[CPProt.net] FW: REGIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL SEMINAR PROMOTING THE 1999 SECOND PROTOCOL OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION

[MSN and CPProt list (Ton Cremers)]

-----Original Message-----
From: P Boylan [mailto:P.Boylan at city.ac.uk] 
Sent: 09 March 2005 15:08
To: Ton Cremers
Subject: REGIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL SEMINAR PROMOTING THE 1999 SECOND
PROTOCOL OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION 

Dear Ton,

There was a very big attendance (I would guess more than a hundred) in
Buenos Aires last week for the latest of the series of Regional Seminars,
organised in cooperation with UNESCO and the International Humanitarian Law
Advisory Service of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Here is the programme of the three days (22nd - 4th March 2005), the
Seminar's conclusions ("Recomandaciones de Buenos Aires"), and the text of
my own invited contribution on the potential role of cultural professionals
and their NGOs under the new Second Protocol to the Hague Convention regime.

This is the latest in a series of such regional seminars promoting the Hague
Convention, and particularly Second Protocol, following its coming into
force in March 2004, previous ones including Warsaw in May 2004 and Phnom
Penh, Cambodia, in December 2004. The European Union is promoting a further
regional seminar in Amman, Jordan, in mid-April under it's EUROMED cultural
and academic programme for the southern countries of the EU and other
Mediterranean Region states.

Though I haven't seen the exact date yet, it is confirmed that the first
statutory meeting of States Parties to the Second Protocol will be held
during the next General Conference of UNESCO in October 2005.  This will
have a number of very important issues on the agenda, including adopting
Rules of Procedure, Operational Guidelines and the Rules for the new Fund
for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Even more important, it will elect the 12 members of the new governing
standing Committee.  Only States Parties to the Protocol at the date of the
meeting will be eligible to vote and be nominated to the new Committee, so
any country wanting to take a full part will have top get their legal
Instrument of Ratification or Accession to the D-G of UNESCO at least three
months before the date of the meeting - i.e. by about the end of June.



Best wishes



Patrick

=====================

(Prof.) Patrick J. Boylan
(Professor Emeritus, City University London)

====================


RECOMENDACIONES DE BUENOS AIRES

(4 de marzo de 2005)


Los participantes del Seminario Regional “La protección de bienes culturales
en caso de conflicto armado: un desafío y una oportunidad para América
Latina y el Caribe”, organizado conjuntamente en Buenos Aires por la
República Argentina y la UNESCO, con el apoyo del Comité Internacional de la
Cruz Roja (CICR), a partir de la valiosa iniciativa de la Cancillería
Argentina,


Recordando la significación para América Latina y el Caribe del Pacto
Roerich de 1935, en tanto primer instrumento específico para la protección
de bienes culturales en caso de conflicto armado, 

Conscientes de la importancia de tener en cuenta las especificidades de
nuestra región en la puesta en práctica y promoción del esquema normativo
internacional para la protección de bienes culturales en caso de conflicto
armado,

Reconociendo que el patrimonio cultural es un componente de la identidad
cultural y de la cohesión social de sus diversas comunidades, por lo que su
daño o destrucción deliberados pueden menoscabar tanto la paz como la
dignidad humana y el respeto de los derechos humanos,

Recordando que, en situación de conflicto armado, dicho daño o destrucción
puede representar una violación del derecho internacional humanitario,

Subrayando que el patrimonio cultural constituye el legado del pasado, un
activo del presente y la herencia de las futuras generaciones, y observando
la necesidad de protegerlo y conservarlo como parte de la vida cotidiana,
fuente irremplazable de vida e inspiración, punto de referencia y base
fundamental del desarrollo económico y social, 



Recomiendan:

1.	Los países de América Latina y el Caribe que no lo hayan hecho
deberían ratificar la Convención de la Haya sobre protección de bienes
culturales en caso de conflicto armado (1954) y sus dos Protocolos (1954 y
1999), así como, de manera más general, la Convención de 1970 y el Convenio
UNIDROIT de 1995 sobre apropiación y transferencia ilícitas y restitución de
bienes culturales, y otras convenciones relativas a la protección del
patrimonio cultural.

