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:
Date of deposit of the
Instrument of ratification or instrument of accession:
August 3, 2005
May 18, 2006
September 23, 2005
August 2, 2004
January 17, 2005
August 27, 2004
April 20, 2005
February 4, 2005
May 24, 2005
November 29, 2005
February 8, 2006
June 30, 2005
October 21, 2005
November 9, 2004
May 24, 2005
July 9, 2004
February 21, 2006
October 26, 2005
On the occasion of the deposit of their instruments of accession, the following States have made following statements or declared reservations:
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.
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.