The organization of the protection of cultural heritage in the event of an armed conflict as a factor in ensuring the norms of inter-strike humanitarian law by the Russian Federation

Grinchenko Anastasiia Nikolaevna ORCID: 0009-0003-8496-173X Senior Lecturer; Department of Economics, Finance and Financial Law; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'Pskov State University' Postgraduate student; Department of International Law; Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation 34 Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya str., Moscow, 117218, Russia Nastya04050@yandex.ru

Introduction

In the context of modern armed conflicts and growing contradictions between States, the protection of cultural property is becoming an integral part of ensuring the norms of international humanitarian law. This problem is becoming particularly relevant in the context of relations between the Russian Federation and the Baltic States, where political tensions threaten not only security, but also the preservation of historical and cultural heritage.

The confrontation between Russia and the Baltic states, according to L. M. Vorobyova ^[6], is periodic in nature and is associated with the latter's exposure to political, economic and ideological influence from the outside. Historically, the baggage of mutual claims and resentments prevents, from the position of T. Ignatochkina and O. Mandzhikov ^[16], "finding mutual understanding in the national, cultural, political, and economic spheres." Director of the Russian-Baltic Center of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences R. H. Simonyan ^[34] notes in the book "Russia and the Baltic Countries" that Russians and Balts have different types of attitudes — "attitude to confrontation" and "attitude to compromise".

O. V. Damaskin ^[10] quite rightly notes that "the sovereignty being lost by a number of countries due to joining military blocs and economic unions exacerbates geopolitical conflicts, creates new threats to international and national security, and necessitates understanding the needs and possibilities of countering them."

Today, Russia and the Baltic states are part of opposing economic unions and military blocs, and their foreign policies also have different polar orientations. In recent history, political contradictions have been caused by the return of Crimea to Russia and assistance to the population in Southeastern Ukraine. The Baltic states, as members of the EU, are jointly pursuing a policy of forcing Russia to return its newly acquired territories, while the actions and statements carried out have a pronounced militaristic tinge.

An example of specific actions designed to influence the expression of the will of the Russian Federation is the deliberate destruction of cultural property located on the territory of the Baltic States. ^{[7, 18, 26, 27, 32]}, economic and political blockades ^{[13, 17, 23, 33]}.

The statements of the top officials and representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Baltic States, as well as the legal consolidation of their intentions, illustrate the unwavering position towards Russia. Thus, the head of the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gabrielius Landsbergis, said: "Yes, we believe that war is possible." This thesis is confirmed by the Memorandum on the creation of a defense line on the eastern border of NATO, signed by the defense ministers of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as regular military exercises involving alliance soldiers and military equipment.

In addition, the ongoing information war ^{[22, 28]}, aimed at demonizing and discrediting the Russian Federation in the international arena ^[30], only strengthens such sentiments.

Unlike the Baltic states, in particular Latvia, which in peacetime, trying to influence Russian policy, destroys cultural values that are the object of international legal protection, Russia strives to "comply with its obligations" and considers the protection of cultural values as "the basis of economic prosperity, state sovereignty and civilizational identity of the country."".

In this regard, there is a need to protect cultural values, as well as strengthen the Russian Federation in the international arena through compliance with international humanitarian law. The issue of regulation and implementation of international legal protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict by the Russian Federation is of the greatest interest in the context of this study.

Materials and methods

The object of the study is the system of organizing the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict. The subject of the study is the regulation and implementation of international legal protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict by the Russian Federation. The purpose of the article is to develop proposals for improving the international legal mechanism for the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, enshrined in the law of the Russian Federation.

The methodological basis of the research presented in the article is a systematic approach and a doctrinal method. The following methods were used in the research: analysis, synthesis, generalization, deduction, formal legal analysis, and others.

The main part

The issue of the protection of cultural property, as an element of international humanitarian law, attracts the attention of both domestic and foreign researchers. Among the most famous works are the studies of N. K. Roerich ^[31], M. M. Boguslavsky ^[3], I. V. Kholikov ^[41-43], O. V. Damaskin ^[10-12], A. A. Akhmetzyanov ^[1], as well as foreign authors such as M. Naagel ^[29], M. T. Dutli ^[40], J. Toman ^[35], J-M. Henckaerts ^[39], H. M. Hensel ^[38], C. S. Forrest ^[36], M. Frigo ^[37], E. Castren ^[19], T. Desch ^[14], Y. Dinstein ^[15], P. J. Boylan ^{[4, 5]}, M. Bogdanos ^[2] and others.