2.	 En cualquier situación, se deberían dictar y/o reforzar normas y
establecer mecanismos, a nivel regional, nacional y local, que permitan
hacer operativos dichos instrumentos, particularmente en lo referido a la
prevención, jurisdicción y sanción por la destrucción de bienes culturales
en el marco de un conflicto armado.

3.	Al aplicar la Convención de 1954 y sus dos Protocolos, debería
tenerse en cuenta que:

a)	un número significativo de bienes culturales en la región tienen
valores materiales e inmateriales intrínsecamente relacionados, y/o se
inscriben en un contexto natural del que no pueden ser disociados; y


b)	teniendo en cuenta asimismo que la Convención y sus Protocolos
codifican en parte el derecho internacional consuetudinario en la materia,
el estándar de protección resultante que es comúnmente aplicable en un
conflicto armado, internacional o interno (sin carácter internacional) puede
resultar igualmente válido y oportuno en otras situaciones, por ejemplo,
disturbios internos y catástrofes naturales. Del mismo modo, la experiencia
obtenida en este último tipo de situaciones puede servir para diseñar
estrategias y legislación en materia de protección de bienes culturales en
caso de conflicto armado.


4.	Debería promoverse:


a)	la inclusión de normas relativas a la protección del patrimonio
cultural en caso de conflicto armado en las reglamentaciones militares; 
b)	la inclusión de un módulo específico sobre la protección de bienes
culturales en caso de conflicto armado en los programas de formación y
capacitación de los efectivos militares y de seguridad, a fin de reforzar el
fundamento ético –que es preexistente al jurídico- de dicha protección;
c)	la coordinación, a nivel internacional, nacional e
interinstitucional, en materia de  protección del patrimonio cultural, entre
las autoridades nacionales competentes y  las fuerzas militares y de
seguridad, asociando a ellas a las organizaciones no gubernamentales
competentes y la sociedad civil en su conjunto. Ello, a fin de evitar la
duplicación de esfuerzos y asegurar la eficacia de las medidas a adoptar, y
teniendo particularmente en cuenta el caso de catástrofes naturales y/o
disturbios internos;


   
5.	Asimismo, debería promoverse el estudio de mecanismos y modalidades
para incluir de manera efectiva la protección de bienes culturales en el
mandato de las operaciones de paz bajo los auspicios de las Naciones Unidas.


6.	A fin de facilitar las tareas de identificación y registro debería
adoptarse un lenguaje gráfico común y específico nacional en materia de
protección de bienes culturales en caso de conflicto armado. Asimismo,
debería mantenerse un intercambio con otros Estados, particularmente con los
de la región y cooperar con ellos con miras a armonizar dicho lenguaje
gráfico. Con el mismo objetivo, deberían elaborarse bases de datos completas
y armonizadas, accesibles a todos los interesados.



7.	En el marco de las actividades de respeto de los bienes culturales
en situación de conflicto armado, y a fin de evitar daños a los bienes
culturales, resulta importante que las fuerzas desplegadas en el teatro de
operaciones cuenten con información suficiente y un adecuado análisis de los
medios disponibles y la ubicación de los objetivos. En el mismo sentido,
resulta importante que el Comandante operacional cuente con un asesoramiento
jurídico calificado,


8.	A fin de poder superar dificultades presupuestarias y poder contar
con personal calificado, resultaría adecuado crear unidades de cooperación
civiles/militares (CIMIC). 


