printer friendly
PAGES:  News|Site news|#SaveRoerichMuseum

Lecture by Marga Koutsarova on 16 April, 2014 (The Peace Palace, The Hague)

The Roerich Pact:

Past, Present and Future

The Roerich Pact was initiated by the great Russian artist, thinker, scholar, explorer and public figure Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947).

Roerich was part and parcel of the Silver Age in Russian culture. He was one of the most influential artists of his time in Russia, and it is about Roerich and his art that the prominent writer Leonid Andreeff wrote: “… he reveals amidst the visible the invisible and he gives us not a mere continuation of the old, but an entirely new and most beautiful world! A whole new world! Yes, it exists, this beautiful world, this state of Roerich, …” The poet Alexander Blok, the writer Leo Tolstoy, the art historian and critic Vladimir Stasov – these are but a few of the names of Roerich’s contemporaries who valued highly Roerich’s art, not to mention the eminent art collectors and Maecenas, such as Pavel Tretyakov and princess Maria Tenisheva.

The “State or Realm of Roerich” created by his art is inseparably linked with the Roerich Pact. Nicholas Roerich devoted paintings to the idea of the Pact and the Banner of Peace. The Roerich Pact is intrinsically linked with the philosophy of Roerich, with his understanding of culture as the foundation of human evolution, and indeed with his knowledge and experience as scholar and explorer.

It was first in 1904 that Roerich proposed a Pact for the protection of historic monuments, artistic, educational and scientific institutions[1]. He made his proposal at the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society in St. Petersburg. Later on, with the outbreak of the hostilities of the First World War and the deplorable destruction of monuments of art and history in Europe, he presented in 1915 his idea for an international treaty for the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict to Tsar Nicholas II who received it with interest, but the War had already started and the proposal could not receive due consideration.

If we were to say just this for Roerich’s period of life in Russia until 1917, that would mean to say little. For Roerich’s proposal for a pact for the protection of cultural objects was the result of his work and accumulated experience in the field of preservation and protection of cultural heritage. Roerich was an outstanding and renowned expert in the field of cultural property preservation and he participated in the restoration of important historical monuments, such as the Saint Basil’s Cathedral in the Red Square in Moscow. He was one of the first in Russia to turn attention to the problems of restoration of monuments of art and history; he was one of the first to point to the necessity of preservation of historical areas and architectural areas, and indeed to the deplorable conditions of invaluable monuments in peacetime. Roerich realized that the silent destruction – because of human ignorance – of priceless monuments of art in peacetime was as dangerous as their ruthless destruction during bombardment. He was the driving force behind the establishment and work of associations for the protection of monuments; he struggled in raising funds for that end. He created the architectural series of paintings devoted to “Old Russia” (1903-1904), he published articles, essays and thus he contributed significantly to the raising of public awareness about the necessity to protect the treasures of culture. This experience, as well as his work for the Russian Red Cross (Roerich helped in raising of funds for the Red Cross) and his work in the field of education – Roerich was the director of the Art School with the Imperial Society for the Encouragement of Arts in St. Petersburg – all this helped him realize that laws, decrees or indeed international treaties and conventions on their own will not help protect cultural objects, they will remain a dead letter unless they start to live in our consciousness, i.e. unless the broad public and especially the young generations understand the necessity to preserve culture.

Later on we will find that this inseparable link between the legal protection of culture and education – runs through all the subsequent work of Roerich on the Pact.

Roerich was to acquire yet another valuable experience in Russia. After the revolutionary events there in February 1917 he participated in the work of the Art Commission which appealed both to the Interim government and the wide public to safeguard and protect the monuments of architecture and art. At that time though Roerich, because of serious lung problems – pneumonia, and on the pressing advice of doctors was living with his family in Finland and later on in 1918 it turned out that the Roerichs were cut off from their native land.

Then followed from 1923 to 1928 Roerich’s Central Asian expedition – the biggest scientific expedition in the XX century – which unfolded the vast panorama of the cultures of India, Tibet, China, Mongolia and Siberian Russia. The expedition contributed significantly to the study of the magnificent monuments of art, history and religion of these countries, of their material cultural heritage as well as immaterial cultural heritage – epos, legends, folklore, traditions.

