Practice Relating to Rule 39. Use of Cultural Property for Military Purposes

Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict …
2. The obligations mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 4.
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 19(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
In the event of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of the present Convention which relate to respect for cultural property. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article19(1).
Additional Protocol I
Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:
(b) to use such objects [historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples] in support of the military effort. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 53. Article 53 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 206.
Additional Protocol II
Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited … to use [historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples] in support of the military effort. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 16. Article 16 was adopted by 35 votes in favour, 15 against and 32 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 143.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 6(b) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
A waiver on the basis of imperative military necessity pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the [1954 Hague] Convention may only be invoked to use cultural property for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage when and for as long as no choice is possible between such use of the cultural property and another feasible method for obtaining a similar military advantage. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 6(b).
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 8 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides that “the Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible … avoid locating military objectives near cultural property”. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 8.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 21 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
Without prejudice to Article 28 of the [1954 Hague] Convention, each Party shall adopt such legislative, administrative or disciplinary measures as may be necessary to suppress the following acts when committed intentionally:
(a) any use of cultural property in violation of the Convention or this Protocol. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 21.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 22(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property states: “This Protocol shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the Parties.” 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 22(1).
Hague Rules of Air Warfare
Article 26 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare establishes special rules aimed at enabling States “to obtain more efficient protection for important historic monuments situated within their territory”. In particular, States may establish a zone of protection round such monuments, which shall enjoy immunity from bombardment in time of war. This faculty is subject to the condition that States “must abstain from using the monuments and the surrounding zones for military purposes, or for the benefit in any way whatever of its military organization, or from committing within such monument or zone any act with a military purpose in view”. A special regime of inspection is also envisaged for the purpose of ensuring that such condition is not violated. 
Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, Part II, drafted by a Commission of Jurists, The Hague, December 1922–February 1923, Article 26.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides that hostilities shall be conducted in accordance with Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides that hostilities shall be conducted in accordance with Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.
Revised Lauswolt Document
Article 1 of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document provides:
1. In order to ensure respect for cultural property, that property should not be used for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict.
2. It is prohibited … to use [cultural] property in support of [the] military effort.  
Draft Provisions for the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and Commentary from the UNESCO Secretariat, Paris, October 1997, UNESCO Doc. CLT-97/CONF.208/2, Article 1.
Revised Lauswolt Document
Article 12(1) of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document provides:
All the provisions of this instrument, the provisions of the Convention and its 1954 Protocol which relate to safeguarding of, and respect for, cultural property shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the States Parties. 
Draft Provisions for the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and Commentary from the UNESCO Secretariat, Paris, October 1997, UNESCO Doc. CLT-97/CONF.208/2, Article 12(1).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 6.6 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “In its area of operation, the United Nations force shall not use such cultural property or their immediate surroundings for purposes which might expose them to destruction or damage.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.6.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states: “It is absolutely prohibited … to use [cultural property] in support of the war effort.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.44.
The manual restates this prohibition with respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.09.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Obligations are placed upon all parties to respect cultural property by not exposing it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict.” The manual further specifies: “Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples … must not be used in support of any military effort.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 928.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
9.28 … Obligations are placed upon all parties to respect cultural property by not exposing it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict …
9.29 … Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples … must not be used in support of any military effort …
13.30 Among other war crimes generally recognised as forming part of the customary LOAC are … use of a privileged building for improper purposes. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 9.28–9.29 and 13.30.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007), under the heading “Cultural Objects and Places of Worship”, states that “[t]hese particularly protected objects may not … become military objectives … [or] be utilized for military purposes”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 87.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that it is prohibited to use historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples “in support of the military effort”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-7, § 63(b).
The manual further provides that “use of a privileged building for improper purposes” constitutes a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-4, § 21(c).
The manual restates this prohibition with respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 40.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states: “Cultural and religious property should … not be used for military purposes.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 9, § 5.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting:
1. The following actions are prohibited:
a. to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; or
b. to use such objects in support of the military effort.
2. Care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near protected cultural objects and places of worship. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 443.1–2.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “use of a privileged building for improper purposes” constitutes a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.3.c.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
It is forbidden to commit any hostile acts directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. It is also forbidden to use them in support of the military effort. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1723.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
Cultural and religious property should not be targeted. It should also not be used for military purposes. If cultural or religious property is used for a military purpose, it loses its protection. Thus, care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near these locations. If the opposing force is using a religious or cultural site for military purposes it becomes a legitimate target. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 9, § 5.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “Specially protected establishments [including cultural property] must remain untouched and no [armed] person may enter them. Their content and actual use may be checked through an inspection.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section II, § 2.1.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states:
Specially protected objects [including cultural property] may not:
- be turned into a military objective;
- be used for military ends;
The immunity of generally protected cultural property may be lifted only in case of imperative military necessity.
The immunity of specially protected cultural property may be lifted only in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Section II, § 2.2.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Specially protected property must not … [be] used for military purposes”. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 93.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.2.1. Obligations in the planning of defensive actions
… [P]ersons participating in the preparation or conduct of defensive operations must take into account the following demands defined by the law of armed conflict.