9.	Se deberían tener en cuenta los siguientes objetivos
interrelacionados:

a)	sensibilizar, comunicar e informar a la sociedad en general, a
través de los medios masivos de comunicación social y de campañas desde el
sector público y la sociedad civil (entre otros, ONG’s, empresas). Esta
tarea debería incluir acciones específicas a nivel regional, nacional y
local;

b)	educar, teniendo particularmente en cuenta las comunidades y pueblos
indígenas, tanto desde el sistema de educación formal y no formal -con
especial énfasis en la educación de niños y adolescentes-, como respecto de
actores específicos, favoreciendo, de ese modo, la “apropiación social” del
patrimonio cultural;

c)	propiciar una cultura de prevención con la participación de la
comunidad en la elaboración de planes y acciones, involucrando a toda la
población en ese proceso;

d)	establecer mecanismos específicos de seguimiento, tanto a nivel de
los Estados por medio de informes, políticas culturales, registros, etc.,
así como de la sociedad civil, en particular de las ONG’s a través de la
creación de áreas específicas en su seno.

e)	involucrar a los organismos internacionales en la provisión del
asesoramiento técnico y el apoyo financiero mediante el diseño e
implementación de proyectos; y 

f)	conformar  una red de enlace entre las distintas agencias
relacionadas que permita el necesario intercambio de información para
unificar los procedimientos y crear espacios de diálogo constructivo.




Alientan a los Gobiernos de los países de la región a tener en cuenta las
presentes Recomendaciones, así como otras recomendaciones emanadas de
reuniones organizadas por la UNESCO y el CICR, incluyendo la reuniones
regionales celebradas en Lima y en San Salvador en 2002 y 2004,
respectivamente, como uno de los elementos de sus informes sobre la puesta
en práctica de la Convención de 1954 y sus dos Protocolos.


REGIONAL SEMINAR: “THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED
CONFLICT - A CHALLENGE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR  LATIN AMERICA AND THE
CARIBBEAN” BUENOS AIRES, MARCH  2005

The future role of Non-Governmental Organisations and Cultural Professionals
in the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
following the adoption of the Second Protocol of the Hague Convention

Patrick Boylan, Professor Emeritus of Heritage Policy and Management, City
University London

Up to now there has been virtually no an explicit role for cultural property
professionals or their local, national or international non-governmental
organisations in any of the established provisions of the International Law
of Armed Conflict in relation to the protection of cultural property. 

The main emphasis of the Law of Armed Conflict from the Hague Laws and
Customs of War 1899 and 1907, through the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their
1977 Additional Protocols is on the obligations of the military personnel
and of the politico-military command, and this extends to the requirements
relating to peacetime preparation through the establishment of relevant
military regulations, command orders and the training of military personnel.


This traditional approach is seen also throughout the main treaty text of
the ground-breaking 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.  This similarly requires States
Parties to undertake peacetime preparation for protection measures for
cultural property in the event of armed conflict, whether international or
non-international, including giving necessary special training to military
personnel, identifying and marking cultural property, and to ensuring that
the military authorities and command leadership have adequate specialist
advice and supervision during armed conflicts.  However, following Hague and
Geneva those drafting and adopting these important provisions in 1954 seem
to have regarded cultural protection in times of conflict as again them as
again very largely if not wholly something for the military and for national
government ministries or agencies and their senior officials, and much too
important (or much too secret) to involve even the directors of the cultural
services that would be protected in the event of a threatened or actual
conflict.  

It is true that the Hague Regulations, detailing procedures under the 1954
Convention, provide for the designation of an “International List of
Persons”, nominated by the States Parties, from whom Commissioners-General
for Cultural Property may be appointed in the event of armed conflict, and
the clear assumption is that those nominated would be distinguished cultural
heritage professionals.  However, only a tiny handful of people have ever
been appointed to the International List and the Commissioner-General system
has very rarely been even attempted over the more than 47 years since the
Convention came into force in August 1956, and arguably in not even one case
has the system worked as intended.  Similarly, though there is provision in
the Hague Regulations for “persons” (presumably including cultural property
specialists) involved in the authorised transport of cultural property
during a conflict to have a special identity card and armband, this
provision too has never been invoked during the almost 200 armed conflicts
that have occurred since 1954.  (In 1992 I found that the initial supply of
identity cards and Blue Shield armbands lying unused and forlorn in an
office cupboard in the Paris headquarters of UNESCO.) 

