Can the destruction of cultural buildings be called a war crime

�

asked Janelh,�following the recent charges against members of the Yugoslav military for shelling Dubrovnik

A. For most of our history the destruction and looting of buildings and cultural and religious artefacts was part and parcel of warfare. The Second World War changed all this when whole cities were almost completely destroyed. The bombings of Dresden, in particular, caused much controversy as it contained many fine examples of medieval architecture.

�

It was the unprecedented scale of the cultural losses - not to mention the loss of human life - that led many to argue that as there were laws governing the treatment of people in wartime, so there should be protection for their cultural achievements. One upshot of this was the adoption in 1954 at the Hague of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, known as the Hague Convention.

�

Q. What is the Hague Convention
A. To quote a UNESCO source, the convention 'aims at providing advice for the protection of cultural heritage in the case of identified threats or of emergencies, to facilitate international response to the threats or emergencies, to act in an advisory capacity in cases arising under the Hague Convention and to encourage safeguarding and respect for cultural property and particularly to promote higher standards of risks preparedness.'

�

In 1999 the scope of the convention was widened by adding that any attack against cultural property or its use as a base for military action, makes the perpetrator liable to criminal proceedings.

�

Q. What about Dubrovnik
A. Between October and December 1991, during Croatia's struggle for independence from Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav forces bombed the historic city of Dubrovnik. The city, because of its unusually well-preserved medieval and Renaissance buildings, had been on the UNESCO list of world heritage sites since 1979. The International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has now found members of the Yugoslav air force guilty of destruction of historic monuments under the Hague convention, although the individuals haven't been named. This is unprecedented in that it is the first time that a crime against cultural property has been sanctioned by an international tribunal.

�

Q. And the future
A. This hardening of attitudes may not put an end to such things - the recent bombardment of Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan by government forces, despite international attempts to stop it, is evidence of that.�But it does mean that individuals, and even governments, may at some later date be made accountable for their actions. Although, as one commentator has pointed out, it will always be difficult to bring a member of the winning side to book.

�

To ask more Arts & Literature questions, click here

�

By Simon Smith