… You must abstain from using cultural property as part of your defence plan. Occupying such sites makes them lose their protection from the point of view of the enemy. If imperative military necessity requires using such objects, their use shall be limited to the strict minimum as regards the time spent there. Any protective sign must then be deleted, in order not to constitute perfidy. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 49–50; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 71–72.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.1. Cultural property and places of worship
The following acts are prohibited:
- to use such objects in support of the military effort.
Care must be taken to avoid locating military material or personnel inside or in the proximity of protected cultural property and places of worship. …
Cultural property and places of worship used by the adverse Party in support of its military effort can become legitimate objectives. …
In that case, if possible, warning should be given to the adverse force to cease using cultural property or a place of worship for military purposes, before starting the attack. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 35.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states:
13. Specifically protected objects may not become military objectives …
14. The immunity of a marked cultural object may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity.
62. [In defence] the immunity of a marked cultural object shall only be withdrawn when the fulfilment of the mission absolutely so requires. The withdrawal shall only take place to the extent necessary. Advance warning and removal of distinctive signs shall make the situation clear to the enemy. 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, §§ 13–14 and 62.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
903. Cultural property shall neither directly nor indirectly be used in support of military efforts.
905. … It is also prohibited to expose cultural property, its immediate surroundings and the appliances in use for its protection to the danger of destruction or damage by using them for other purposes than originally intended.
906. An exception to this rule shall be permissible only in cases of imperative military necessity. The decision is to be taken by the competent military commander …
907. The parties to the conflict shall take sufficient precautions to prevent cultural property from being used for military purposes. Example: On 19 June 1944 all military installations were removed from Florence by order of the German authorities so as to prevent this abundant city of art from becoming a theatre of war. The broad avenues surrounding the city of Florence on its former fortifications were regarded as a boundary which was not to be crossed by military transport. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, §§ 903 and 905–907.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited to use [movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people] in support of the military effort.” 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 701.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 provides that movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people (e.g. monuments of architecture, art or history, places of religious worship, books, scientific collections) may neither be attacked nor damaged in any other way.
It is further prohibited to use such objects in support of the military effort, to misappropriate them, requisition them or destroy them. Exceptions are permissible only in cases of imperative military necessity. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 8.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides:
On the other hand, the protection of cultural property is accompanied by an express prohibition to use such property for assisting warfare activities (stationing a sniper on a museum roof, and so on), and once such use has been made, the other side is allowed to do anything required to neutralize the danger, even at the expense of damaging the cultural property. This particular rule in the laws of war was violated by Iraq during the Gulf War, by concealing its warplanes inside the ancient ruins of Nineveh. The Americans refrained from attacking the archaeological ruins, although the laws of war permit this. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 34.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The protection of cultural property is accompanied […] by a detailed ban on using such properties to assist in hostilities (such as positioning a sniper on the roof of a museum or mosque). If the monument is put to such use, it is permissible for the other side to do everything necessary in order to neutralise the danger even at the price of damaging the cultural property. The breach of this rule of warfare was committed by Iraq during the Gulf War, when Iraq hid warplanes inside the ruins of Nineveh. The Americans refrained from attacking the archaeological ruins despite the fact that such an attack would have been permissible under the rules of warfare. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 25.
The manual further states:
[I]f an anti-aircraft battery is positioned on the roof of a school or if a sniper takes up a position on the minaret of a mosque, the protection provided for the facility by the virtue of it being civilian target is no longer valid, and the attacker is permitted to attack it. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 27.
In addition, the manual states: “Protected places (hospitals, places of worship, etc.) must remain protected as long as military action is not being deployed therefrom.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states:
13. Specifically protected objects may not become military objectives …
14. The immunity of a marked cultural object may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity.
62. [In defence] the immunity of a marked cultural object shall only be withdrawn when the fulfilment of the mission absolutely so requires. The withdrawal shall only take place to the extent necessary. Advance warning and removal of distinctive signs shall make the situation clear to the enemy. 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, §§ 13–14 and 62.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “Cultural property and places of worship are entitled to protection in all circumstances provided they are not illicitly used for military purposes.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 12.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states:
In defence, withdrawal of immunity of cultural objects marked with distinctive protective signs (in the exceptional case of unavoidable military necessity) shall, when the tactical situation permits, be limited in time and restricted to the less important parts of the object. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 9.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1977 Additional Protocols, states: “Acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art and places of worship or their use in support of the military effort are prohibited.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 255.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that respect for cultural objects implies that “the objects may not be used in case of armed conflict” but that an exception can be made “in case military necessity requires such an exception. Hence, the protection is not at all absolute.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-6, § 5.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states that historic monuments, works of art and places of worship “may not be used in support of the military effort” and recalls Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-7.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands stresses that cultural property “may not be used for military purposes, except in case of imperative military necessity”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-43.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0526. Respect for cultural property implies that the objects cannot be used in case of armed conflict …
0527. Exceptions
Exceptions to respect for cultural property may be allowed only on specific conditions … In a case of unavoidable military necessity, cultural property may be used for military purposes only if no practical and feasible alternative approach exists to such military use.