Thus, the elaborated in 1929 draft of the Roerich Pact contained in itself implicitly all this vast experience of Roerich as artist, archaeologist, thinker, explorer, public figure, specialist in art preservation and art education. And last, but not least, we should also not forget that Roerich graduated the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg University where he studied international humanitarian law with Martens. Martens, as is well known, was an eminent lawyer who, as part of the Russian delegation at the Hague Conferences played an important role in drafting the 1907 Hague Conventions. The IV Hague Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the IX Hague Convention concerning Naval Bombardment in Time of War introduced the first provisions for the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict. These provisions are now considered part of customary international law.

The draft of the Roerich Pact was elaborated in 1929 by Nicholas Roerich in collaboration with George Chklaver, Doctor of Laws of the University of Paris.

The publication of the Roerich Pact in 1929 and 1930 in Europe, the United States and in Asia marked the beginning of a worldwide movement for the protection of cultural property and the adoption of the Pact.

There was established a Permanent Committee for the Advancement of the Adoption of the Roerich Pact and the Banner of Peace in New York in 1929.

In 1930 Committees for the Roerich Pact and the Banner of Peace were established in Paris and in Bruges in Belgium. In 1931 in Bruges there was also established an International Union for the Roerich Pact.

Apart from these important organizations which contributed significantly for the advancement of the Pact I should stress that there were established Roerich Pact Committees in Latin America, in Asia, and also in a number of other countries in Europe – including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria. Furthermore, since the early 1920s gradually there were established more than 80 associations named after Roerich worldwide – in Paris, Berlin, Finland, in the United Kingdom, in Latvia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, in Latin America, in India, China, Japan, the enumeration here is not exhaustive; there were Roerich Societies of course in New York, where there was established Museum named after Nicholas Roerich, as well as in Washington D.C. and in other cities of the United States. These associations appreciated Roerich’s art, his ideas in philosophy and science, and particularly his ideas for the leading role of culture in our life, and of culture as the only way to peace.

Thus, the Roerich Pact was the only international instrument in the field of cultural property protection whose proposal brought about the birth of a worldwide International Movement for its adoption and implementation. In fact, in international law there was only one other international instrument which gave birth to a strong worldwide International Movement – and that was the Geneva Convention of 1864 and the International Movement of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

This in itself is a unique fact, but why is it important from the point of view of international protection of cultural property, why am I paying attention to it?

The International Movement for the advancement of the Roerich Pact had a very important, and in many aspects decisive contribution for the adoption of the Pact. In order to elucidate this I shall bring to your attention some facts.

The terrible destructions especially in Rheims, Louvain and Arras as a result of the First World War brought about in that period a number of initiatives aimed at cultural property protection. They were as follows:

• In 1915 in Geneva there was a proposal made to set up an international body called ‘La Croix d’Or’ (the Gold Cross) – an idea clearly inspired by the Red Cross. The proposal brought about the convening of a Conference in Brussels in August 1915, attended by representatives of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, there was a draft convention prepared, but the Conference failed[2].
• the Dutch Archaeological Society proposed to the Queen of the Netherlands in April 1918 the convening of an international conference on the protection of historic and artistic monuments and objects against the dangers of war. This project also did not have success, although it certainly had an important influence on proposals put forward at the end of the First World War and in particular as regards collecting evidence concerning attacks against cultural property and punishing those responsible for the violation of the Hague Conventions[3].
• Following the recommendations of the Washington Conference in 1922 on the Limitation of Armaments there were elaborated the Hague Rules Concerning the Control of Radio in Time of War and Air Warfare (1922). These rules contained certain provisions relating to cultural property protection. They were never adopted in legally binding form, however they were of importance as an attempt to clarify rules of law governing the use of aircraft in war[4].
• Following the ravages of the Spanish Civil War, a Preliminary Draft International Convention for the Protection of Historic Buildings and Works of Art in Time of War was prepared by the International Museums Office and submitted to the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations in 1938[5].

However, all these initiatives failed, and the last one in particular because the Second World War broke out in 1939.

