Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The 1954 Hague Convention: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sacred Sites as Cultural Property

The 1954 Hague Convention: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sacred Sites as Cultural Property It is widely assumed that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites are not cultural property for the purposes of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, commonly known as the 1954 Hague Convention. Challenging this assumption, this article analyses the Convention’s definition of ‘cultural property’ to determine whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites can be considered cultural property. It is argued that sacred sites do enjoy protection as cultural property under the 1954 Hague Convention. Whether Indigenous Australian sacred sites are cultural property for the purposes of the 1954 Hague Convention is important not only for Australia, but for all States with Indigenous peoples, as it provides a framework for determining whether Indigenous sacred sites can be considered cultural property under the 1954 Hague Convention. If States adopt and acknowledge this article’s interpretation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its finding that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites are cultural property, future armed conflicts may be altered due to increased obligations to protect this form of cultural property. II. Introduction When cultural property of one nation is destroyed, all of humanity suffers. This theory was the foundation http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Australian Year Book of International Law Online Brill

The 1954 Hague Convention: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sacred Sites as Cultural Property

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-1954-hague-convention-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-sacred-ajKcf3cZF9
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0084-7658
DOI
10.1163/26660229-034-01-900000009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

It is widely assumed that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites are not cultural property for the purposes of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, commonly known as the 1954 Hague Convention. Challenging this assumption, this article analyses the Convention’s definition of ‘cultural property’ to determine whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites can be considered cultural property. It is argued that sacred sites do enjoy protection as cultural property under the 1954 Hague Convention. Whether Indigenous Australian sacred sites are cultural property for the purposes of the 1954 Hague Convention is important not only for Australia, but for all States with Indigenous peoples, as it provides a framework for determining whether Indigenous sacred sites can be considered cultural property under the 1954 Hague Convention. If States adopt and acknowledge this article’s interpretation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its finding that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sacred sites are cultural property, future armed conflicts may be altered due to increased obligations to protect this form of cultural property. II. Introduction When cultural property of one nation is destroyed, all of humanity suffers. This theory was the foundation

Journal

The Australian Year Book of International Law OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.