0528. Whether imperative military necessity exists may be determined only by the commanding officer of a unit of battalion size or of higher rank. If no other option exists in the circumstances, a commanding officer of lower rank may also take such a decision …
0531. Cultural property may be placed under enhanced protection if it meets the following three conditions:
- it is cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity;
- it is protected by adequate national legal and administrative measures recognizing its exceptional cultural and historical value and ensuring the highest level of protection;
- it is not used for military purposes or to protect military sites and the relevant State has made a declaration confirming that it will not be so used.
0532. The parties to an armed conflict must ensure the immunity of cultural property that has been placed under enhanced protection, by refraining from any use of such property as objectives of attack or any use of the property or its direct environs in support of military action. Cultural property under enhanced protection can only forfeit such protection in most exceptional circumstances. Decisions on this may only be taken at the highest level of operational command. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0526–0528 and 0531–0532.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Hostile actions (deliberate attacks) against historic monuments, works of art and places where religious services are held are prohibited, provided that they do not constitute military objectives. They may therefore not be used in support of military action. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1034.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states: “Cultural heritage property, in particular, should be spared.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1221.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states that for parties to the 1977 Additional Protocol I it is prohibited to use historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples “in support of the military effort”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 520(4); see also § 632(4).
The manual further states that “use of a privileged building for improper purposes” is a war crime recognized by the customary law of armed conflict. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, 1703(5).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War qualifies “the improper use of a privileged building for military purposes” as a war crime. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) emphasizes that “marked cultural objects must be protected” in the conduct of defence. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 44, § 15.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Commanders … must specify under what circumstances the immunity granted to marked cultural property may be withdrawn owing to military necessity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 24.d.(1).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “A State must refrain from using historic buildings and their surroundings for military purposes or, as it were, for the benefit of its military organization and to carry out in these buildings or their surroundings any act with a military purpose.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 163(i)(6), p. 344.
The manual also states: “Commanders … must specify … under what circumstances the immunity granted to marked cultural property may be withdrawn owing to military necessity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(d)(1), p. 228.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that using cultural property, historical monuments, places of worship and other buildings which represent the cultural or spiritual heritage of a people “in order to gain a military advantage” is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(s).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
The prohibited methods of warfare include … destroying cultural property, historic monuments, places of worship and other objects of cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, as well as using them for the purpose of achieving success in combat operations. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 7; see also § 1 (definitions).
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “It is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against cultural property and to use it in support of the military effort.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 85.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states: “Cultural property is not to be used for military purpose but to be protected. For example a church tower or a mosque minaret is not to be used as a military observation post.” 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 51.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) protects buildings dedicated to religion and cultural objects such as historic monuments. It provides: “Misuse of protected places [buildings dedicated to religion and cultural objects such as historic monuments] for military purposes may make them the subject of an armed attack.” 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 29(b)(i).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
2.5 Specific Protection: Cultural Objects, Places of Worship, Works Containing Dangerous Forces
Cultural and Religious Objects
Protection of Cultural Objects of High Cultural Value ([1977] Additional Protocol I Article 53, General Cultural Object)
- Introduction. This article recognises the protection granted to cultural property in the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments and specifies that it does not prejudice such protection. The provisions of article 53 therefore co-exist with the Hague Convention and other international agreements.
- What is Protected?
- This article applies to objects that represent a high cultural value as such, i.e. objects that constitute the cultural heritage of peoples.
- Such articles are historic monuments, works of art, etc of which the value is so self-evident that it does not necessary[il]y require any special identification.
- Nature of the Protection
- It is prohibited to[:]
- Use such objects in support of the military effort; …
- Contrary to that of marked cultural objects, the immunity of these cultural objects may not be withdrawn.
Protection of Religious Objects of High Spiritual Value (Additional Protocol I Article 53)
- Introduction
- The protection of religious objects of high spiritual value is also provided for in article 53 of Additional Protocol I.
- Again, this article recognises the protection granted to cultural property in the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments and specifies that it does not prejudice such protection. This article therefore co-exists with the said Hague Convention and other international agreements.
- What is Protected?
- This article applies to objects with important religious dedication independent of any cultural value, i.e. [o]bjects that constitute the spiritual heritage of peoples.
- Such articles are places of worship[,] etc of which the value is so self-evident that it does not require any special identification.
- Nature of the Protection
- It is prohibited to[:]
- Use such objects in support of the military effort; …
- Contrary to that of marked religious objects, the immunity of these religious objects may not be withdrawn.
Protection of Marked Cultural and Religious Objects (Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954)
- This Convention applies to objects representing cultural value. The cultural value of such objects can either be of a religious or secular nature.
