Статус Второго протокола к Гаагской Конвенции о защите культурных ценностей в случае Вооруженного Конфликта 1954 года (Гаага, 26 марта 1999 года) [рус., англ.]
Актуально на 09.11.2026.
Как цитировать: <Статус Второго протокола к Гаагской Конвенции о защите культурных ценностей в случае Вооруженного Конфликта 1954 года (Гаага, 26 марта 1999 года)> [рус., англ.]. https://bukva.ai/docs/status-vtorogo-protokola-k-gaagskoy-konventsii
СТАТУС ВТОРОГО ПРОТОКОЛА К ГААГСКОЙ КОНВЕНЦИИ О ЗАЩИТЕ КУЛЬТУРНЫХ ЦЕННОСТЕЙ В СЛУЧАЕ ВООРУЖЕННОГО КОНФЛИКТА 1954 ГОДА (ГААГА, 26 МАРТА 1999 ГОДА) <1>
(по состоянию на 19 мая 2025 года)
Протокол был подписан следующими государствами:
SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT
The Hague, 26 March 1999 <1>
Entry into force: 9 March 2004, in accordance with Article 43.1
<1> This Protocol entered into force on 9 March 2004. It subsequently will entered into force for each State three months after the date of deposit of that State's instrument, except in cases of notifications of succession, where the entry into force occurred on the date on which the State assumed responsibility for conducting its international relations.
Opened for Signature
From 17 May to 31 December 1999.
The Protocol has been signed by the following States:
Declarations and Reservations
Austria
The instrument contains the following «interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Austria:»
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
The instrument contained the following reservation:
«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
«DECLARATION BY THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM»
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 1(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)». [Original: French]
Canada
The statement of understanding reproduced below was annexed to the instrument of accession:
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.»
France
The instrument of accession contained the following declaration.
«The French Republic understands that the reference made in Article 13, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c) of the Protocol to „immediate self-defence“ in no way affects the right of self-defence as provided for in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and declares that it shall apply the stipulations of Article 13, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c) of the Protocol to the extent that the interpretation of those stipulations does not impede the employment, in accordance with international law, of the means it might consider essential 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 according to a waiver for an imperative military necessity by virtue of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
In reference to Article 16, paragraph 1, subparagraph (c) of the Protocol, the French Republic indicates that French jurisdictions may prosecute any national of a State Party to the present Protocol who is usually resident in France and is guilty of the offences referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 15. The prosecution of such offences may take place only at the request of the public prosecutor's office.» [Original: French]
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
«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»
Annexed to the instrument was the following explanatory declaration:
«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
The letter of transmission of this instrument contained the following request:
«The Government of Mali, referring to Article 44 of the Protocol, requests that its ratification be given immediate effect.» [Original: French]
Netherlands
«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 Marteen. Curaçao and Sint Marteen 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 Marteen.»
«The other islands that have until now formed part of the Netherlands Antilles — Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba — will become part 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. The agreements concerned are listed in the Annex.»
«A status report of the agreements that apply to Curaçao , Sint Marteen and/or the Caribbean part of the Netherlands, including any reservations and declarations, will be supplied in the near future.»
«The Permanent Delegation kindly requests the Director-General, in her capacity as depositary, to inform States Parties of the modification described above and all of the extensions listed in the Annex.» [Original: English]
New Zealand
«[...] 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;» [original: English].
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The instruments were accompanied by the following declarations.
«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.» [Original: English]
Ukraine
The letter of transmission of the instrument of accession contained the following request:
«The Law of Ukraine „On the Accession of Ukraine to the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict“ was adopted by the Verkhovna Ràda of Ukraine on 30 April 2020.»
According to this Law, Ukraine applies Article 44 «Entry into force in situations of armed conflict» of the Second Protocol.
Therefore, the Second Protocol will enter into force for Ukraine immediately after the instrument of accession is deposited to the Director-General of UNESCO.» [Original: English]