Protection of Cultural Property in Cyprus

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Annihilation of Cultural Property
Cyprus Domestic Legislation
European Union Legislation
Cultural Property Protection
Northern Cyprus Occupation
1999 Hague Protocol
Customary International Law
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Cyprus is country that is small both in size and population. It is also known for having a good ancient history that was characterized with great civilization. Archaeological evidence about Cyprus reveals that people started inhabiting it probably from 7,000 B.C. Christianity reached Cyprus during the ancient period, and it was pioneered by Apostle Barnabas. Byzantine emperors governed Cyprus for about eight hundred years. The Byzantine era also saw the construction of many churches that were beautifully decorated using materials such as frescoes and mosaics. In 1571, the Ottoman Empire conquered Cyprus which now became part of it.

In 1878, Cyprus was occupied by the British. Finally, in 1960, Cyprus was proclaimed independent. “In this case, Cyprus signed the Treaty of Alliance Treaty of Guarantee, and it also adopted a new constitution” (Chrysostomides 23). “The Guarantee Treaty stated that Britain, Turkey, and Greece were to honor, and safeguard Cyprus sovereignty and also its independence” (Jansen 69). Cyprus was mainly in habited by Turkish and Greek- Cypriots. These communities are distinct in terms of culture and language. Before 1974, the Cyprus population was dominated by Greek Cypriots, and the population of Turkish Cypriots only comprised eighteen percent of the entire Cyprus population.

After the 1974 Turkey invasion, Cyprus was split into northern and southern regions. Southern Cyprus is the only region that has legal government. Northern Cyprus was illegally acquired and occupied by Turkey. Since 1974, when Turkey invaded Cyprus, it has been noted with a lot of concern that cultural property has been maliciously damaged. “For example, there has been extensive destruction, desecration, and pillage of religious sites, and other historic monuments” (Joseph 124). Moreover, various cultural materials, especially in Northern Cyprus, have been collected, and exported to other markets. The Cyprus government contends that their cultural symbols were interfered with by the Turkish people who invaded them. The cultural symbols have remarkable importance to everybody living in Cyprus. This is because the cultural symbols are some of the indicators of their cultural heritage, and they also have some religious significance.

The Turkish invasion caused the displacement, and the migration of many Greek Cypriots who deserted their residence and properties in northern Cyprus. They moved in a bid to find safety in southern Cyprus. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots that had inhabited various regions of Cyprus Island also fled to the north for safety, after the conflict ensued in 1974. They moved to the north to seek solace from their Turkish colleagues who majorly inhabited Northern Cyprus. At present, southern Cyprus has six hundred thousand Greek Cypriots, while the north has approximately ninety thousand Turkish Cypriots. Some Turkish Cypriots have been resettled in the South with an aim of altering the demographic set up of Cyprus. Turkey has been blamed by Human Rights Courts on many occasions for its unlawful conduct in the north, that has greatly affected the rights of Cyprus citizens.

Annihilation of Cultural Property

Many sources about the Cyprus invasion usually identify the religious sites together with historical monuments that were annihilation during the Turkish attack. The church together with the Cyprus authorities, have struggled to present their displeasure about this issue during cultural debates. “In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urged Turkish and Cypriot authorities to protect all religious monuments and permit restoration of such monuments where necessary” (Department of Antiquities and Museums 3). In 1984, UNESCO in a bid to preserve cultural property gave the first evidence about cultural property that had been obliterated in Cyprus. “At that time, UNESCO issued a report on the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict” (Jansen 45).

The Cyprus government estimated that over five hundred Orthodox chapels were either pillaged, or demolished. In addition to these, some churches were vandalized especially by Turkish forces. One hundred and fifty churches were desecrated in Cyprus. Apart from these, over fifteen thousand paintings, and drawings disappeared. The Turkish military allegedly converted approximately seventy five churches to mosques, while others were converted to hospital premises and camps. The remaining churches became agricultural barns. Identification and cataloging of the destroyed monuments and churches was conducted by the holy monastery, and some archaeologists.

They also registered monuments and churches that still existed in northern Cyprus. Twenty thousand pictures and registration information also form part of the data base that explains the religious symbols, sites, and monuments that were examined. Precisely, the data base identifies five hundred churches belonging to Christians that are located in the northern region of Cyprus Island. Besides this, the data base has fifty monuments that are situated in the regions that were occupied by army officials from Turkey. Many of these monuments were possessed by the Orthodox Church that operated in Cyprus, and a few of them were also possessed by Armenians.