The Roerich Pact on the other hand succeeded. It received strong support, both from the broad public worldwide and from experts in international law. I shall briefly trace its development here.

In 1930 the International Museums Office under the Presidentship of M. Jules Destrée, Belgian Minister, unanimously approved the draft Roerich Pact[6]. The First Conference for the Roerich Pact was held in 1931 in Bruges. The Second Conference for the Roerich Pact was also conducted there in 1932. It is important to point out that both Conferences for the Roerich Pact in Bruges were held under the patronage of Marquis Adatci, President of the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague.

Apart from Adatci, from the point of view of international law the draft Roerich Pact received the approval of Rafael Altamira, Antonio de Bustamante, Bernard C. J. Loder, all of them Judges in the Permanent Court of International Justice. The prominent Russian Lawyer Michel de Taube and the president of the Institute for International Law professor Albert Gouffre de Lapradelle also lent their support.

It is well known that President F.D. Roosevelt, the President of Czechoslovakia Masaryk, the Pope, other heads of state and government approved of the Roerich Pact[7], the Pope, as well as outstanding figures in the world of culture and science like Romain Rolland, Bernard Show, Rabindranath Tagore, Albert Einstein. It should be stressed that a great number of universities and academies virtually from all continents, as well as museums, libraries, and art and science societies heartily approved of the project for a Roerich Pact and Banner of Peace. Some of them are enumerated below.

Academies, Institutes and Universities (non-exhaustive list): Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.; National University, Guatemala City; Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand; Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts, Barcelona; Royal University of Naples; Oriental Institute, University of Chicago; National Institute of Geneva; Royal University of Florence; Columbia University, New York; Catholic University in Milan; University of Amoy, China; University of Zurich; University of Melbourne; The Hebrew University in Jerusalem; Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Historic Sciences, Toledo, Spain; the Institute of Egypt in Cairo; the Academy of Romania, Bucharest; Magdalene College, Cambridge; Peking Union Medical College; Hokkaido Imperial University in Sapporo, Japan; Norwegian State Academy in Oslo; University of Louvain.

Libraries (non-exhaustive list): Public Library of the City of Boston; Wien University Library; Manchester Public Libraries, the United Kingdom; the University Library of Oslo; Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome.

Musems (non-exhaustive list): Museum of Art and History, Geneva; Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels; United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.; Museum Narodowe, Krakow, Poland; Museum of Heidelberg; Bergens Museum, Bergen; Princeton University Museum; the National Museum in Havana, Cuba; the Maximilian Museum of Augsburg; the Museum of History and Art of Belgrade; the State Art Gallery in Dresden; American Museum of Natural History; Museum of Sao Paulo, Brazil; the Australian Museum in Sydney.

The International Movement for the Roerich Pact and the Banner of Peace gained momentum and that could be clearly seen at the Third International Conference for the Roerich Pact held in Washington D.C. in the United States in 1933.

This Conference, just like the previous ones, was convened on private initiative or nowadays we would call it non-governmental initiative, but nonetheless 35 countries officially participated in it and that was quite an impressive figure for the period prior to the Second World War. Of these 35 countries 27 were represented by their Official delegates: Argentina, Brazil, Chili, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, the Irish Free State, Japan, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the United States of America, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, and 8 countries participated as official observers: Albania, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The other significant fact about the Third Washington Conference for the Roerich Pact in 1933 was that it adopted the draft Pact and all its resolutions unanimously. On the decisions of the Third Conference Nicholas Roerich noted: “The unanimous resolutions of the delegates evoked several enthusiastic remarks, for people nowadays have already become estranged from the possibility of unanimous decisions”[8]. As we all know – in international law, including in the field of cultural property protection – this is a very rare event indeed. The fact of the unanimous decisions at the Third Conference for the Roerich Pact is all the more remarkable if we take into consideration the truly high level of protection of cultural property envisaged in the Pact. It provides for the unconditional protection of cultural objects. Commenting on the Roerich Pact professor Jiri Toman writes: “It is important to stress that no other condition is mentioned in this treaty, not even the condition of military necessity”[9].

The Washington Conference for the Roerich Pact was followed in 1933 by the Seventh Pan American Conference in Montevideo at which, upon proposal of Chile, a unanimous resolution was passed recommending the adoption of the Roerich Pact by the Americas.