In the Autumn of 1992 I was commissioned jointly by UNESCO and The
Netherlands (as part of its contribution to the International Decade of
International Law) to carry out a wide-ranging review of the apparent
succession of failures of the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocol (now
the First Protocol) to achieve its clear and honourable objectives.  Obvious
examples and case-studies included the conflicts of the 1970s and 1980s in
Vietnam, Los and Cambodia, in successive and continuing conflicts in Israel,
Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, in Cyprus, and from 1991 right in
the heart of Europe in the republics of former Yugoslavia. I was asked to
re-examine what this important International Legal Instrument was intended
to achieve, and to make recommendations for its updating and improvement in
order to make the Convention more effective and more widely recognised and
respected.  

I must confess that I was surprised to be asked to undertake such a task,
since I am not a qualified lawyer.  However, I was assured by UNESCO and by
the Foreign Affairs and Culture Ministries of The Netherlands that after a
number of inconclusive legal reviews over a period of decades, they were
seeking the perhaps more practical viewpoint of an experienced senior
heritage manager who could be guided on any specific points of law by the
expert legal teams of UNESCO and the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and
Culture.  

Over a six month period I consulted very widely around the world, made
detailed studies of the documentation of a number of conflicts in which
there had been serious cultural losses, including various Middle East
conflicts, Cambodia, Cyprus and the then current conflicts in Yugoslavia.  I
had at my disposal throughout outstanding specialist legal expertise,
particularly from the UNESCO International Standards team led by Professor
Lyndel Prott, and The Netherlands government international law experts, led
by Drs Adriaan Bos, Chief Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry.  

By May 1993 my findings and recommendations had been brought together in a
detailed report of 248 pages.  After various consultations, including an
International Expert Meeting in The Hague in June, the final version, Review
of the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention of 1954), was submitted by the
Director-General to the Executive Board of UNESCO, which agreed to its
immediate publication in English and French editions, and its submission to
the October 1993 UNESCO General Conference.  

In this report I criticised just about everyone for their failures: the UN,
UNESCO, States Parties to the Convention, countries which had failed to
adopt the Hague Convention, and both cultural professionals and their
organisations.  However, I found that the 1954 Convention itself was
basically very good: most of the problems and failures had been, in my view,
failures of implementation and commitment.  Not for the first, or I suspect
the last, time the law was good: what a pity it’s implementation depends on
people!  This was a very bold position to take, at least at that time, and I
know that the criticisms made enemies.  

However, all this was balanced by an insistence that the Hague Convention
could be made to work with proper commitment and application by the world
community and its international, national and local organisations.
Nevertheless, I argued, that there was a need for some significant changes
and additions to both clarify and strengthen its provisions, application and
enforcement, and I made specific recommendations addressed to the United
Nations, UNESCO, States Parties to the 1954 Convention, other States which
had not yet adopted Hague 1954, and Non-Governmental Organisations in the
tangible cultural heritage sector.

I was particularly impressed by the marked contrast between the 1954 Hague
Convention, under which there is no formal role for cultural property
professionals, and the 1972 World Heritage Convention.  Under the latter,
where local, national and international heritage professionals and their
organisations are closely involved throughout the process, up to and
including the assessment of proposed Inscriptions to World Heritage List,
and the relevant UNESCO-linked international non-governmental organisations,
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the
International Union for the Conservation of Natural (IUCN) both sit in the
World Heritage Committee as non-voting advisory bodies.  

In my 1993 report I therefore recommended that all non-governmental
organisations and especially international NGOs in relation¬ship with UNESCO
operating in the tangible culture sector, and relevant regional
organisations, should become much more active in relation to cultural
protection in relation to armed conflict.  I argued that professionals and
their organisations could – and of course should – play a very active role
in developing both practical advice and training procedures in relation to
the protection of monuments and collections etc. within their respective
fields of interest.  Equally, at the international level the specialist
UNESCO-linked they should work closely with UNESCO in both developing and
actively promoting at the pro¬fessional level the measures that are needed
in terms of both peacetime preparation and training, including the training
of military and civil defence personnel, and in times of armed conflicts of
all kinds. 