Vandalism of property also included the sale and leasing of ancient churches. The church properties were mostly sold to the Turkish individuals that resided in the northern region. European citizens also acquired the monuments, and church buildings for commercial and administrative functions. For example, Saint Anastasia was turned to a restaurant, and it is now called Anastasia restaurant. Antiphonitis Monastery was a major worship center during the Byzantine and it was also sold. “The mosaics of the Holy Virgin Churches which are believed to be among the most significant monuments of Cyprus were also destroyed, and their valuables were sold abroad” (Thomas 234). In addition, private collections that were made, and maintained by Greek Cypriots, that moved from the north, were also disposed in international auctions.

Archaeological teams that operated in Cyprus, before the invasion, were also compelled to call off their operations and research. This is because they could not cope with the conflict. Those archaeologists were also not spared, and they lost dozens of precious findings which were looted. Unlawful excavations have prevailed in northern Cyprus since the invasion. “Approximately sixty thousand artifacts have been smuggled and sold illegally” (Thomas 312). The Cyprus government contends that unlawful excavations interfere with cultural property. In this regard, both the church and the government have made efforts to salvage the cultural property.

Cyprus Domestic Legislation

There is no common definition of cultural property that is applicable universally, or within international community. “The concept and scope of cultural legislation vary according to the various international legal instruments that are applicable and the national legislation of each country” (King 356). Countries that possess a lot of archaeological materials are always defined as source nations. Such countries may have religious monuments among other cultural properties. Source nations usually adopt special laws that enable them to safeguard various aspects of their cultural heritage. Besides this, such legislations enable source nations to check on looting, and other illegal acquisition of artifacts. Hence, they are able to curb illegitimate commerce that involves unlawful acquisition of artifacts.

The first legislation in this case is national ownership laws. This legislation explains cultural property, and the elements within it. This legislation can also enable a source country to present its claims in international courts so that it can be able to redeem various cultural items that it has lost. The second legislation in this case is called export restriction or embargo. This restriction caters for the protection of religious items and archaeological materials that have scientific and artistic importance from unlawful exportation. This law in some occasions may be treated as blanket legislation because it preserves cultural materials. “Cyprus, as a source nation has enacted laws that define what constitutes cultural property and which assert national ownership and control over its cultural property” (Sanford 124).

The antiquities law that was enacted in 1935 stipulates the buildings and items that should be regarded as ancient monuments. In this case, buildings and objects that are encompassed within the annex are ancient monuments. Besides these, the council of ministers can also make a site or a building a monument. “The law defines cultural property as any object, movable or immovable, which constitutes a work of architecture or any piece of art that was made by human beings before 1850 A.D” (Necatigil 85). Such items must have been identified within Cyprus territory. However, more monuments can still be part of the annex, as long as the ministers recommend them. Ancient churches and chapels, therefore, qualify to be monuments with regard to the antiquities law.

The Cyprus government through antiquities law claims possession of monuments. Article three of the Cyprus antiquity law states that all antiquities that had not been identified by the 1935, when antiquity law started operating, are treated as Cyprus government property. Article seven states that ancient monuments within the annex together with new monuments that may be discovered are definitely government property. “Preservation and restoration of cultural property falls within the purview of the department of antiquities of the ministry of communication and works” (Murphy 247). Moreover, this department is empowered through legal provisions to safeguard cultural property within the territory of Cyprus. The antiquities law does not allow unlicensed excavations. Excavation licenses are usually provided by antiquity director. Individuals that violate antiquity law are either fined or imprisoned.

European Union Legislation

“Cyprus transposed the European Union legislation on cultural property to its domestic legislature prior to joining the European Union in May 2004” (Smith 89). Hence, Cyprus adopted two clauses. “The first is about the returning of cultural property that has been illegally acquired” (Rosenne 81). This law enables Cyprus to match its local law with the guidelines of EEC. The directive handles the redeeming of cultural items that are illegally taken from a member country. Legislation 182 (1), that was prepared in 2002, is about cultural items exportation. The European Community applied this legislation in order to check on exportation of monuments, and other cultural items.

The legislation outlawed unlicensed exportation of cultural monuments, and other cultural items to third countries. Moreover, Cyprus ratified numerous international agreements that aimed at safeguarding its cultural property. In addition, China, and U.S.A also restricted importation of cultural items. This has also enabled Cyprus to safeguard its monuments. “The July 2007 memorandum of understanding, allows the U.S.A homeland security to enforce import restrictions on classical archaeological objects” (King 56). The Cyprus government is convinced that smuggling of cultural items can be mitigated through this memorandum of understanding.

Cultural Property Protection

The nature of Turkish incursion that occurred in northern Cyprus is a matter that can be best dealt with through the United Nations’ Charter. “This is because the application of force can only be recommended by the Security Council” (King 323). Nonetheless, humanitarian law is the one that has the capacity to deal with the continuous Turkish occupation, and their obliteration of monuments. “Protection of cultural property during armed conflict and occupation is governed by the following international legal instruments” (Westra 78).

