Federico Lenzerini

Terrorism, Conflicts and the Responsibility to Protect Cultural Heritage

Abstract Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a well-known phenomenon which has been particularly exacerbated in recent times. Its common denominator is represented by the intent to persecute the communities for which that heritage represents an essential element of their cultural identity and distinctiveness. In legal terms, it produces different implications, to the point that – depending on the circumstances in which it is perpetrated – it may be qualified as a war crime, crime against humanity, violation of internationally recognised human rights, or evidence of the existence of the intent to commit genocide. Since the whole international community is seriously affected by the destruction of cultural heritage, it is indispensable that the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) be put into practice seriously and effectively with the purpose of protecting humanity against the irreplaceable loss of its heritage.

Sixty-five Years and It Shows Them All: Proposals for Amending the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was one of the major accomplishments of the post-Second-World-War international legal community. It became the cornerstone of the international regulation of the right of asylum and represented the spark that ignited subsequent developments of international law in the field of asylum and refugees. Even more notable is the fact that the Convention has continued to have considerable impact despite the passing of time. However, 65 years after its adoption the Convention is showing signs of ageing, because several of its provisions are inconsistent with the present state of evolution of international human rights law. These provisions would therefore need to be updated, taking into consideration contemporary human rights standards, so as to make the Convention a living instrument capable of effectively addressing the needs of the people to whose protection it is devoted. The provisions which most require amendment are Article 1(A)(2), providing the definition of “refugee”, the exclusion clauses included in Article 1(F), and the exceptions to the prohibition of refoulement contemplated by Article 33(2).

The Safeguarding of Collective Cultural Rights through the Evolutionary Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties and Their Translation into Principles of Customary International Law

As is well known, international human rights treaties, both at the ‘universal’ and regional levels, are centred on an understanding of human rights as prerogatives generally recognized in favour of individuals. In this respect, the only exceptions to this approach are represented by the right of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in common Article 1 of the two 1966 Covenants on human rights,1 and by a few rights of a collective character included in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (achpr).2 Such an approach is the result of the Western point of view of human rights, the view which prevailed at the time when human rights standards began to be elaborated and transfused into international legal instruments. In reality, this is a minority point of view, which not only is at odds with the perception of human rights prevailing in the rest of the world, but today is no longer shared even by many Western human rights thinkers and institutions. In terms of positive law, however, the fact remains that international instruments do not devote the necessary attention to collective rights, which therefore enjoy a level of protection which is far below, if even comparable, to that enjoyed by individual rights, especially civil and political rights. Fortunately, in contemporary times the approach of the international community is progressively shifting toward a different attitude, characterized by a growing attentiveness toward collective rights, based on the awareness of their