In particular, I concluded in my Executive Summary, “Non-governmental
organisations have the potential to play a most important role in providing
direct assistance in terms of professional and technical labour, specialised
equipment and materials for protection and emergency conservation, and for
assisting with the temporary evacuation of important movable cultural
property in times of actual or threatened armed conflict.  The role of the
voluntary sector could be especially crucial in those cases where
international and governmental organisations are unable to offer such
assistance because of the (unavoidable) political consequences, e.g. where
the country is under a de facto government or administration which is not
recognised as legitimate by the United Nations or other international
organisations.”

UNESCO’s publication of my 1993 Review was followed by very many - certainly
some dozens - of meetings, conferences, symposia, workshops and in my case
individual lectures, across five continents.  Also, the four leading
UNESCO-linked NGOs for cultural property began to co-operate very closely in
relation to all emergency risks and response, including those arising from
armed conflicts.  The four are the International Council on Archives (ICA),
the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
(IFLA), the International Council of Museums (ICOM), and the International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) – the latter have had nearly two
decades of experience of the World Heritage Convention system that I had
recommended as a model in my 1993 Review.   

In 1996 these four NGOs agreed to set up a standing joint emergency and
response joint committee under the name of The International Committee of
the Blue Shield (ICBS), taking as name and symbol the blue and white
quartered shield emblem of the 1954 Hague Convention.  UNESCO, the
intergovernmental International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), and the International Committee
of the Red Cross are also invited to all ICBS meetings.  Since 1996 the
Committee has co-ordinated a wide range of joint and co-operative
activities, including joint training seminars and meetings, publication,
promotion of understanding of the need for preparedness against all
potential emergencies, and in responding to actual emergencies.  Blue Shield
and its constituent professional organisations are also increasingly working
closely with the military and civil defence authorities and organisations,
both internationally, and within member countries, assisting in particular
in specialist training and in the development of military manuals and
procedures.   

There is also a growing network of affiliated National Blue Shield
Committees which aim to undertake a similar role in bringing together the
expertise and resources of archive, library, museum and monuments & sites
professionals at the national and local level, as well as co-operating at
the international level through the International Committee of the Blue
Shield.  

At last March 1999 arrived, and with it the Diplomatic Conference to called
by The Netherlands to review the 1954 Hague Convention, which was attended
by representatives of over eighty States. I attended in two capacities, as
the consultant expert who had been so closely involved in the review and the
subsequent consultations and negotiations for UNESCO and The Netherlands,
but also as Head of the Delegation of Accredited Non-Governmental
Organisations.  On the final scheduled day, 29th March 1999, the Conference
agreed to adopt a Second Protocol to the 1954 Convention.  The fundamental
aim of this was to greatly improve the effectiveness and implementation of
the long-standing principle that significant cultural property must be
respected and protected in times of armed conflict, whether international or
non-international.  (Other speakers in this seminar are detailing those
changes, so I will not duplicate what they are saying.)  

However, I would argue that one of the most significant changes to the
protection regime introduced by the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague
Convention are the new provisions, modelled on those that have proved very
successful in the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which seek to involve
professionals from the cultural sector.  Already, individually and
collectively through their professional bodies, very many cultural sector
professionals such as archivists, archaeologists, conservation architects,
museum and art curators, librarians, information scientists, and heritage
building and site management professionals, are becoming actively involved
at the local and national levels.  

Equally, the relevant world professional bodies are working for improvements
in cultural property protection through the International Committee of the
Blue Shield as well as their own specialist programmes.  Blue Shield itself
is actively preparing for the highly important new role of the four
organisations within the new Second Protocol structures and procedures.  The
new International Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property will be
elected for the first time during a meeting of States Parties to the Second
Protocol that is going to be held in October 2005 during the next General
Conference of UNESCO.  Blue Shield will have both a general role in advising
on all aspects of the work of the Committee, and not least in relation to
assisting with the evaluation of proposals from States Parties for
monuments, sites, archive repositories, museums and important libraries to
be placed under “enhanced protection” in accordance with Chapter 3 of the
1999 Second Protocol.  