1907 Hague Regulation

Article 27 is one of the Hague provisions. It states that a country that is invading another should not interfere with religious monuments or any property that has religious attachment. For example, a church premise should not be annihilated when a conflict ensues. This article also disallows pillage, and deliberate destruction of monuments. A participation clause is also an element of the 1907 convention. “Application of the 1907 Hague convention and its regulations to Cyprus and Turkish occupation are uncertain because of the following reasons” (Rosenne 60). Turkey was among the countries that signed the regulation document towards the end of 1907. “Turkey made reservations regarding article three hence it did no ratify the convention” (Rosenne 65). However, Turkey ratified the preceding 1899 convention. In this respect, the 1907 regulations did not exclude Turkey.

On other end, Cyprus was not sovereign during the 1907 convention. Moreover, even after Cyprus had become autonomous, it still never signed the convention document. It is under these circumstances that the 1907 convention cannot protect Cyprus. However, its relevance in the issue regarding Cyprus and Turkey can be argued with reference to the customary international laws. In 1946, the 1907 regulations became equivalent to customary international legislation. “Consequently, the 1907 Hague Convention Regulations could be considered to be applicable to states that were not parties to the 1907 Hague Convention” (Rosenne 71).

1954 Hague Convention

The guidelines of the 1954 convention are imperative during war. Besides this, it can also be practiced during partial or complete invasion, and also during peace. The 1954 convention has article three which expects countries to preserve the monuments located within their boundaries. This would reduce potential destruction of the monuments when conflicts ensue. “This obligation was included to signify the importance of cultural property not only for the state itself, but also for the entire international community” (Chamberlain 234). This is because they both signed the convention. Relocation of movable monuments and preservation of buildings are some of the 1945 convention measures that can facilitate the preservation of monuments.

Since Cyprus was still new, it grappled with political challenges that emerged from inter communal misunderstandings that happened between 1965-1964. However, Cyprus asked for UNESCO guidance concerning the preservation of monuments and mosaics. Cyprus was also empowered by the convention’s third clause which mandated it to apply its discretion and resources in preserving cultural property. Before the 1974 attacks, authorities in Cyprus had strived to preserve cultural monuments. Hence, Turkey was responsible, under international law, for its obliteration of numerous cultural items. “With regard to article four of the convention, Turkey was expected to take the following considerations during its invasion in 1974” (Chamberlain 278). Turkey was to keep distance from cultural property in order to avoid interfering with or damaging them. Secondly, Turkey was not supposed to show contempt or hostility to such properties. Thirdly, Turkey was to refrain from engaging in any sort of vandalism, theft, and pillage of monuments. More importantly, any unfavorable act that could jeopardize the safety of the cultural items was not tolerated.

Special Protection

The 1954 convention indicated that few refugees would be identified to protect movable cultural items during the conflict. The convention also directed its members to register cultural items, and then forward the registers to UNESCO. “Monuments that entered international register enjoy immunity from attacks unless they are used for military reasons” (Chamberlain 289).

Enhancement Protection

Enforcement of special protection has not been possible with reference to 1954 Hague convention. Therefore, the 1999 protocol was implemented to reinforce protection regime. Parties that subscribe to this protocol have the capacity to boost cultural heritage that is considered fundamental to humanity.

Distinctive Emblem

Cultural property can be recognized easily during an invasion if they are blotted with distinctive emblems. The emblem should resemble a shield. “The emblem, repeated three times in the form of a triangle, can be used only in specific instances, such as being placed on immovable cultural property under special protection” (Chamberlain 345).

Military Necessity

“With regard to this provision, cultural property is not absolute, but is subject to the exception of military necessity” (Rosenne 312). Military necessity often presents some hitches when applied in cultural property protection. Military necessity also fails to provide unfettered authority to national military engaged in attacks. However, it is applicable only in instances where specific objectives are sought. Besides this, the convention may waive general protection under some circumstances. For instance, if a military necessity seriously needs a waiver. More importantly, cultural protection may not be guaranteed to a county in exceptional cases. For example, unavoidable military necessity may cause withdrawal of protection.

Prosecution of Individuals

Since Turkey and Cyprus subscribe to the convention, they are expected to come up with laws that can enable them to deal with individuals who contradict the 1954 convention.

