Cultural Heritage in War

The Cultural Heritage in War resolution was originally conceived as a replacement to the World Heritage List long before that resolution was repealed.[1] This resolution was the third resolution from the new Education and Creativity category to reach the floor of the United Nations and also the third resolution sponsored by Quintessence of Dust. The UN floor debate was fairly limited, as many of the nations that participated in the debate showed strong support for the resolution. This strong support was also reflected in the overall UN vote where the resolution was achieved a supermajority of votes.

History

Draft proposal

Gruenberg originally presented the United Nations with a draft to replace the World Heritage List with a more detailed resolution in July 2006.[2] (The original idea was based on the real life Third Hague Convention.) The initial response from UN members was supportive. So much so that the original text of the first draft was overwritten during the extensive deliberations to build a stronger resolution to protect cultural assets. One of the original operative clauses was eventually dropped, but the focus of the proposal still centered on regulating war time conduct (a theme consistent with many other UN resolutions including Children in War and Civilian Rights Post War. Even long-time proponents of the World Heritage List and Protect Historical Sites resolutions, such as Mikitivity openly favored the initial drafts of the new proposal in favor of then existing resolutions.[3]

The most significant debates during the drafting of this proposal focused on protecting religious sites that also might be instrumental to a war effort and on issues relating to the damage of cultural sites during domestic civil conflicts (i.e. civil wars and terrorist attacks). After taking into consideration this issues, Gruenberg finally submitted the final draft of the proposal to the UN proposal queue in November 2006.

UN floor debate

One of the few remaining arguments raised in opposition to this resolution, as conveyed to the UN floor by the regional delegate from Autropolis, was that non-UN members would not be bound by this resolution.[4] Minister Royce pointed out that UN members would be bounded by this resolution to protect the cultural heritage sites of other nations, but would be unable to protect their own sites from attack from non-UN member states. Ambassador Howie Katzman of Mikitivity and Director George Madison of Quintessence of Dust both pointed out that when a resolution is adopted by a strong margin and achieves a supermajority, that the concept behind the resolution is beneficial to thousands of nations, thus it is logical to assume that many non-member states would also find benefit in the basic principals of the resolution and choose to voluntarily abide by the principals included in it. [5], [6] Katzman argued that even nations that might seek to exploit the benefit of not having to avoid targeting cultural sites would find advantage in actually agreeing to international opinion and only targeting these sites as a means of last resort or else they might find increased UN opposition to their war efforts would.

Resolution text

The United Nations,

Believing that notable articles of cultural heritage constitute a legacy for all people,

Noting the heightened risk to such articles during armed conflict,

Convinced that the preservation of cultural heritage for all is a goal both worthy of and requiring international action and agreement,

Equally not wishing to unduly infringe upon the sovereign territory and right to self-defence of its member nations:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "cultural heritage" as:
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation;
- any other articles agreed on by parties to the armed conflict as protected cultural property, or designated as such in international law;

2. Declares that this resolution shall be considered to apply in times of armed conflict, which shall include:
- armed conflict between two or more state parties;
- civil war recognised as such by both internal and external parties;
- armed insurrection or civil disturbance leading to a declaration of a state of emergency;

3. Requires member nations to refrain from, and prevent to the best abilities their forces and the civilian populations of areas under their control from engaging in:
- the deliberate and targeted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
- the desecration, vandalism, theft or taking as reparations of cultural heritage;
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;

4. Condemns all acts in contravention of this resolution and calls upon member nations to investigate, try, and where found guilty punish those involved in such acts.

Votes For: 8,184

Votes Against: 3,450

Implemented: Thu Apr 19 2007

Gameplay impacts

Though the resolution had no lasting impacts on the actual gameplay mechanics of NationStates, its language did not repeat the exact requirements of its predecessor, the World Heritage List. Under the first operative clause of this resolution it is between parties engaged in armed conflict and international law to pre-determine what sites should be considered protected by this resolution.

Additional materials

• Cultural Heritage in War UN floor debate
• Protection of Cultural Heritage in War Draft proposal
• Protect Historical Sites UN resolution
• World Heritage List repealed UN resolution
• UN Timeline
• Index of UN Resolutions
• United Nations