Despite the significant contribution of the above-mentioned authors to the study of the protection of cultural property in the context of international humanitarian law, in this work the author has attempted a comprehensive analysis of the organization of the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as one of the international legal mechanisms for the protection of cultural property in general ^{[8, 9]}.

A. Y. Yastrebova and I. O. Anisimov ^{[44, p. 54]} quite rightly point out the relationship between the role of cultural values in the development of mankind and the establishment by international humanitarian law of the foundations of their international legal protection. Initially, certain aspects of the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict were enshrined in the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare (1899 and 1907). It was only almost half a century later that the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was adopted. (1954 Convention). In order to effectively protect cultural property, the 1954 Convention provides for the implementation of international humanitarian law into domestic law.

In the study of A. V. Kudashkin ^[24], the system of sources of the law of armed conflicts is represented by three levels: 1) The Constitution of the Russian Federation; 2) international treaties (of a universal and regional nature); 3) a hierarchical system of normative legal acts of the Russian Federation, covering the federal, executive and departmental levels.

A special place in the system of sources of the law of armed conflict is occupied by the "Manual on International Humanitarian Law for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter referred to as the IHL Manual), approved by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation on August 8, 2001. The IHL Manual is intended for the study and observance by military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of the norms of international humanitarian law in the preparation and conduct of hostilities.

The legal basis for the Instruction of the IHL was the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 53-FZ dated 28.03.1998 "On Military Duty and Military Service", the Charter of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 10.11.2007 No. 1495 "On Approval of General Military Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation") and international treaties, related to international humanitarian law, to which the Russian Federation is a party. Thus, from the standpoint of international law, the IHL Instruction is an implementing norm, the implementation of which is mandatory for commanders and military personnel of the Russian Federation.

In relation to this study, the provisions on the organization of the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict are of the greatest interest.

In accordance with the IHL Guidelines, cultural values include:

− movable and immovable property: monuments of architecture or history, works of art; archaeological sites; ensembles of buildings that, in general, are of historical or artistic interest;

− buildings designed to preserve movable cultural property (museums, libraries and archives);

− centers that contain a significant number of objects of cultural value .

The reservation in the text of the IHL Manual states that the concepts (terms) used are given in accordance with international legal acts to the extent necessary to work with it. Thus, both the reservation and the content of the IHL Instruction itself attest to the implementation of the 1954 Convention.

According to the author, the statement of I. V. Kholikov and A. A. Shishko ^[41] is true: "today there is a problem not in the abundance or absence of norms, but in non-compliance with existing ones." The existence of treaties, according to K. F. Bakong (Unesco Courier Magazine 2017), also does not prevent the parties to the conflict from making efforts to deliberately destroy valuables.

The idea of educating commanders, tactical level headquarters, as well as all military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, formulated as the purpose of the IHL Manual, acts as both a national and an international mechanism. Such consolidation testifies to Russia's conscientious fulfillment of its obligations under article 7 of the 1954 Convention, namely, the state's obligation to form a regulatory framework for the training and education of its armed forces in the protection of cultural property, as well as to create a special service that, if necessary, will monitor their implementation and cooperate with civilian structures that carry out such activities. protection.

Thus, article 179 of the IHL Manual establishes that, in order to ensure the study of international humanitarian law, legal minimums are established for all categories of military personnel, which, along with the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation, contain international normative legal acts that form the basis of international humanitarian law.

In addition to these indisputably necessary norms, the IHL Manual contains norms that, in the author's opinion, require additional clarification and specification. Thus, in article 176 of the IHL Manual, it is established that "the most characteristic educational issues in classes and exercises may be: identification of persons and objects (zones) protected by international humanitarian law, treatment of the wounded and sick, shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war, civilians, medical and spiritual personnel of the enemy".