On April 15, 1935, at the White House in Washington D.C., in the presence of President Roosevelt, the Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments – the Roerich Pact, was signed by Twenty-one American Nations.

At the signing of the Roerich Pact President Roosevelt said: “In opening this Pact to the adherence of the nations of the world, we are endeavoring to make of universal application one of the principles vital to the preservation of modern civilization.”[10] Consequently, after the signing of the Pact, the Permanent Committee for the Advancement of the Roerich Pact in New York stated: “The Treaty now becomes open to signature by all nations of the world”[11].

I would like to stress therefore that the Roerich Pact was conceived and elaborated as universal international treaty and it was adopted with such intent.

This was one of the main reasons why the International Movement for the Roerich Pact and the Banner of Peace was a worldwide phenomenon. It is worth also to recall the unanimous resolution of the Third Conference for the Roerich Pact in 1933, which recommended the adoption of this humane act–the Roerich Pact–“by the governments of all nations as a demonstration of the noble attitude of their peoples to the protection of culture” [12]

The intended universal character of the Roerich Pact is evident also from the text of the treaty itself:

§ In the Preamble of the Roerich Pact the object of this international treaty is stated, which is namely: the universal adoption of a flag (the Banner of Peace), already designed and generally known.

§ in Article VI it is said: ‘States, which do not sign the present Treaty on the date it is opened for signature may sign or adhere to it at any time’.

The intended universal character of the Roerich Pact is important: The adoption of this Treaty in 1935 gave to all peoples, to all mankind the unique possibility to save in the forthcoming Great War many invaluable treasures of world culture.

Sometimes the paintings of great Masters give us knowledge and understanding of history that no textbook could ever do. I would like to turn your attention to some paintings of Roerich. It might seem at first that they have little to do with the Roerich Pact. Roerich created a series of paintings on the eve of the First World War which were later called prophetic. Here are some of them: The Last Angel, 1912; The Sword of Courage, 1912; The Crowns, 1914. This series of paintings excited, but could not be understood. If we look for example at the ‘Crowns”: we see three kings who fight with each other and do not seem to notice that their crowns have turned into clouds and are flying away… Several years later the meaning of this picture became clear, as three monarchies and royal dynasties in Europe were gone: the Romanoffs in Russia, the Hohenzollern in Germany and the Habsburg of Austria-Hungary. Because of these paintings Nicholas Roerich was called by the writer Maxim Gorky ‘the great intuitivist’. On the eve of the Second World War Roerich created another series of such prophetic paintings. Here is one of them: Armageddon, 1936.

Roerich realized that a Great War was coming and did everything possible to save the treasures of culture. And there was an important lesson he learned in Russia in 1914: with the outbreak of a war it is too late to start the work on a treaty for the protection of cultural objects. Therefore in the period before the Second World War he hurried with the Roerich Pact.

Roerich succeeded, the International Movement succeeded: the Roerich Pact was adopted. We certainly have to pay a great tribute to the understanding and the leadership of all the American countries and in particular to the leadership of President Roosevelt, for the Roerich Pact was a great achievement for humanity.

We know the choice that the European countries made: some of them neglected, while others rejected the Roerich Pact. And the fact is that precisely these countries suffered the greatest loss of cultural objects: the destructions in the Second World War surpassed everything we knew in the First World War; they were devastating, indeed horrific.

Consequently, the Roerich Pact was not legally binding in Europe during the Second World War, and that included the United States vis-à-vis its European adversaries. It is logical therefore and it follows from the Orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces, General Eisenhower that in relation to cultural property the American troops applied the 1907 Hague Conventions and the envisaged in them waiver based on military necessity exception[13]. However, if the Roerich Pact were to be applied, for example the bombardment by the Allied Forces of Dresden in February 1945 would be inadmissible; it would run contrary to the Roerich Pact.

