무력 충돌시 문화재 보호

The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: With Special Reference to the 1954 Hague Convention

We have witnessed the destruction and pillage of cultural property in the event of armed conflict through the history. In the Second World War, the Nazi had wantonly destroyed many great cultural properties of mankind. In view of this bad practice, the international community tried to make international norms to protect cultural properties in the event of armed conflict. The 1954 Hague Convention is the first universal international treaty which intends to safeguard cultural properties in the event of armed conflicts. The 1954 Hague Convention system is composed of the 1954 Hague Convention, Regulations implementing the Convention, 1954 Protocol and 1999 Protocol. This Convention system introduced the safeguard and respect obligation of cultural property which secures immunity from armed attack in certain cases. The Hague Convention also introduced the special protection system to ensure safer protection of cultural property of very great importance. The 1999 Protocol introduced the enhanced protection system which provides stronger protection to certain cultural property than that of the special protection system. Korea has acceded to neither the Convention nor the Protocols. In view of imperative to protect cultural properties both in the peace time and in the event of armed conflict, it is recommended to accede to the Convention and Protocols. However, before we decide to accede to them, we have to consider whether the accession to them makes any conflict of obligations incumbent on us. Up to now, the Korean operation control in time of armed conflict is reserved with the US army. And also the USA acceded to the 1954 Hague Convention only. Given the situation if Korea accede to them but the USA not, we may imagine the Korean army may encounter military order which is not consistent with, for example, some provisions in 1999 Protocol, then the Korean army faces conflict of obligations between the international obligations based on the Protocols and obligations flowing from operational control of the US army. In this regard, we have to be careful to accede to the Protocols.