At the same time, this formulation is rather vague, which may lead to incomplete study of educational issues or not to study any specific issues of international humanitarian law at all. To solve this problem, it is necessary to change the wording "the most characteristic educational issues in classes and exercises may be" to the wording "mandatory educational issues in classes and exercises should be" with a specific list of issues, among which will be indicated: "identification of cultural property and personnel responsible for the protection and protection of cultural property, as well as the procedure for handling them." The author does not provide other possible formulations of mandatory educational questions in classes and exercises, guided by the need to limit the scope of the study, but does not deny the possibility of supplementing them.

Such a detailed approach will avoid the risk of unit commanders and individual military personnel not being trained in practical techniques for implementing the norms of international humanitarian law related to the international legal protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict.

In addition, articles 179 and 180 of the IHL Guidelines establish the concept of a "legal minimum", its elements, conditions and procedure for passing "legal minimum assessments". Guided by the preamble to the 1954 Convention and other norms of international law, as well as the legislation of the Russian Federation, the author proposes the establishment of a norm governing mandatory periodic testing of knowledge of the fundamentals of international humanitarian law in general and a mandatory set of issues on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. It is also necessary to add a block of issues on responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law (including the destruction, misappropriation and vandalism of cultural property).

Article 28 of the 1954 Convention provides for the implementation of norms in national criminal legislation to bring to justice intentional crimes against cultural property. Article 4 of the 1954 Convention states that States are obliged to establish responsibility through national legislation for the following acts: theft, robbery or misappropriation of cultural property in any form; acts of vandalism; requisition (seizure) of movable cultural property located on the territory of the State. Thus, these obligations are fragmentally reflected in the criminal legislation of Russia in the framework of articles: 164, 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the work of V. V. Lisauskaite and M. A. Suturin ^[25], the issue of implementation in relation to Articles 164, 190 and 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is questioned.

They agree with L. R. Klebanov, A. G. Kibalnik, I. G. Solomonenko ^{[20, 21]}, that the consolidation of responsibility for crimes against cultural property in an armed conflict is reflected in the disposition of Part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: "Ill-treatment of prisoners of war or civilians, deportation of civilians, looting of national property in the occupied territory, the use of armed conflict of means and methods prohibited by an international treaty of the Russian Federation." It is proposed to consider the wording "looting of national property in the occupied territory" as actions committed against cultural property.

In accordance with the Convention on the Non-Applicability of the Statute of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 1968, no statute of limitations applies to war crimes, they have the highest degree of public danger, which should affect the establishment of punishment.

It is assumed that the existence of questions about responsibility will also motivate to study and strictly observe the norms of international humanitarian law, including the protection of cultural property.

Testing, unlike the legal minimum test, can be carried out through information technology and much more often than "once every two years." For example, more frequent, two or four times a year, mandatory testing and automatic analysis of responses will raise the awareness of officers, warrant officers (midshipmen) about the norms of international humanitarian law, which in turn can contribute to the best performance of combat missions in compliance with international humanitarian law. Such a rule can either modify or supplement the provisions of the IHL Manual.

Conclusion

The growing confrontation between the Russian Federation and the Baltic States, including economic sanctions, information campaigns and military exercises, highlights the problem of protecting cultural property in the event of an armed conflict. Despite Russia's statements about its commitment to the norms of international humanitarian law and the protection of cultural values as the basis of national identity, specific mechanisms to prevent their destruction or damage in the event of an escalation of conflict require further study and development.

Today, the focus should shift from increasing the number of legal norms for the protection of cultural property to their quality, eliminating conflicts and gaps, harmonizing international and domestic norms, as well as strict compliance.

In this regard, the author suggests ways to improve the IHL Guidance on informing and testing military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the protection of cultural property and responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law (including destruction, misappropriation and vandalism of cultural property).

The constant increase in the level of knowledge of commanders, tactical staff and all military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation about the mechanisms for the protection of cultural property within the framework of international humanitarian law contributes not only to improving the mechanisms for the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, but also to strengthening the international image of Russia as a state that faithfully fulfills its obligations. This will increase the effectiveness of measures to prevent damage or destruction of cultural property and strengthen Russia's credibility in the international arena.