Argument: The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.

Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity.

[1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/12

[2] ibid

Candidate 1: "The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems slightly far-fetched.

However, even if such a choice had to be made, we should still ensure that the destruction of cultural property was a crime against humanity. It is important to set an international precedent for rules of conduct during warfare in order to minimise harms on a large scale, despite the possibility of small, minority cases where going against that law would be beneficial. This is the case, for example, with the laws about targeting civilians in warfare. In order to safeguard the precedent, the law must apply to all situations despite the fact that in certain cases a war could be won more easily by targeting civilians."
Candidate 2: "Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to have been physically harmed in any meaningful way that would constitute a crime against humanity. The oppression during the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be a better example for the proposition, however even in this case it is hard to compare the crime of destroying old Chinese art and monuments, to the mass killing and imprisonment of Chinese civilians during the same period!"
Candidate 3: "The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see this point. The Taliban ordered their destruction in direct defiance of international law, but what’s more, they did it as a direct response and retaliation to sanctions imposed upon them by the international community for hosting and fostering terrorist training camps. [1] A similar sort of retaliation may occur if threats were to be made explicitly regarding the treatment of cultural property. This would then put more precious cultural property in danger.

In respect to the example of US forces in Iraq, their actions would not actually fall under crimes against humanity even under this proposition anyway. Setting up a base in an archaeological site would not be a crime against humanity, while small scale damage would not either, so it is unclear what effect the proposition will have.

[1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf"
Candidate 4: "Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity.

Furthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC."
Candidate 5: "Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable.

It is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war."
Candidate 6: "The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property.

Regarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC."

Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity.

Furthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC.
