Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Austria	Yes	No
Azerbaijan	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Canada	Yes	No
Denmark	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Iran	Yes	No
Mali	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
New Zealand	Yes	No
United Kingdom	Yes	No

Austria

01-03-2002

Concerning Article 15 sub-paragraph 1 (c):
The Republic of Austria considers that the term "appropriation" refers to the offence of (grave) theft as set forth in §§ 127 and 128 sub-paragraph 1 (3) of the Austrian Criminal code (österreichisches Strafgesetzbuch - StGB).
Concerning Article 16 sub-paragraph 1 (c):
The Republic of Austria considers with regard to the provision of Article 17 paragraph 1 that the obligation under Article 16 sub-paragraph 1 (c) to establish jurisdiction over the serious violations set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) only applies to such cases where the alleged offender cannot be extradited (aut dedere aut judicare).

Azerbaijan

17-04-2001

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that under the definition of "the competent national authorities of the occupied territory" mentioned in Article 9, paragraph 2 of the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, it understands the central competent authority dealing with the issues on the protection of the cultural properties situated over the whole territory of the Party to the Protocol.

Belgium

17-05-1999

This signature is also binding on the French Community, the German-speaking Community, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capitol Region.
This signature is also binding on the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region.

13-10-2010

In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol and with the principle of non-discrimination, Belgium will prosecute the acts referred to in Article 15 of the Protocol without taking into account the exception provided for in its Article 16, paragraph 2(b).

Canada

29-11-2005

Statement of Understanding
1. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the definition of a military objective in Article 2(f) is to be interpreted the same way as Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
2. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that in relation to Article 6(a)(ii), 6(b), 7(a), 7(b), 8, 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(b) the word "feasible" means that which is practicable or practically possible, taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
3. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that in relation to Article 6(a)(ii), 6(b), 7(c) and 7(d)(ii) that the military advantage anticipated from an attack is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not from isolated or particular parts of the attack.
4. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that any cultural property that becomes a military objective may be attacked in accordance with a waiver of imperative military necessity pursuant 10 Article 4(2) of the Convention.
5. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that a decision to invoke imperative military necessity pursuant to Article 6(c) of this Protocol may be taken by an officer commanding a force smaller than the equivalent of a battalion in size in circumstances where the cultural property becomes a military objective and the circumstances ruling at the time relating to force protection are such that it is not feasible to require the decision to be made by an officer commanding a force the equivalent of a battalion in size or larger.
6. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that under Article 6(a)(i), cultural property can be made into a military objective because of its nature, location, purpose or use.

Denmark

05-09-2018

The Protocol will not apply to the Faroe Islands and to Greenland until further notice.

France

30-03-2017

The French Republic understands the reference made in Article 13 sub-paragraph 2(c) of the Protocol to ‘immediate self-defence’ as in no way affecting the right of self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and declares that it will apply the provisions of Article 13 sub-paragraph 2(c) of the Protocol in so far as the interpretation of these provisions does not constitute an obstacle to the employment, in accordance with international law, of the means that it considers indispensable to respond to an immediate threat in a situation of armed conflict.
The French Republic understands that any cultural property that becomes a military objective within the meaning of the Protocol may be attacked under an exemption on account of imperative military necessity, pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Convention.
With reference to Article 16 sub-paragraph 1(c) of the Protocol, the French Republic states that the French courts may prosecute any person who is a national of a State Party to the Protocol who habitually resides in France and has perpetrated the offences referred to in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1(a)-(c). These offences may only be prosecuted at the request of the public prosecutor.

Iran

24-05-2005

Accession of the Islamic Republic of Iran to this Protocol shall not mean the recognition of any country it does not recognize, neither shall it give rise to any commitment toward such states or governments.
Considering the special importance of protecting cultural heritage of nations against damages caused by war,
Bearing in mind the fact that cultural heritage of nations is deemed as part of cultural heritage of humanity,
Considering that full protect of cultural heritage against damages caused by armed conflicts needs the protections more than that which is provided for in the present Protocol,
The Islamic Republic of Iran regards the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral supplementary agreements to the present Protocol as necessary and states its readiness to conclude such agreements. These agreements shall entail the granting of privileges and providing more possibilities for protection of cultural heritage of nations and shall also articulate the rules stipulated in the Protocol including customary rules of international law, in a way that solely include the rules that are not protested by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and as well as explain more clearly the modality for the implementation of provisions of section 4 of this Protocol.

Mali

15-11-2012

The Government of Mali, referring to Article 44 of the Protocol, requests that its ratification be given immediate effect.

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

08-10-2010

The Kingdom of the Netherlands currently consists of three parts: the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The Netherlands Antilles consists of the islands of Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
With effect from 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles will cease to exist as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. From that date onwards, the Kingdom will consist of four parts: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Curaçao and Sint Maarten will enjoy internal self-government within the Kingdom, as Aruba and, up to 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles do.
These changes constitute a modification of the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will accordingly remain the subject of international law with which agreements are concluded. The modification of the structure of the Kingdom will therefore not affect the validity of the international agreements ratified by the Kingdom for the Netherlands Antilles: these agreements, including any reservations made, will continue to apply to Curaçao and Sint Maarten.
The other islands that have until now formed part of the Netherlands Antilles - Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba - will become parts of the Netherlands, thus constituting "the Caribbean part of the Netherlands". The agreements that now apply to the Netherlands Antilles will also continue to apply to these islands; however, the Government of the Netherlands will now be responsible for implementing these agreements.
In addition, a number of the agreements that currently apply to the Netherlands are hereby declared applicable, from 10 October 2010, to this Caribbean part of the Netherlands.

New Zealand

23-10-2013

[...] Declares that, consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this accession shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory.

United Kingdom

12-09-2017

Hereby Declare that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland makes the following declarations in relation to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 and the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999 done at the Hague on 14 May 1954, 14 May 1954 and 26 March 1999 respectively:
1. It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time.
2. The United Kingdom understands the term “feasible” as used in the Second Protocol to mean that which is practicable or practically possible, taking into account all circumstances ruling at that time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
3. It is the view of the United Kingdom that, when referred to in the Second Protocol, the military advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.
4. The United Kingdom recalls the Declaration made by the Republic of Mauritius on its accession to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954 as to the purported territorial application of the Convention.
The United Kingdom rejects the claim contained in the Declaration made by Mauritius that the territorial application of the Convention extends to the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia. In particular, the United Kingdom rejects the claim by the Republic of Mauritius that the Chagos Archipelago, which the United Kingdom administers as the British Indian Ocean Territory, is part of Mauritius. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius' purported extension of the Convention to this territory is unfounded and does not have any legal effect.