- The term “cultural objects” is defined as the following objects (irrespective of origin or ownership thereof)[:]
- Moveable or immoveable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as;
- Monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular;
- Archeological sites;
- Groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest;
- Works of art;
- Manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archeological interest; and
- Scientific collections and important collections of books or archives; or reproductions of these objects;
- Buildings whose main and effective purpose it to preserve or exhibit the abovementioned moveable cultural property, such as museums, large libraries, and depositories of archives, as well as refuges intended to shelter this type of moveable cultural property in time of armed conflict;
- Centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in both of the above paragraphs, to be known as “centres containing monuments”. (Article 1)
- Regarding the above, it should be noted that monetary value of any cultural object does not play a role regarding its classification as a cultural object. However, in view of the definition of cultural objects under special protection, as discussed below, monetary value may also be a determining factor to determine special protection. Although it might seem as if the emphasis is on collections or places where large numbers of these objects are concentrated, it does not mean that individual items of a cultural nature are not protected. However, the principle of proportionality, as will be discussed under the topic Means and Methods of Warfare, will play an important role here.
- Nature of the Protection of Cultural Property (Articles 2 to 5 and 7)
- Rule. Cultural property shall at all times be safeguarded and respected. (Article 2.)
- Respect (Article 4)
- Parties to the Convention must respect the cultural property inside their own territory as well as in the territory of other Parties by refraining from:
Any use of
- Such property and its immediate surroundings; or
- Of the appliances in use for its protection;
- For purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; …
- The obligation to respect cultural property may only be waived in cases where such waiver is imperatively required by military necessity.
- The fact that one Party to a conflict did not take the necessary measures to safeguard its cultural property does not allow other Parties to evade their responsibilities to respect the cultural property of such Party.
- Occupation (Article 5)
- It goes without saying that the duty to safeguard and respect cultural property also extends to Occupying Powers towards such property in occupied territories. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 131–136.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that combatants must remember that it is prohibited “to use property which constitutes the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, whether public or private, in support of the military effort”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 7.3.b.(2).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “The duty to respect cultural property requires the defending party to refrain from any use of such property and its immediate surroundings to support its military operations.”  
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(4); see also § 7.3.b.(2).(a).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) points out:
A condition [for their protection under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] is that none of these cultural values may be used for military purposes. If this should happen, the adversary is no longer obliged to extend protection to these objects … A question of great practical importance is whether the formulation of Additional Protocol admits any possibility of using the object named in Article 53 for military purposes. This does not need to involve such sensational steps as establishing headquarters or ammunitions dumps in museum or churches – it would more normally concern using the objects as observation posts. As Article 53 aims at giving these objects protection equivalent to that of hospitals, the intention has obviously been that no such object shall be used for military purpose of any kind. If such an object should be so used, there is no longer any requirement upon the adversary to respect the safeguard. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 56–58.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Manual (1984) provides that marked cultural property “must not be used for military purposes. In certain well-defined circumstances, the protection may be lifted by a responsible commander.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre, Manuel 51.7/III dfi, Armée suisse, 1984, p. 19.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that respect for cultural property implies that it is prohibited “to use this property, the appliances in use for its protection and its immediate surroundings for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage. The obligation to respect may only be derogated from in case military necessity imperatively so demands.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 53, commentary and Article 54.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states with regard to the protective sign for the “Protection of cultural properties (simple or reinforced protection)”:
Prohibited is/are …
- Placing military targets or combatants close to marked objects. 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
14.2 Cultural property
207 In the event of an armed conflict, cultural property of national importance is marked with the blue and white shield for the protection of cultural property, the distinctive sign to facilitate their identification. It must be respected by the armed forces. Destruction and pillaging of such property are prohibited. Their use for military purposes must in principle be avoided.
208 Establishing military facilities and emplacements within a 500-metre radius is prohibited.
209 In the case of absolute military necessity, a request to downgrade a protected cultural property may be submitted to the competent battalion commander by the sector commander. In that case, the distinctive signs must be removed. If possible, the object is to be protected by additional protective measures.
210 As a precautionary measure prior to a conflict, the competent civil defence units must remove and secure mobile cultural property. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 207–210. The German language version of § 209 notes: “In the case of imperative [“zwingender”] military necessity, …”.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property (2013) states:
Term - Definition of cultural property (CP)
CP includes property and objects that are of great importance as regards cultural heritage, for example:
- structures of artistic and historic value, art and historic monuments
- sacred buildings (churches, monasteries, temples, mosques, synagogues)
- museums, large libraries, archives, collections
- archaeological sites (on land or under water)
- works of art, historical manuscripts, valuable books
- relics from the history of technology, industry and traffic.
Rule No. 1 Protection of cultural property during war times
Cultural property requires special protection in military conflicts. The Law of Armed Conflict provides for three types of protection during armed conflicts:
1. CP of national importance is granted general protection as CP. This is guaranteed by the state. The relevant information is stated in the “Swiss inventory of cultural property of national importance”.
2. A limited number of CPs are under special protection, e.g. Vatican City. At the request of a country UNESCO may consider entry in the “International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection” to grant special protection.
3. A small number of CPs that are of particular importance as world-cultural-heritage are under enhanced protection. In times of armed conflict, at the request of a country enhanced protection is granted by the (international) Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
Rule No. 3 Respect and protection
I respect and protect CP.
Respecting means:
- refraining from establishing military targets and troop accommodation in CP or its immediate vicinity (500m);
Protecting means:
- preventing damage to CP during combat;
- taking appropriate precautionary measures.
Rule No. 4 Cultural property personnel, material, means of transport and installations
I will spare and respect personnel, installations, material and means of transport involved in the protection of cultural property, except if they are used in a military manner against me and my fellow soldiers.
Rule No. 6 Military use of and attack on CP
Military use of and attack on CP of national importance and its immediate vicinity (500 m) is only permitted in exceptional cases, e.g.:
- if absolutely necessary
- if authorised by a superior with at least the rank of a battalion commander.
If CP is used by the military, the CP signs must be removed.
Rule No. 7 Prohibition of military use of cultural property under enhanced protection
During armed conflicts military forces and military material are not permitted to come within a 500 m radius of CP areas under any circumstances.
Rule No. 8 Attack on cultural property under enhanced protection
I may only attack CP under enhanced protection if:
- the CP is still being used for military purposes despite an effective warning; and
- attacking is the only way to prevent its further military use.
Such an attack is subject to authorisation from Armed Forces Command.
Rule No. 9 Punishment of violations of the regulations on the protection of cultural property
My breach of the regulations on the protection of cultural property will result in disciplinary measures or prosecution under the Military Criminal Code.
A serious violation of the protection of cultural property is considered a war crime. 
Switzerland, Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property, Regulation 51.00705e, issued on the basis of Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, signed on 21 March 2013, entry into force on 1 July 2013, Definition and Rules No. 1, 3–4, 6 and 7–9.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Cultural property may not be used for military purposes.” 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.39; see also § 1.3.2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states:
In addition to the “grave breaches” of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … the following are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war, or war crimes:
(h) improper use of a privileged building for military purposes. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(h).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
5.25. It is prohibited:
b. to use [historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples] in support of the military effort;
5.25.1 In general, all civilian objects are protected. However, the protection of cultural property and places of worship is given special emphasis in the law of armed conflict, both in respect of protection from attack and in respect of discouraging their use for military purposes, so that the need to attack such property does not arise.
5.25.2. Because of its wording, the prohibition in paragraph 5.25 only applies to very important cultural property of international stature. It is not clear whether “works of art” includes scientific collections or libraries, but the prohibition certainly applies to more than just buildings and would cover cultural or archaeological sites. Property loses its protection if it is used for military purposes. The protection is against all acts of hostility, not just “attacks”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 5.25–5.25.2.
The manual further states:
The prohibition in the Protocol of the use of cultural property for military purposes is important because if it is not so used, there is no need to attack it. Thus a church tower or mosque minaret should not be used as a military observation post. There may be rare cases where it is essential to use cultural property for military purposes, for example, an historic bridge that is the only available river crossing. These cases only occur where there is no choice possible between the use of cultural property for military purposes and another feasible method for obtaining a similar military advantage. The main advantage of having special rules for cultural property is in making attacking commanders more aware of the existence of cultural property, especially if it is marked or contained in a published list which is available to them. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.25.3.
[emphasis in original]
With regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the manual states: “The detailed rules of the Convention do not apply to states not party to it, but the general principles of immunity of cultural property … do apply to those states.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, p. 71, fn. 114.
In relation to internal armed conflict, the manual states: “[T]he law also prohibits … the use of cultural property for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in armed conflict, unless there is no feasible alternative to such use.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.18.
With regard to internal armed conflicts in which the 1977 Additional Protocol II is applicable, the manual further specifies: “It is prohibited ‘…to use [historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples] in support of the military effort’.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.51.–15.51.1.
In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual refers to the “use of a privileged building for improper purposes” as a war crime “traditionally recognized by the customary law of armed conflict”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.29.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states:
In the practice of the United States, religious buildings, shrines, and consecrated places employed for worship are used only for aid stations, medical installations, or for the housing of wounded personnel awaiting evacuation, provided in each case that a situation of emergency requires such use. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 405(c).
The manual further states:
In addition to the “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (“war crimes”):
h. Improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 504(h).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of situations involving individual criminal responsibility:
(7) wilful and improper use of privileged buildings or localities for military purposes. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 15-3(c)(7).
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states: “If possible, US forces should avoid using cultural property for military purposes, or to support the military effort.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 3-5(a).
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states: “In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … improperly using privileged buildings for military purposes such as a church steeple as an observation post”. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 13.
United States of America
The US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991) states: “Churches, shrines, schools, museums, national monuments, and any other historical or cultural sites will not be engaged except in self-defence.” 
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § D.
United States of America
The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997) states: “While the United States is not a Party to the 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property], it considers it to reflect customary law.” 
United States, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 8.5.1.6, footnote 122.
United States of America
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, defines protected property as follows:
The term “protected property” means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, or places where the sick and wounded are collected), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(a)(3), p. IV-3.
The manual includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:
USING PROTECTED PROPERTY AS A SHIELD.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of the location of, protected property with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused positioned or otherwise took advantage of the location of protected property;
(2) The accused did so with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations; and
(3) The act took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict.
c. Maximum punishment. Confinement for life. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(10), p. IV-8.