One cannot but agree with P. Boylan when he writes in his 1993 Report for UNESCO: “… I still find it impossible to fully express in words the impact of my first visit to the great Saxon capital of Dresden, virtually untouched until the – frankly incomprehensible – thirty-six hours of almost continuous bombing raids in February 1945, barely a week before the arrival of the Red Army in the city, and less than three months before the end of War in Europe”[14]. The point I want to make here is the following: history shows that the concept of military necessity has not limited warfare in any significant way. It did not help save civilian population and cultural treasures.

The Roerich Pact therefore offered unique possibility on the eve of the Second World War and that possibility was missed.

After the Second World War, no one proposed the Roerich Pact for the adherence of the nations of the world, like Roosevelt did in 1935, and thus it remained in geographical terms a regional treaty confined to the Western Hemisphere.

There was notable exception though – the government of India headed by Jawaharlal Nehru adopted the Roerich Pact in August 1948.

After the Second World War the Roerich Pact contributed significantly for the adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. While in the 1930s the necessity for a treaty for the protection of cultural property was disputed, after the adoption of the Roerich Pact on the one hand and the terrible destructions of the Second World War on the other, no one seemed to doubt any more the need for a special treaty. In 1950 the Roerich Pact and the Banner of Peace Committee handed all the documentation relating to the Roerich Pact to the Director-General of UNESCO Jaime Torres Bodet. And on May 14, 1954 as is well known The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was signed. At present there are 126 state parties to the Convention and it is the most important universal treaty in the field of cultural property protection in the event of armed conflict.

It is said in the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention that it is “guided by the principles concerning the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, as established in the Conventions of The Hague of 1899 and of 1907 and in the Washington Pact of 15 April, 1935”, in other words the 1954 Hague Convention clearly points out that it inherits and indeed is guided by the principles of the Roerich Pact.

Another also very important point. The Roerich Pact established for the first time in international law the principle that cultural heritage is to be protected in peacetime. In 1972 in Paris there was adopted the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Although the Convention does not refer to the Roerich Pact there is no doubt that it consolidates and develops the established by the Roerich Pact principle of protection of cultural property in time of peace.

It is for these reasons that the Director-General of UNESCO Irina Bokova wrote in 2012:

“The Pact embodies the painstaking efforts of people and organizations across the world to protect cultural heritage. The tenets of the Pact have long provided inspiration to UNESCO’ commitment and action to safeguard all forms of heritage and the world’s cultural diversity.

The Roerich Pact has paved the way also for several of UNESCO’s landmark international legal instruments devoted to the protection of cultural property both in peacetime and during war – including the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols”[15].

I would like to add that the Roerich Pact has also served in the past decades as an argument for the necessity to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and for observing the rules applicable to cultural property protection during times of war.

One such case is the looting of the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad in 2003 during a period when the US from a legal point of view was an occupying power[16] in that country. The case of the looting is well known and I shall not dwell on it here. It is also well known that while the US ratified the Roerich Pact in 1935 it did not ratify the 1954 Hague Convention until 13 March, 2009. That is, in 2003 during the period when it was occupying power in Iraq the US still was not party to the Convention, only signatory to it, but a party to the Roerich Pact.

In examining the looting of the National Museum of Iraq in 2003 the American lawyer Courtney Campbell argues quite rightly that the US was obliged, both by treaty and custom, as an occupying power to reasonably protect the National Museum of Iraq and substantiated her argument by way of referring also to the Roerich Pact. Campbell wrote in 2009: “The Roerich Pact read together with the [1954] Hague Convention seem to present a united front of States, encompassing the entire globe. The States share a common burden of protecting their own and other States’ cultural property …”[17]. She continues: “If the United States’ concern for cultural property is exclusively reserved for that of the Americas, its concern runs counter to the purpose of the Roerich Pact”[18]. This is quite true as we saw, and the purpose of the Roerich Pact for a universal protection of the cultural property follows first and foremost from the text of the Pact itself, but also from Roosevelt’s speech at its signing.

Campbell further argues that the joint reading of the Roerich Pact with the 1954 Hague Convention demonstrates an international custom of protecting the possessor state’s cultural property like museums[19]. And she rightfully concludes that the United States’ ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention will be consistent with the ideals already espoused by the Roerich Pact[20].

*

* *

Now, what is the importance of the Roerich Pact for the present and the future? In order to understand this let us turn to the Pact as international treaty.