All four NGOs are strongly committed to diffusing knowledge and
understanding of emergency preparedness and response among their many tens
of thousands of members around the world, and it addition there are also
relevant special programmes within each of the professional organisations.
For example, the ICA had been developing guidelines on emergency
preparedness, actively monitors and responds to actual and potential
threats, and is campaigning on the protection of “vital records” relating to
individuals and their property, such as birth, nationality, marriage and
domestic property ownership – a possible area for future joint cooperation
with the ICRC.   IFLA has an important and well-developed Preservation and
Conservation “Core Activity” programme for libraries and their collections,
based on the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.  ICOM has launched a five
year Museum Emergency Programme in partnership with the Getty Conservation
Institute and ICCROM.  This has now moved into its third phase with an
action-centred training and emergency plan development programme for a range
of museums in a region – initially Asia, but Latin American and the
Caribbean programme will follow shortly.  ICOMOS has a “Heritage at Risk”
programme together with an annual report.  All four professional NGOs are
very active in alerting both governmental and the general public to
emergency situations and threats, and also contribute through the very
active promotion of high standards of ethical conduct by both individuals
and institutions. 

Within this region, nine Latin American and Caribbean States (out of the 28
Ratifications or Accessions registered with UNESCO to date) will be able to
participate as States Parties to the new Protocol at the coming October
meeting as follows (in order of date of Ratification or Accession):
Nicaragua, Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Paraguay and Guatemala.  States that have not yet ratified the Second
Protocol must do so at least three months before the date of the October
meeting to be eligible to be elected to the new International Committee or
to vote at the meeting.  

Those drafting the original 1954 Convention assumed that States Parties
would all want to establish some form of national committee to co-ordinate
and advise on the country’s actions under the Hague Convention, though this
has rarely been done.  The recent adoption of the Second Protocol offers an
opportunity for States to reconsider such arrangements, and to bring into
these the professional advice of the country’s archive, library, museum and
monuments professionals and their representative national bodies, perhaps
through the national Blue Shield, where this has been established.  Many
countries have found that in implementing the highly successful 1972 World
Heritage Convention such advice from the heritage professionals and
organisations such as the ICOMOS National Committee in developing the case
for World Heritage Inscription has been very valuable, and the same is very
likely to be true in relation to implementing the Hague Convention overall,
and especially the Second Protocol.  

Finally, but by no means least, while the emphasis in relation to training
and information under the original 1954 Convention was focussed very largely
on military personnel, Article 30 of the Second Protocol calls for States to
widen this to seek to ensure that the general public, including children and
students, are aware of the importance of protecting and enhancing the
national and international cultural heritage, particularly through
“educational and information programmes, to strengthen appreciation and
respect for cultural property by their entire population.”   Again, this is
an area in which civilian cultural and educational professionals and
organisations will have a vital role to play.  To take just one example, in
my country, the United Kingdom, there are around 100 million museum visits a
year, while over half the population visit and use their local libraries.
Exhibition, information and education programmes presented and promoted
through such institutions could therefore play a very important role in
bringing a State’s obligations under the Hague Convention and its Protocols
to enormous numbers of people around the world.

If the world is to ensure that the unparalleled losses of cultural property
in armed conflict, above all those of the 20th century we will need everyone
who can contribute to work tirelessly towards this goal.  Governments and
military authorities must clearly take the lead in this – that is their
responsibility under International Humanitarian Law or the Law of Armed
Conflict.  But the knowledge, expertise and – above all – dedication and
enthusiasm of the world’s million or more specialist professionals needs to
be effectively mobilised at the same time.    



(Prof.) Patrick J Boylan
Professor Emeritus, City University London


FINAL AGENDA


REGIONAL SEMINAR:
“THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT
 OF ARMED CONFLICT - A CHALLENGE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN”

(Hosted by Ministry of External Relations, Argentina, in association with
UNESCO and the International Committee of the Red Cross 
Buenos Aires, March 2-4, 2005



First day - March 2  ( Wednesday)

8:00 to 9:00 – Inscription of the participants

9:00 to 9:15 – Arrival of the authorities participating at the opening
session.


