Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Ideological Warfare against Cultural Property: UN Strategies and Dilemmas

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

With iconic cultural heritage in Afghanistan, Mali, Libya, Iraq and Syria at the mercy of Jihadi extremists, the international community’s somewhat feverish compilation of emergency measures illustrates both the sense of urgency now felt, but also how unprepared the world was to be confronted with ideological warfare against the ‘culture of the heretics.’ The laws of armed conflict, and in its wake international criminal law, provide relatively clear cut proscriptive rules against ideologically motived cultural destruction, which cannot be said of peacetime rules on cultural heritage protection. But the threat of incurring international responsibility and punishment is seen as inconsequential when the perpetrators’ driving ideology distains external laws. On UN level, the Security Council has resorted to a global trade ban to target two birds with one stone: to dry-up is’s source of income through illicit trade in Iraqi and Syrian antiquities and to preserve artefacts by making illicit excavation and pillaging economically unattractive. Unfortunately the situation on the ground, with its many uncertainties regarding domestic implementation means the effectiveness of this measure is in abeyance.

10.1163/18757413-00190002
/content/journals/10.1163/18757413-00190002
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18757413-00190002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/18757413-00190002
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18757413-00190002
2016-05-30
2018-06-18

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation