Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage and Reparations

Vrdoljak, AF

Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage and Reparations

Vrdoljak, AF

Permalink

Publisher:: CRC Press
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Culture and International Law, 2021
Issue Date:: 2021-04

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Binder1.pdf	Published version	10.5 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Vrdoljak, AF
dc.date.accessioned	2022-06-21T00:07:13Z
dc.date.available	2022-06-21T00:07:13Z
dc.date.issued	2021-04
dc.identifier.citation	Culture and International Law, 2021
dc.identifier.isbn	0367776626
dc.identifier.isbn	9780367776626
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/158287
dc.description.abstract	The cultural heritage should be protected all the time. None of the high contracting parties in the hostilities could destroy or even use it as their shield. The role of international responsibility – whether it be individual criminal responsibility, State responsibility, and the responsibility of the international organisations – and reparations in addressing and responding to intentional destruction of cultural heritage shall be clear. The overlap between prohibition against the destruction of cultural property, individual criminal responsibility and reparations evolved in lockstep with international humanitarian law and international criminal law generally. Therefore, this paper examines the Al Mahdi Judgment, Sentencing and Reparations Order in this broader context, from the IMT, the ad hoc Tribunals, to the ICC today, to better understand why and how international law is addressing the intentional destruction of cultural property. The first part of this paper will examines the general rationales for sentencing in international criminal law and how these translate into conduct directed at cultural property from war crimes, crimes against humanity (particularly persecution) and genocide. The second part considers reparations awarded in respect of these crimes, again by considering the rationale for reparations generally and then as it’s translates in respect crimes covering cultural property. The concluding part considers the cleavages and cross-purposes that the ICC Judgment reveals in respect of the priorities of the international community and the ability of international law to address them.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	CRC Press
dc.relation.ispartof	Culture and International Law
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1201/9780429426032-4/intentional-destruction-cultural-heritage-reparations-ana-filipa-vrdoljak
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage and Reparations
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2022-06-21T00:07:12Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

The cultural heritage should be protected all the time. None of the high contracting parties in the hostilities could destroy or even use it as their shield. The role of international responsibility – whether it be individual criminal responsibility, State responsibility, and the responsibility of the international organisations – and reparations in addressing and responding to intentional destruction of cultural heritage shall be clear. The overlap between prohibition against the destruction of cultural property, individual criminal responsibility and reparations evolved in lockstep with international humanitarian law and international criminal law generally. Therefore, this paper examines the Al Mahdi Judgment, Sentencing and Reparations Order in this broader context, from the IMT, the ad hoc Tribunals, to the ICC today, to better understand why and how international law is addressing the intentional destruction of cultural property. The first part of this paper will examines the general rationales for sentencing in international criminal law and how these translate into conduct directed at cultural property from war crimes, crimes against humanity (particularly persecution) and genocide. The second part considers reparations awarded in respect of these crimes, again by considering the rationale for reparations generally and then as it’s translates in respect crimes covering cultural property. The concluding part considers the cleavages and cross-purposes that the ICC Judgment reveals in respect of the priorities of the international community and the ability of international law to address them.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/158287