Argument: Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.

Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined.

Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of. Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity.

The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, ‘international practice in this ﬁeld indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes’. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, ‘places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind’. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so.

[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

[2] ibid

Candidate 1: "Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.

Ultimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that are beneficial for aesthetic and educational purposes, and on the other we have more tangible goods that are often sough through military endeavours. When the latter are particularly pressing and important goods, such as the need to prevent genocide, or distribute famine relief or defend one’s security, these benefits far outweigh the benefits of preserving our world cultural heritage. Although it is regrettable that cultural property of significant value may be damaged, it is incomparable to the damage caused by mass killing of individuals or mass curtailing of human rights. The safeguarding of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from fear, enslavement or torture etc. is a prerequisite for one to be able to appreciate and learn from items, sites and monuments of high cultural and historical value. For these reasons, military and humanitarian objectives must come first, ahead of the need to safeguard cultural property."
Candidate 2: "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 3: "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."
Candidate 4: "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 5: "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 6: "Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.

The current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Proposition argue for the implementation of overly-rigid international legislation. Although, of course, world cultural heritage should be protected, it is short-sighted to not even allow the possibility of military necessity to outweigh our duty to protect high-value cultural property. The UNESCO conventions already dictate that one can only be justified in attacking or targeting a site of cultural heritage if ‘there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage’ [1] Therefore, the proposition are only making a difference to cases where there is no feasible alternative available. This could prove disastrous and create a significant limitation on the capacity of a state’s armed forces.

The danger becomes increasingly apparent when one considers that it is highly unlikely that extremist opposing forces and insurgents like the Taliban will adhere to such international law. This is particularly crucial given that the majority of wars fought now by the west are against insurgencies. Such opposing forces will disregard the new international law and endeavour to exploit this to gain a strategic advantage over Western forces. Insurgents may deliberately choose to hide, locate their base or just pass through sites of high cultural value to ensure their safety from western airstrikes and attacks. Allowing this to take place would severely hamper the ability of the west to fight against insurgencies (an already incredibly difficult task in itself). For example in 2000 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants attacked the Red Fort, which was at the time was in part a barracks for the Indian army, killing three in a shootout within the fort. [2] The Red Fort is itself today a world heritage site; would this mean that were a similar attack to happen the Indian security services could do nothing to counter the attack? [3]

[1] UNESCO, “Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage”, 17 October 2003, accessed 20/9/12, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&amp;URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&amp;URL_SECTION=201.html

[2] BBC News, ‘Police hunt Red Fort raiders’, 23 December 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1083710.stm

[3] UNESCO, “Red Fort Complex”, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/231"

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.
