Wayne Sandholtz
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195337235
- eISBN:
- 9780199868391
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195337235.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
This chapter discusses destruction of cultural property during World War I, and the subsequent restitution debates and settlements. World War I triggered another important turn through the cycle of ...
More
This chapter discusses destruction of cultural property during World War I, and the subsequent restitution debates and settlements. World War I triggered another important turn through the cycle of norm change. The destruction by the Germans of cultural monuments in Belgium and northern France triggered intense debates about the meaning and application of the rules of war and the protection of cultural treasures. Governments and public opinion in Belgium, France, Britain, and the United States condemned the destruction of the library at Louvain and of Rheims cathedral as German violations of the rules of war. After the armistice, the peace agreements imposed on Germany explicit obligations to return artworks or replace those that had been destroyed. In the two decades following World War I, a series of initiatives sought to improve and strengthen the norms protecting cultural property during wartime: the draft Rules of Aerial Warfare (1923), the Roerich Pact (1935), and the IMO Draft Convention (1938).Less
This chapter discusses destruction of cultural property during World War I, and the subsequent restitution debates and settlements. World War I triggered another important turn through the cycle of norm change. The destruction by the Germans of cultural monuments in Belgium and northern France triggered intense debates about the meaning and application of the rules of war and the protection of cultural treasures. Governments and public opinion in Belgium, France, Britain, and the United States condemned the destruction of the library at Louvain and of Rheims cathedral as German violations of the rules of war. After the armistice, the peace agreements imposed on Germany explicit obligations to return artworks or replace those that had been destroyed. In the two decades following World War I, a series of initiatives sought to improve and strengthen the norms protecting cultural property during wartime: the draft Rules of Aerial Warfare (1923), the Roerich Pact (1935), and the IMO Draft Convention (1938).
Austin Sarat, Lawrence Douglas, and Martha Merrill Umphrey (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780804787420
- eISBN:
- 9780804788861
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Stanford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.11126/stanford/9780804787420.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Comparative Law
This collection of essays explores the cultural, historical, spatial, and theoretical dimensions of the relationship between law and war. This relationship has long vexed the jurisprudential ...
More
This collection of essays explores the cultural, historical, spatial, and theoretical dimensions of the relationship between law and war. This relationship has long vexed the jurisprudential imagination. Historically the term “war crime” struck some as redundant and others as oxymoronic: redundant because war itself is criminal; oxymoronic because war submits to no law. More recently, there has been an emergence of the remarkable trend to the juridification of warfare, as law has sought to stretch its dominion over every aspect of the waging of armed struggle. No longer simply a tool for judging battlefield conduct, law now seeks to subdue warfare and to enlist it as a means in the service of legal goals. Law has emerged, then, as a force that stands over and above war, endowed with the power to authorize and restrain, to declare and limit, to justify, and condemn.Less
This collection of essays explores the cultural, historical, spatial, and theoretical dimensions of the relationship between law and war. This relationship has long vexed the jurisprudential imagination. Historically the term “war crime” struck some as redundant and others as oxymoronic: redundant because war itself is criminal; oxymoronic because war submits to no law. More recently, there has been an emergence of the remarkable trend to the juridification of warfare, as law has sought to stretch its dominion over every aspect of the waging of armed struggle. No longer simply a tool for judging battlefield conduct, law now seeks to subdue warfare and to enlist it as a means in the service of legal goals. Law has emerged, then, as a force that stands over and above war, endowed with the power to authorize and restrain, to declare and limit, to justify, and condemn.