United States of America
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, defines protected property as follows:
The term “protected property” means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments …), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 1(a)(3), p. IV-1.
The manual includes in the list of crimes triable by military commission:
USING PROTECTED PROPERTY AS A SHIELD.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of the location of, protected property with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused positioned or otherwise took advantage of the location of protected property;
(2) The accused did so with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations; and
(3) The act took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.
c. Maximum punishment. Confinement for life. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 5(10), p. IV-8.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides that cultural property and its immediate vicinity must not be used directly or indirectly by armed forces for purposes which could provoke enemy attack. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 88.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (1998) states: “Monuments cannot be used for military purposes.” 
Azerbaijan, Law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments, 1998, § 18.
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
The grave breaches set out in Article 15 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in The Hague on 26 March 1999, committed in time of armed conflict, as defined in Article 18(1)(2) of the 1954 Hague Convention and in Article 22 of the said Second Protocol, and listed below, constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title, when such breaches endanger, by act or omission, objects protected by these Conventions, without prejudice to criminal provisions applicable to breaches committed out of negligence:
2. using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 3(2).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
The grave breaches set out in Article 15 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in The Hague on 26 March 1999, committed in time of armed conflict, as defined in Article 18(1)(2) of the 1954 Hague Convention and in Article 22 of the said Second Protocol, and listed below, constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title, when such breaches endanger, by act or omission, objects protected by these Conventions, without prejudice to criminal provisions applicable to breaches committed out of negligence:
2. using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 3(2).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:
(j) [using] historical monuments, works of art, or places of worship … in support of military effort…
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270.
Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “attacks … places used for religious worship, science, art, medical treatment or charity or historical monuments” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(10).
(emphasis in original)
Hungary
Hungary’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (2006) states:
Breach of the international protection of cultural property
Section 160/B.
(1) Any person who, at the time of war:
b) uses cultural property under international protection in support of military action;
is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment between five to ten years.
(2) Any person who uses the immediate surroundings of cultural property under international protection in support of military action shall be punishable in accordance with Subsection (1).
(3) The punishment shall be imprisonment between five to fifteen years if the crime referred to in Subsection (1) is committed in connection with cultural property placed under special or enhanced protection by international convention.
(4) Any person who uses the immediate surroundings of cultural property under special or enhanced protection in accordance with international convention in support of military action shall be punishable in accordance with Subsection (3). 
Hungary, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 2006, Section 160/B.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 53, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 16, are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (2007) states:
In a situation of armed conflict, a person who uses, without legitimate reason, a cultural property under enhanced protection or its surroundings for combat or for support activities of combat, and puts a cultural property under enhanced protection in danger of damage by a combat activity of the adversary in an armed conflict, shall be sentenced to less than three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. 
Japan, Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 2007, Article 8.
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “using cultural property that is under enhanced protection as referred to in [Articles 10 and 11 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] or the immediate vicinity of such property in support of military action” is a crime when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(4)(b).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (2006) states:
In the event of an armed conflict, civilian and military and/or police personnel …
2. … shall not use cultural property, its systems of protection nor their surroundings, for purposes which may expose the cultural property to destruction or damage, thus putting at risk its protective regime. 
Peru, Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation, 2006, Article 78(2).
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
Committing an act or activity prohibited by any of the following conventions or protocols constitutes a crime under international law:
1. the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict … 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(1).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:
a. Attacking … cultural property or places of worship which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, as long as such property is not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives and is not used in support of the enemy’s military effort;
b. Misusing the cultural property or places of worship mentioned in letter a) in support of a military action;
2. When … [there] is a misuse … [of] cultural property or places of worship which are protected by special agreements or are under enhanced protection … a higher sentence can be imposed.
In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(a)–(b) and (2).
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust avoid using … cultural property or installations [in] close [proximity] to these for objectives that can expose them to destruction or deterioration.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 113.
Syrian Arab Republic
The Syrian Arab Republic’s Antiquities Law (1950), as amended in 1999, states: “The establishment of … military installations shall be prohibited within 500 metres of registered non-moveable archaeological and historical property.” 
Syrian Arab Republic, Antiquities Law, 1950, as amended in 1999, Article 26.
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2006), passed by Congress following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, amends Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions
“(a) DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION. — In this section:
“ …
“(3) PROTECTED PROPERTY.—The term ‘protected property’ means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, or places where the sick and wounded are collected), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective.
“…
“(b) OFFENSES.—The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:
“ …
“(10) USING PROTECTED PROPERTY AS A SHIELD.—Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of the location of, protected property with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2626, § 950v(a)(3) and (b)(10).
United States of America
In 2008, the US Senate approved the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, subject to certain understandings and a declaration:
Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent Subject to Understandings and a Declaration.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106–1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.
Section 2. Understandings.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:
(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that “special protection,” as defined in Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary international law in that it … prohibits the use of any cultural property to shield any legitimate military targets from attack … .
Section 3. Declaration.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:
With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts. 
United States, Advice and Consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, 2008, Sections 1–3.