I. OPENING SESSION

09:00 to 10:30 - Introductory speeches, as follows:

09:00 to 09:15 – Foreign Minister of Argentina, Dr. Rafael BIELSA, or his
representative

09:15 to 09:30 – Minister of Defense of Argentina, Dr. José PAMPURRO, or his
representative

09.30 to 09.45 – Secretary of Culture, Dr Jose Nun


09:45 to 10:00 – Permanent Secretary of the Argentine Commission for
Cooperation with UNESCO (CONAPLU), Dr. Miguel VALLONE, or his
representative.

10:00 to 10:15 – Chief, Legal Standards Section, Division of Cultural
Heritage, UNESCO, Prof. Guido Carducci

10:15 to 10:30 – Chief of the Delegation of the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, Mr.
Michel MINNING.

10:30 to 10:45 – Presentation of the objectives and the structure of the
Seminar by its Chairman, Amb. Alberto DAVÉRÈDE. Five key concepts: knowing,
preparing, respecting, cooperating and educating.


10:45  to 11:15  – COFFEE BREAK


II. KNOWING THE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL
PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT 

11:15 to 11:45 – The 1954 Hague Convention and its First Protocol: genesis
and history. Rationale for the revision of the Convention. Adoption of the
Second Protocol: its contribution to the scheme of protection of cultural
property in the event of armed conflict. (Prof. Jiri Toman, Santa Clara
University School of Law, California)

11:45 to 12:15 – Linkage of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols
to other international instruments for the protection of cultural property
adopted within UNESCO –in particular, the 1972 World Heritage Convention,
the 1970 Convention on Illicit Trafficking and Appropriation of Cultural
Property and the 2003 Declaration of the Intentional Destruction of Cultural
Heritage.  (Guido Carducci)

12:15 to 12:45 – International Humanitarian Law and the protection of
cultural property in the event of armed conflict. (Dra María Teresa Dutli,
Head of International Humanitarian Law Advisory Service, International
Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva)

12:45 to 13:00 – Questions and debate


13:00 to 15:00 – LUNCH-BUFFET 


III. PREPARING IN PEACETIME THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT
OF ARMED CONFLICT: ACTIVITIES FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

15:00 to 15:30 – Measures to be adopted for the safeguarding of cultural
property in the framework of the 1954 Convention and its two Protocols.
(Guido Carducci)

15:30 to 16:00 – The identification and register of cultural property as a
basic measure of preparation in peacetime (Dra Maria Elena Cordova,
Directora de Gestion de Institucion National de Cultuira, Peru)  

16:00 to 16:30 – The institutional scheme in peacetime. Coordination between
the National Commissions for the Implementation of International
Humanitarian Law  in Latin America. (Dr Anton Camen, Advocate, University of
Geneva; delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross)

16:30 to 16:45 – Questions and debate 


16:45 to 17:00 -  COFFEE BREAK


17:00 to 17:30 – Awareness-raising, information and education as key aspects
of a long-term protection of cultural property. (Guido Carducci)

17:30 to 18:00 – Capacity-building and awareness-raising on the protection
of   cultural property in the event of armed conflict: the perspective of
military and security forces (Mag. Lt. Karl von Habsburg, Cultural Property
Protection Officer, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence) 

18:00 to 18:15 – Questions and debate
 

19:00 – COCKTAIL OFFERED BY THE ARGENTINE FOREIGN MINISTER AT THE MUSEUM OF
HISPANIC-AMERICAN ART “FERNANDEZ BLANCO”



Second day - March 3 (Thursday)


9:00 to 10:00 – Panel: Comparative experience in the application of measures
of preparation in peacetime: the examples of Austria (Dr. Col. Franz
Schuller, Cultural Property Protection Officer, Austrian Federal Ministry of
Defence)), Switzerland (Lic. Rino Buchel, Head of Cultural Property Section,
Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection), El Salvador (Dr Ramón Duglas
Rivas) and Guatemala (Lic. Emelio Sequen Jocops, Advocate & Notary))

10:00 to 10:30 –Distinctive characteristics of our region as regards the
safeguarding of cultural property in peacetime: the particular relevance of
registers and the reaction to catastrophic events different of an armed
conflict –such as a natural disaster (Arq. Ana Mercedes Salazar, Consejo
Nacional para la Cultura 7 Arte, El Salvador,  & Dr. Francisco Lopes
Morales, Director of World Heritage, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia y
Historia, Mexico)
 
