Sorry - I neglected to append the message by Prof. Boylan, from ICOM-L.
It follows below.
Andras
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:12:33 +0100
From:         P Boylan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:     International Council of Museums Discussion List
                 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: ICOM-CC appalled by looting in Iraq.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Sophia Labadi wrote:
   ++++ [CLIP] ++++
>
> ICOM-CC said:
> 'ICOM-CC urges the so-called Coalition Forces to act according to
> The Hague Convention'.
>
> This is just a rhetorical question:
> Neither the USA nor the UK have ratified the 1954 Hague Convention.
> Why then would they act according to it?
>
> Sophia.
==================================
Sophia:

Not a rhetorical question at all, in fact.

It is true that neither country has ratified either the 1954 Hague
Convention, nor the First Protocol (which has the effect of making
illegal
almost all actual or purported "transfers of ownership" of cultural
property in war zones.)

However:

1.  Iraq is a party to both, so the Convention applies to the territory,
(the "lex situs" rule under both international and national law) and
arguably therefore to everyone within the territory and all actions by
them regardless of their nationality,

2.  The United States Defense and State Departments jointly formally
recommended in about 1996 that the President should seek to ratify the
Hague Convention (though not the First Protocol - presumably due to
objections from the art and antiquities trade).  The Convention was
duly sent to the Senate for ratification in 1998, but successive
Foreign Relations Committee Chairmen (of both Parties) have failed
to even table the proposal for debate.

3.  At the 1999 Diplomatic Conference which agreed to update the Hague
Convention through a Second Protocol the United Kingdom also stated that
it now supported Ratification of the Convention (though not the Protocol)
and subject to Ministerial approval hoped to Ratify alongside the USA.

4.  The publicly stated policy of both The USA and the UK is to comply
with the principles of the Hague Convention even though neither country
is yet formally a party to it.

To me, the puzzle is why has there been such apparent chaos, looting
and destruction in West Baghdad, with the military authorities arguing
that nothing could be done about this immediately.  In total contrast,
following standard US military principles, the US Marine Corps which
are in charge in East Baghdad seems to have moved immediately to
assert and maintain law and order, so looting, arson etc. has been
kept under control.  (For example, though little publicised by the
international press, who are largely holed up in hotels in the
Business and Government Quarter in West Baghdad, the local medical chief
this afternoon reported in a TV interview that all 12 hospitals east
of the River Tigris were immediately guarded and continue to function,
with little or no looting.)

Unfortunately the national museum was on the wrong side of the river,
where there seems to have been quite a different interpretation of
United States and International Military and Humanitarian Law from that
applied by the commanders of the Marines in East Baghdad.

Patrick Boylan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
        http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
        to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
       http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]