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2009) amends Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 950p. Definitions; construction of certain offenses; common circumstances
“(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this subchapter:
“ …
“(3) The term ‘protected property’ means any property specifically protected by the law of war, including buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … but only if and to the extent such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. The term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950p(a)(3).
The Act also states:
§ 950t. Crimes triable by military commission
“The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:
“ …
“(10) USING PROTECTED PROPERTY AS A SHIELD.—Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of the location of, protected property with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950t(10).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
39. … using [cultural objects protected by international law] or [their] immediate surroundings in support of military action. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.39.
No data.
Russian Federation
In 1995, in its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court recognized the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the conflict in Chechnya. While noting that amendments to domestic legislation to ensure its application had not been adopted, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] regarding … protection of cultural [objects] and places of worship are binding on both parties to the armed conflict.” 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995, § 5.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
Australia
At the CDDH, Australia stated that had Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53) been put to a vote, it would have abstained “because the article contains a prohibition against reprisals” even though it agreed “with the prohibition against using these historic monuments in support of the military effort”. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 219–220.
Canada
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Canada stated:
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 53 that … the prohibitions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article can only be waived when military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver. 
Canada, Reservations and statements of understanding made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 November 1990, § 9.
Egypt
In its written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated that “cultural and religious objects … should not be used in support of the military effort”. 
Egypt, Written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, September 1995, p. 21, § 50.
Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Federal Republic of Germany stated that, with respect to Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53): “The illegal use of these objects for military purposes, however, will cause them to lose the protection provided for in Article 47 bis as a result of attacks which are to be directed against such military uses.” 
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 225 and 226.
(emphasis added)
India
The Report on the Practice of India states: “The protection that is ordinarily available to religious objects is not available if such objects are used for terrorist activities.” The report adds: “In 1984, a number of religious places in Punjab including the famous Golden Temple at Amritsar were identified as terrorist bases and military action taken against them”. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 1.3.
Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Ireland stated:
It is the understanding of Ireland in relation to the protection of cultural objects in Article 53 that if the objects protected by this Article are unlawfully used for military purposes they will thereby lose protection from attacks directed against such unlawful military use. 
Ireland, Declarations and reservations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 19 May 1999, § 10.
[emphasis added]
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, it is a policy of the Israel Defense Forces not to establish military bases or positions in the vicinity of cultural property”. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
Italy
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Italy stated: “If and so long as the objectives protected by Article 53 are unlawfully used for military purposes, they will thereby lose protection.” 
Italy, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 27 February 1986, § 9.
(emphasis added)
Netherlands
At the CDDH, the Netherlands stated, with respect to Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53): “The illegitimate use of those historical objects for military purposes would deprive them of the protection afforded by Article 47 bis.” 
Netherlands, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 207–208.
(emphasis added)
Netherlands
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the Netherlands stated, with respect to Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that if and for as long as the objects and places protected by this Article, in violation of paragraph (b), are used in support of the military effort, they will thereby lose such protection. 
Netherlands, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 26 June 1987, § 8.
[emphasis added]
Russian Federation
According to the Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, the use of cultural property, historic monuments or places of worship that constitute a part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of a people in support of the military effort is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, 1997, Chapter 1.6.
Rwanda
On the basis of replies by army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that Rwanda’s armed forces avoid establishing military installations in proximity to cultural and religious objects and turning these objects into military bases. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies by army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 4.3.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Civilian objects
International humanitarian law distinguishes between Civilian objects and Military objectives, prohibiting acts of violence against the former. Other provisions provide special protection for certain specific civilian objects, some of which are expected to bear distinctive signs: … places of worship, cultural property … Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives.
Cultural property
Cultural property includes movable and immovable objects that are important to the cultural heritage of humanity, and the buildings in which they are stored or displayed. In the event of an Armed conflict cultural property is accorded special protection under international law. Not only are hostile acts against cultural property prohibited, but it is also forbidden to make use of such property in support of military operations or as a target of Reprisals. An exception is only foreseen for cases of imperative military necessity. Protected items are marked by a distinctive sign. The way cultural property is to be treated is regulated in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and its two Additional Protocols. The First Protocol concerns the protection of cultural property during an occupation (Occupied territory), while the second strengthens the protection, extending it to non-international Armed conflicts, and also defines individual criminal responsibility. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 12 and 14–15.
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
3.3 Increasing use of guerrilla tactics …
International humanitarian law in force treats these cases in a relatively complete manner, binding non-State and State actors alike. … The use of human shields constitutes equally a serious violation of international humanitarian law, as does the abusive and deliberate use of protected objects (religious buildings, hospitals, cultural property) to protect military objectives or to serve as a base for combat operations. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.3, p. 12.
[footnotes in original omitted]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
At the CDDH, the United Kingdom declared, with respect to Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53): “If these objects are unlawfully used for military purposes, they will thereby lose effective protection as a result of attacks directed against such unlawful military uses.” 
United Kingdom, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 238.
(emphasis added)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon signature and upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated, in relation to Article 53: “If the objects protected by this Article are unlawfully used for military purposes they will thereby lose protection from attacks directed against such unlawful military uses.” 