It is often said that the Roerich Pact is the first treaty devoted solely to cultural property protection. This is true of course, but if we were to say only this we would say very little.

The Roerich Pact is the first international treaty which provides comprehensive solution to the problems of cultural property protection. The Pact introduced for the first time and established in international law the following principles and rules:

– cultural property, irrespective of its ownership and State allegiance, belongs to all mankind as its cultural heritage;

– cultural property enjoys unconditional protection and respect in time of armed conflict;

– cultural property loses the protection it is entitled to only in cases when it is used for military purposes;

– cultural property must be protected in time of peace;

– cultural property has to be registered and included in list with a view of its protection both in time of peace and in wartime;

– a generally known and obligatory sign for the protection of cultural property in time of peace and in time of armed conflict is to be established (the Banner of Peace);

– application of the national regime of protection to the foreign cultural property;

– the personnel of museums, historic monuments, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions is protected just as the institutions themselves are protected.

It follows clearly from the stated above that in the Roerich Pact we have comprehensive, all-embracing approach or system of protection.

1. The Roerich Pact provides for the protection of cultural property “in any time of danger” (the Preamble of the Roerich Pact), in wartime and in time of peace (Article 1, Paragraph 3). That is, it protects equally during international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict, and furthermore it protects in periods which cannot be considered as armed conflicts – revolutions, disturbances and internal tensions. All this is of utmost importance. At the Third Washington Conference on the Roerich Pact official representatives of states as well as lawyers pointed out to this purpose of the Roerich Pact[21].

1.2. In the period of armed conflicts, the Roerich Pact protects during and after hostilities, including periods of occupation, and also periods which are not occupation–for example dislocation of troops on the territory of an allied power in peacetime or in time of war.

1.3. During times of armed conflicts the Roerich Pact protects in relation to all kind of warfare: air bombardment, naval bombardment, war on land, etc.

2. As of today in the Roerich Pact we have the widest or most comprehensive range of cultural objects entitled to protection: historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions as well as their personnel.

It should be stressed that the Roerich Pact is the only treaty at present which protects the personnel of these institutions.

3. All the above objects are entitled to unconditional protection which they lose only in the case they are made use of for military purposes.

4. The Roerich Pact protects also in time of peace proper. This provision read together with the requirement of the Pact for the States Parties to adopt the measures of internal legislation necessary to insure the protection provided for by the Pact signifies that in the internal policy of these states in peacetime particular attention and priority has to be given to culture, which includes in itself also art, spirituality, education and science.

5. The protected objects are entitled to protection at all times under the Banner of Peace and are to be included in a single list for protection in time of peace and war.

Taking into consideration all this, we must say that the Roerich Pact displays not only comprehensive approach, but also a very high level of protection of the widest range of protected objects.

It is for these reasons that Jiri Toman, in his Commentary on the 1954 Hague Convention published by UNESCO in 1996 writes: “The 1954 Convention seeks only to supplement the Roerich Pact. It does not then replace the Pact, even in the relations between High Contracting Parties to the 1954 Convention, particularly as the Roerich Pact also covers other questions and other situations”[22].

The stated above gives understanding of the other questions and other situations which are not envisaged in the 1954 Hague Convention, but are covered by the Roerich Pact.

It is in this comprehensiveness of the Roerich Pact system that we find its great significance for the future reaffirmation and development of international law in this field. There are a number of aspects in which the Pact can contribute; here just some of them will be pointed out.

—the comprehensive range of protected objects envisaged in the Roerich Pact is worth our attention for the future. For example, the 1954 Hague Convention does not include in its scope scientific and educational institutions. These institutions are protected–subject to the waiver of military necessity–by customary international law, by the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions. They are also protected as civilian objects under the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions.

The Roerich Pact however gives them much higher protection than the mentioned above instruments: there is no military necessity exception; furthermore, according to the Pact the only reason to consider the scientific and educational institutions military objectives is their use for military purpose. Nothing else – neither the location, nor the purpose or the nature of these structures may serve as a reason to consider them military objectives liable to hostile attack.