Northern Cyprus Occupation

Basically, the legislation concerning occupation is guided by international legal instruments. A territory is said to be under occupation if a hostile army or authority governs it. “The European Commission of Human Rights deemed that the northern part of Cyprus was indeed under the control of Turkey when it accepted in 1977 application of Cyprus and Turkey” (Rosenne 347). Turkey was also blamed for its contravention of human rights. Therefore, an effective occupation occurred in northern Cyprus, and Turkey was accountable for the invasion consequences on cultural property. Law experts also contended that there was a military invasion that was conducted in northern Cyprus. “For instance, Ian Brown mentioned that there was a major occupation that began during1974 during the Turkey invasion of Cyprus” (Chamberlain 90).

1999 Hague Protocol

This law expects a country conducting an invasion to refrain from illicit export or tampering with cultural property located in the occupied region. According to O’Keefe, cultural property constitutes movable and immovable items. In this regard, monuments that were auctioned together with church items that were unlawfully sold, rented, or even leased to private individuals were contraventions of the 1999 protocol. This protocol also disallows annihilation of private belongings as well as a nation’s properties. Parties that participate in the occupation must carefully pursue their interests in order to preserve cultural items. Apart from the 1999 protocol, the United Nations also denounced actions that may lead to obliteration of church items.

“Paragraph two and three of the 1999 protocol imposed an obligation on third parties who are not parties to the conflict but are parties to the protocol” (Anne 356). A cultural property that has been received by a third party must be taken back when the attack comes to an end. However, if a conflict is ratified, but occupation continues the cultural property will remain protected by the third party until the end of the impasse. The Cyprus situation is a good example in this case. “Third parties also have an alternative, which is to return such property to the competent authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, in accordance with the spirit of the Convention” (Chamberlain 347).

Customary International Law

All nations are required to subscribe to the customary laws that are enforced universally, even if they did not ratify it. As mentioned earlier, the 1954 convention is equivalent to the universal customary laws. “The legal literature suggests that international rules on cultural property during peace have also achieved the status of customary international law” (Lepard 56).

The UNIDROIT Convention has two aspects. The first one is about stolen objects, while the second deals with illegal exports. “A cultural object is considered stolen when it has been unlawfully excavated or lawfully excavated but unlawfully retained” (Lepard 69). People owning smuggled cultural items are also expected to surrender them to the authorities. If such individuals return the monuments, they are guaranteed some level of compensation. “However, compensation is only given if the possessor furnishes proof that he or she exercised due diligence at the time of acquisition of the item” (Lepard 74).

Conclusion

After the 1974 Turkey invasion, Cyprus was split into northern and southern regions. The Turkey invasion has been seriously condemned because it led to massive destruction of valuable cultural items. For example, the Cyprus government estimated that over five hundred Orthodox chapels were either pillaged, or demolished. In addition to these, some churches were vandalized especially by the Turkish forces. “The Cyprus government and the Church of Cyprus contend that cultural property is of paramount importance to the collective history of the people of Cyprus as a nation, as well as to humankind” (Lepard 239).

The Cyprus government through antiquities law claims possession of monuments and it also protects them through the above mentioned legislations. The preservation of cultural property has now been enhanced by a series of legislations, and it is upon various countries to remain committed to honoring international laws. The customary law together with other legislations expects a country conducting an invasion to refrain from illicit export or tampering with cultural property located in the occupied region. “The Cyprus Government stresses that the optimum way to preserve and protect its cultural property, is to find a solution to the Cyprus issue by ending the military occupation of the northern part of Cyprus” (Chamberlain 192).

Works Cited

Anne, Grace. Treaty Series, 1999: Protocol to the 1979 Convention. London: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Chamberlain, Kevin. War and Cultural Heritage: An Analysis of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. London: Institute of Art & Law, 2005.

Chrysostomides, Kypros. The Republic of Cyprus:A Study in International Law. New York: Springer, 2000.

Department of Antiquities and Museums. Cultural Heritage of Northern Cyprus: Its Protection and Preservation. London: Dept. of Antiquities & Museums, 1990.

Jansen, Michael. War and Cultural Heritage: Cyprus After the 1974 Turkish Invasion. New York: Wiley, 2005.

Joseph, James. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics: From Independence to the Threshold of the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.

King, Thomas. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice. Berkley: AltaMira Press, 2008.

Lepard, Brian. Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications. London : Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Murphy, James. The Nature of Customary Law: Legal, Historical and Philosophical Perspectives. London: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Necatigil, Zaim. The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Rosenne, Shabtai. The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 and International Arbitration:Reports and Documents. New York: Asser Press, 2001.

Sanford, Robert. Cultural Resources Archaeology: An Introduction. New York: Wiley, 2010.

Smith, Rachael. Culture and European Union Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Thomas, Joel. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Westra, Laura. Environmental Justice and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: International and Domestic Legal Perspectives. Hoston: EarthScan, 2007.

Click Here To Order Now!