10:30 to 11:00 – Measures of preparation in peacetime at the national level:
the situation in Argentina (Dr. Monica Guariglio, Directora-General of
Museums, Government of the City of Buenos Aires  )

11:00 to 11:15 – Questions and debate


11:15 to 11:30 – COFFEE BREAK


IV. RESPECTING CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT


11:30 to 12:00 – Standards and rules in the 1954 Convention and its two
Protocols specifically applicable to the respect of cultural property in the
event of armed conflict (Guido Carducci )

12:00 to 13:00 –  Panel: Jurisdiction and responsibility applicable to the
violation of customary and conventional provisions related to the protection
of cultural property in the event of armed conflict (Argibay, Dr. Anton
Caman, ICRC Geneva & Amb. Ariel W. Gonzalez, Ministry of External Relations,
Argentina )

13:00 to 13:15 – Questions and debate


13:30 to 15:00 – LUNCH-BUFFET


15:00 to 15:30 – The institutional scheme for the respect of cultural
property in the event of armed conflict. The co-ordination between the
competent organs of the civil and military sectors. (Lic. Col. Juan Manuel
García Labajo, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Defence, Spain) 

15:30 to 16:00 – Practice in relation to the respect of cultural property in
the event of armed conflict: the experience in the  Middle East (Ugo Zottin,
Fernando Musella & Ferdinando Isturiz) 

16:00 to 16:30 –Distinctive characteristics of our region in relation to the
respect of cultural property in the event of armed conflict:
non-international conflicts  (Arq. Maria Cladia Lopez, Member of ICOMOS
Colombia)

16:30 to 16:45 – Questions and debate.


16:45 to 17:00 – COFFEE BREAK


V. COOPERATING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED
CONFLICT

17:00 to 17:20 – Standards and rules applicable at the international,
regional and national levels – Adhering to the 1954 Convention and its two
Protocols as a basic measure for an effective scheme of international
cooperation (Guido Carducci)

17:20 to 17:40 – Comparative experience as regards international
co-operation: the examples of  Austria (Franz Schuller) and Switzerland
(Rino Buchel). 

17:40 to 18:00  – The role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the scheme
of co-operation for the protection of cultural property in the event of
armed conflict (Prof. Patrick Boylan, City University London) 

18:00 to 18:45 -  Panel: the protection of cultural property in the event of
armed conflict, in the context of peace-keeping operations (Rhino Buchel,
Franz Schuller, Juan Manuel García Labajo, Everglisto De Vergara,  CAECOPAZ)

18:45 to 19:00 – Questions and debate


19:30 to 20:30 – CONFERENCE ON THE INTERNATIONAL NORMATIVE SCHEME FOR THE
PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT – ARGENTINE
CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (CARI) 

 
Third day - March 4 (Friday) 

9:30 to 13:00 – Meetings of the following workshops: 

Workshop 1 – Legal protection: development and application of legal
provisions for the prevention and sanction of acts of destruction or damage
to cultural property in the event of armed conflict (Coordinator: Guido
Carducci).

Workshop 2 – Implementation: measures for the protection of cultural
property in peacetime and in the event of armed conflict, including the
setting up of appropriate institutional mechanisms (Coordinator:  María
Teresa Dutli)

Workshop 3 – Support: Education, information, awareness-raising and
co-operation for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed
conflict (Ariel Gonzalez)


13:00 to 15:00 – LUNCH-BUFFET


VI. CLOSURE

15:00 to 16:00 – Presentation of the conclusions of the three workshops by
their respective Coordinators 


16:00 to 17:00 –  COFFEE BREAK  (In parallel, the Chairman and the
Coordinators will finalize the draft  conclusions as well as the draft
recommendations)


17:00 to 17:30 – Adoption of the conclusions and recommendations

17:30 to 18:00 – Closing speech by the Chairman. 


FAREWELL DINNER