Special attention deserves also the protection accorded by the Roerich Pact to the personnel of scientific, artistic and educational institutions.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency during armed conflicts in Asia and Africa in the last decades to target intentionally schools and teachers. UNESCO studies show that in many wars education is not just collaterally damaged but has become a target for attack itself with classrooms deliberately shelled and teachers tracked down and assassinated[23].

Therefore these provisions of the Roerich Pact are of importance.

—the military necessity exception: one of the most controversial issues both at the 1954 and the 1999 Hague Conferences, which adopted the Hague Convention and the Second protocol to it respectively.

In the Roerich Pact there is no military necessity exception.

It is known that most countries at the 1954 Hague Conference preferred not to have such an exception either, i.e. to opt for the Roerich Pact solution as it gives effectiveness to cultural property protection. During the Diplomatic Conference which adopted the 1954 Hague Convention it was the US and the United Kingdom in particular that insisted on the “military necessity” reservation.[24] Since these countries made it clear that this reservation is a conditio sine qua non for their acceptance of the Convention, it was adopted, even in the cases of special protection under the 1954 Hague Convention. The United States ratified the 1954 Hague Convention in 2009. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified it. In his published by UNESCO in 1996 comment on the Convention, and in particular on the clause of military necessity exception in cases of special protection, Jiri Toman notes: “This clause should help the authorities of the countries which have not yet acceded to the Convention by showing them just how few commitments are entailed in this accession. How can these authorities justify – given the minimum commitment involved – the fact that they still remain outside the system of relatively weak protection provided by the Convention? These remarks are directed in particular to the countries which, through their action at the Conference, substantially curtailed its scope and, after obtaining and minimizing the system of protection, have still not acceded to the Convention”.[25]

I would like to pay attention here to the following. At the 1954 Hague Conference those who were against the military necessity clause were considered ‘idealists’; and those who insisted on it – ‘realists’. Life has proved however that cultural property protection without the military necessity exception is not utopia, but quite realistic.

• We have the Roerich Pact which provides (Article 5) that monuments and cultural institutions are to be protected, and the protection is to be withdrawn only in case they are made use of for military purposes. Nothing else. No military necessity exception. This has been adopted in 1935, so it is quite realistic.
• We have the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, and in particular Article 53 of the I Protocol of 1977 and Article 16 of II Protocol 1977 which provides for protection of cultural objects and places of worship. In ratifying the Protocols, the Netherlands gave Article 53 the following interpretation: ‘It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that if and for so long as the object and places protected by this article, in violation of paragraph (b), are used in support of the military effort they will thereby lose protection’[26]. Similar was the statement by Italy. The United Kingdom when it signed the protocols stated: ‘In relation to Article 53, that if the objects protected by the article are unlawfully used for military purposes they will thereby lose protection from attacks directed against unlawful military uses’[27]. There was similar statement by the US.
• The enhanced protection of the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention comes essentially to the same rule: enhanced protection is lost when the property has by its use become military objective.

Thus, we can see that the rule introduced for the first time by the Roerich Pact has now been accepted, i.e. this rule is quite realistic.

The difference between these legal instruments is that the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions and the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention provide for such protection only in relation to cultural property of the greatest importance for humanity, whereas the Roerich Pact accords this high level of protection to all objects protected by it, i.e. to a considerably wider scope of protected institutions and monuments.

The sooner we give this protection to all cultural, artistic, educational and scientific objects and not just to some category of it, the better.

Nicholas Roerich was rightfully compared at the Third Conference for the Roerich Pact to Henry Dunant. Both Dunant and Roerich initiated international movements, both of them initiated international treaties–the Geneva Convention and the Roerich Pact respectively, and both were visionaries. Roerich had vision of the way forward to protect culture and cultural treasures which life has proved to be viable and right.

*

* *

The Roerich Pact was the first to provide for cultural property protection in peacetime and this is related to one of the most important purpose of the Roerich Pact, if not the most important – the educational.

International legal protection of cultural objects is accorded to them because they constitute the heritage of the whole of humanity. Precisely because of that, the very existence of international legal protection of cultural treasures is capable to cultivate in young people the sense of respect for one’s own national culture as well as of the culture of other peoples.

