Argument: 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 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: "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 3: "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 4: "The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.

Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property.

[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm"
Candidate 5: "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 6: "Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.

Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property.

[1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-12iraqenl.html"

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.
