Règle correspondante
Practice Relating to Rule 38. Attacks against Cultural Property
At the CDDH, Finland explained its vote against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) as follows:
Our negative vote is not to be taken as an indication of a negative stand as regards the safeguarding of cultural property from the ravages of war in general. It is an indication of our strong feeling that the inclusion of a provision protecting cultural property in Protocol II, which lacks general rules on the methods and means of combat … which have been deleted, unbalances the protective humanitarian character of the Protocol. 
Finland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, pp. 156–157.