Nicholas Roerich insisted that the key to effectiveness of international treaties is the cultivation in the broad public and in young generations respect and indeed appreciation and love for cultural treasures. We can find at present this idea of Roerich running through numerous acts of UNESCO – recommendations and declarations[28]. We find such a provision also in the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, which states in its Art. 30 (para. 1) that: ‘The Parties shall endeavour by appropriate means, and in particular by educational and information programmes, to strengthen appreciation and respect for cultural property by their entire population’.

Now this most important objective of the Roerich Pact – the educational one – was entrusted to the Banner of Peace.

It is for this reason that in accordance with the concept of Nicholas Roerich and the provisions of the Roerich Pact the Banner of Peace had to become our constant companion in life. The Pact envisages the use of its distinctive emblem both in time of peace and in wartime over historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions.

Nicholas Roerich wrote that if young people learn from their first days in school about the significance of the Banner of Peace – this Red Cross of Culture – then there would be a very substantial movement forward in our thinking.

This is very important because the Banner of Peace signifies the accorded to cultural property respect and protection, and therefore it can truly bring peace in our minds and hearts; in other words it can cultivate and bring about lasting peace.

For Peace is based on culture. Nicholas Roerich insisted that nothing else can bring about true and lasting peace, it is only culture that can do it.

The International Movement for the Roerich Pact in the 1930s shared this most important idea of Roerich and we also share it today.

We can understand better the idea of Nicholas Roerich of ‘Peace through Culture’ if we look at our history. All legal and art historians recognize that the Roman empire established the practice of plunder of art from Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor as a symbol of its victories over them, as a symbol of the strength of the Roman Empire. This was followed by the Goths, and by the Crusades who justified their plunder by ‘their belief in a higher right to own all valuable cultural property they could seize, along with a duty to eliminate, and a right to desecrate, all others’[29]. We could continue with a long list of such examples, but the most dramatic one in our recent history is the plunder of cultural property and its destruction organized by Hitler’s army which exceeded the plunder of all the wars of European history. The destruction of cultural treasures or their plunder was done for ideological reasons and as some lawyers point out ‘The Axis powers … struck against the soul of the cultures they sought to annihilate or enslave …’[30]. It is worth noting that the International Committee of the Red Cross commenting on modern conflicts points out that to cure physically a person is only half the work needed[31]; the other half consists in protecting treasures of culture, because the destruction of the cultural objects people value and cherish wounds deeply their inner world, their soul. Too often in modern conflicts cultural objects are not collateral damage, they are deliberately attacked and destroyed.

It is for this reason that Nicholas Roerich pointed out that the Red Cross aims at the protection of the physical health of people, whereas the Banner of Peace is entrusted to care for and protect their spiritual health, the soul of people.

The spiritual health of people brings peace in one’s hearts and minds and thus it is the only way to lasting Peace on Earth. The Banner of Peace–as the symbol of this idea, and of culture as the most important achievement of humanity–at present has been raised in many parts of the world.

In 2012 there was adopted a law in Argentina – a country signatory to the Roerich Pact – which provides for the Banner of Peace to be raised above all educational institutions every year on the 21 of September (the day declared by the United Nations as the Day of Peace). The Banner of Peace is to be raised in order to foster in young people the culture of peace.

Banners of Peace have been exchanged between the Russian and American space crews in 1998.

The late President of the International Centre of the Roerichs, the eminent Russian diplomat Yuli Vorontsov handed to the speaker of the Indian parliament the Banner of Peace in 2004.

The Banner of Peace in the past two decades has been raised in many parts of the world, particularly in Russia, Eastern Europe and in Asia. Here you can see the raised Banner of Peace above the sacred mountain of Mongolia - Bogdo Ula.

And this is the Banner of Peace raised in front of the Museum of Nicholas Roerich of the International Centre of the Roerichs in Moscow, which has been entrusted by the Roerich family to continue their work for culture and peace.

Peace through Culture is one of the most important ideas of the Roerich Pact and it is because of this idea that the Roerich Pact provides for the protection of culture in peacetime and it requires culture to be accorded priority both in government and legislative policies, and in the life of society.

Marga Koutsarova