United Kingdom, Declarations made upon signature of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 12 December 1977, § g; Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 28 January 1998, § k.
(emphasis added)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated:
Despite its protestations to the contrary, the Iraqi regime shows no greater respect for the country’s cultural wealth than for its people. The coalition is taking every precaution to avoid damage to the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala. By contrast, we know that Saddam Hussein has plans to damage the sites and blame the coalition. Indeed, his forces have used the site at Najaf as a defensive position, firing on United States forces, who commendably did not return fire. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 3 April 2003, Vol. 402, Debates, cols. 1069–1070.
United States of America
At the CDDH, the United States stated, with respect to Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53): “The use of these objects in support of the military effort is a violation of this article.” 
United States, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 240–241.
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of hostilities in the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated that contrary to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and
certain principles of customary law codified in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], the Government of Iraq placed military assets (personnel, weapons, and equipment) in civilian populated areas and next to protected objects (mosques, medical facilities, and cultural sites) in an effort to protect them from attack. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 624.
The report further described how Iraq had used “cultural property to protect legitimate targets from attack”:
A classic example was the positioning of two fighter aircraft adjacent to the ancient temple of Ur … While the law of war permits the attack of the two fighter aircraft, with Iraq bearing responsibility for any damage to the temple, Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CINCCENT) elected not to attack the aircraft on the basis of respect for cultural property and the belief that positioning of the aircraft adjacent to Ur (without servicing equipment or a runway nearby) effectively had placed each out of action, thereby limiting the value of their destruction by Coalition air forces when weighed against the risk of damage to the temple. Other cultural property similarly remained on the Coalition no-attack list, despite Iraqi placement of valuable military equipment in or near those sites. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 626.
United States of America
In 1993, in its report to Congress on the protection of natural and cultural resources during times of war, the US Department of Defense stated:
The US and its Coalition partners in Desert Storm recognized that they were fighting in the “cradle of civilization” and took extraordinary measures to minimize damage to cultural property. Regrettably, these precautionary steps were met by Iraqi use of cultural property within its control to shield military objects from attack. A classical example is the positioning of two MiG-21 fighter aircraft at the entrance of the ancient temple of Ur. Although the law of war permitted their attack, and although each could have been destroyed utilizing precision-guided munitions, US commanders recognized that the aircraft for all intents and purposes were incapable of military operations from their position, and elected against their attack for fear of collateral damage to the temple. 
United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on International Policies and Procedures Regarding the Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources During Times of War, 19 January 1993, p. 204.
UN Secretary-General
In a joint declaration issued in 1991 on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General launched a solemn appeal to all parties “to respect the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and in the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. 
Director-General of UNESCO and UN Secretary-General, Joint declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, 24 October 1991, UNESCO Courier, January 1992, p. 50.
UNESCO General Conference
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UNESCO General Conference reaffirmed that “(a) the object and purpose of the 1954 Hague Convention are still valid and realistic” and “(b) the fundamental principles of protecting and preserving cultural property in the event of armed conflict could be considered part of customary international law”. 
UNESCO, General Conference, Res. 3.5, 13 November 1993, preamble.
UNESCO Director-General
In a joint declaration issued in 1991 on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General launched a solemn appeal to all parties “to respect the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and in the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. 
Director-General of UNESCO and UN Secretary-General, Joint declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, 24 October 1991, UNESCO Courier, January 1992, p. 50.
OSCE Spillover Monitoring Mission to Skopje
In a press release issued in 2001 following allegations that the historic Arabati Baba Teke Dervish Monastery and the area next to the Painted Mosque in Tetovo were being used as a base for military operations by the ethnic Albanian armed groups operating in Macedonia, the OSCE Spillover Monitoring Mission to Skopje expressed its “great concern” about “the misuse of religious and cultural monuments for military reasons, which is not acceptable according to international law”. 
OSCE Spillover Monitoring Mission to Skopje, Press Release, OSCE Skopje Mission concerned about misuse of religious and cultural sites, 7 August 2001.
No data.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber held: “It cannot be denied that customary rules have developed to govern internal strife. These rules … cover such areas as … protection of civilian objects, in particular cultural property.” 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 127.
The Appeals Chamber explicitly stated that Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, which provides for the application of the provisions of the Convention relating to respect for cultural property “as a minimum” in non-international armed conflicts, constituted a treaty rule which had “gradually become part of customary law”. 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 98.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that they must distinguish between “historic monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” on the one hand, which enjoy full protection and whose immunity from use for military purposes may not be withdrawn, and “objects of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people” on the other hand, which may not be used for military purposes in principle but whose immunity from such use may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 97, 219 and 225.
National Societies (Hungary and Yugoslavia)
In a joint statement issued in 1991, the Yugoslav Red Cross and the Hungarian Red Cross expressed their deep concern about “the protracting internal conflict in Yugoslavia” and urged the parties to the conflict “not to use [cultural objects] for military purposes”. 
Yugoslav Red Cross and Hungarian Red Cross, Joint Statement, Subotica, 25 October 1991.
No data.