





September 23, 2005







Ecuador





August 2, 2004







Estonia





January 17, 2005







Finland





August 27, 2004







Greece





April 20, 2005







Guatemala





February 4, 2005







Iran





May 24, 2005







Canada





November 29, 2005







Croatia





February 8, 2006







Luxembourg





June 30, 2005







Nigeria





October 21, 2005







Paraguay





November 9, 2004







Peru





May 24, 2005







Switzerland





July 9, 2004







Tajikistan





February 21, 2006







Hungary





October 26, 2005





 

On the occasion of the deposit of their instruments of accession, the following States have made following statements or declared reservations:

Iran:



The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral supplementary agreements to the present Protocol as necessary - in view of the particular importance of the protection of the cultural heritage of peoples against damage through wars, - considering that the cultural heritage of peoples is considered part of the cultural heritage of mankind, - considering that the comprehensive protection of the cultural heritage against damage caused by armed conflict requires more protection than that which is provided for in the present Protocol, and expressed their willingness to enter into such agreements. These agreements should offer the guarantee for privileges and more possibilities for the protection of the cultural heritage of peoples and clarify the rules agreed in the Protocol including the provisions of customary international law, whereby the provisions to include are, against which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed no opposition, and which explain more clearly the implementation of section 4 of the Protocol.

Canada:



1. the Government of Canada assumes that the definition of a military objective in article 2 lit. f to be interpreted in the same way, para. 2 of the additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is like in article 52.

2. the Government of Canada assumes that, in connection with article 6 lit. a (ii), 6 lit. b, 7 lit. a, 7 lit. b, 8, 13 para 2 lit. a and 13 para 2 lit. b the word "feasible" means everything, what is actually possible or feasible, taking into account all the status quo at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

3. the Government of Canada assumes that, in connection with article 6 lit. a (ii), 6 lit. b, 7 lit. c and 7 lit. d (ii) the military advantage anticipated from an attack related to the expected benefit of the attack as a whole and not to individual or particular parts of the attack.

4. the Government of Canada assumes that any cultural property that becomes a military target attacked in accordance with a waiver of imperative military necessity pursuant to article 4 paragraph 2 of the Convention may be.

5. the Government of Canada assumes that a decision on the grounds of imperative military necessity pursuant to article 6 lit. c of this Protocol by a commander of a military unit that is smaller than it corresponds to the size of a battalion, in circumstances where the cultural heritage becomes a military target and the circumstances ruling relating to the protection of military units are such that it is not feasible, that the decision is made by a commander of a military unit can be made , the size of a battalion or larger matches.

6. the Government of Canada assumes that in accordance with article 6 lit. a (i), can heritage become a military objective due to its nature, its location, its purpose, or its use.

Bowl

Related Laws