Cultural property encompasses both tangible artifacts and intangible heritage that shapes societies. Historian Matthias Rogg and international law expert Lando Kirchmair delve into the critical issue of protecting cultural property during armed conflicts. They discuss the multifaceted threats to cultural property, including destruction, seizure, misuse, and humiliation. Their conversation emphasizes the vital role of international law in safeguarding cultural treasures. They also highlight how threats to cultural property often trigger destabilization, bolster violence and are part of information campaigning. Matthias and Lando grapple with the ethical dilemmas inherent in protecting cultural property during wartime, questioning the balance between safeguarding cultural treasures and protecting soldiers’ lives. This episode is the first in a two-part series exploring these complex issues.
For more information regarding cultural property and it’s protection please consider these additional resources:
The Monuments Men (2014) based on the bestseller by Robert M. Edsel The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History
Charlie English’s bestseller The Book Smugglers of Timbuktu (2018) about the attempt to save Mali’s world-famous library.
Frederik Rosén, NATO and Cultural Property. A Hybrid Threat Perspective, PRISM Vol. 10, No. 3 (2023)
Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence, Factsheet: Cultural Property Protection (CCP). Concepts, Interoperability and Capability Branch (2020)
Often, it’s not the case that you have to choose between stones and people, as some people put it. It is often possible to protect both cultural heritage and people. And in the long run, cultural heritage and the essence of being human are so strongly intertwined that it is hardly possible to separate them.
Podcast: Download
Lando Kirchmair is Deputy Professor for National and International Public Law with a focus on the Protection of Cultural Heritage at the Universität der Bundeswehr München. He studied law, business law, Spanish and Portuguese as well as psychology at the Universities of Innsbruck, Salamanca and Salzburg, holding Magister iuris (2009) and Magister iuris rerum oeconomicarum (2010) degrees from the University of Innsbruck and a Doctor iuris (with distinction; “Die Theorie des Rechtserzeugerkreises“, Duncker & Humblot 2013) from the University of Salzburg (2012). His research interests include the interplay between legal orders, concentrating on questions of international, EU, and national public law, as well as legal philosophy. A particular focus of his current research agenda lies in cultural heritage protection as well as law and interdisciplinarity.
Matthias Rogg is a colonel in the German Armed Forces, who currently teaches in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning and Operations (DMSPO) at the U.S. Army War College. He received a PhD in Early Modern History from the University of Freiburg i.Br., a Habilitation in Newer and Contemporary History from the University of Potsdam and has taught since 2013 as Professor for History at the German Armed Forces University in Hamburg. Among assignments in the Armored Forces, the Ministry of Defence (Policy and Planning Staff) and the Military History Research Institute, he was Founding Director of the Military History of the German Armed Forces (Dresden) and Founding Director and Co-chair of the German Institute for Defence of Strategic Studies, the Think Tank of the Bundeswehr (Hamburg). His newest book The Army of the Unity? German Armed Forces between Peaceful Revolution and German Unification is in preparation for printing and will be published in 2025. He is a former International Fellow and graduate of the AY24 Resident Course at the U.S. Army War College.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Description: The Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem
Photo Credit: Francesco Hayez Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice
With regard to a reason (but possibly not the only reason) why cultural heritage areas/sites might be targeted by various entities, should we understand that this is often being done, by these various entities, because they consider the history and/or culture of the people of these areas/regions to be a significant threat — and/or to be a significant obstacle — this, to their “achieve revolutionary political, economic, social and/or value change” political objective?
From this such perspective, how should we see, for example, the removal of monuments, and the change of names of military installations, in the American South of late?
(Thus, from this such perspective, should the ICC make a statement — and/or otherwise get involved here at home in the U.S. — now?)
My thought above possibly stated another way:
If protecting cultural heritage, in peace time and/or in war, is important — and so important as to suggest that, indeed at times, “blood can and should be shed to protect stone,”
Then, from that exact such perspective, how might this understanding be used — and/or be applied — so as to protect the cultural heritage of the United States/the West?
From the point of view of international law, could we/should we also consider the protection of cultural heritage; this, from the larger/the more-general — “hands-off of the way of life, etc., of others” — international law requirement noted immediately below?:
“Within the existing framework of international law, is it legitimate for an occupying power, in the name of creating the conditions for a more democratic and peaceful state, to introduce fundamental changes in the constitutional, social, economic, and legal order within an occupied territory. …
These question have arisen in various conflicts and occupations since 1945 — including the tragic situation in Iraq since the United States-led invasion. They have arisen because of the cautious, even restrictive assumption in the laws of war (also called international humanitarian law or, traditionally, jus in bello) that occupying power should respect the existing laws and economic arrangements within the occupied territory, and should therefore, by implication, make as few changes as possible.”
(See the first two paragraphs of Sir Adam Roberts’ paper “Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights.”)
Note that, from the larger/the more-general international law perspective provided immediately above, (a) attempts at the destruction of the cultural heritage of others, this, (b) much like attempts at the destruction of the political, economic, social and/or value arrangements of others, this (c) is “outlawed.” (Because same is almost guaranteed to lead to violence, hatred and revenge and, thus, make post-conflict peace and reconciliation difficult if not impossible?)
Thus, to possibly see the international law protection of cultural heritage; this, from the larger/the more-general perspective of maintaining, and/or of achieving, pre and post-conflict peace and reconciliation?