메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
중앙대학교 법학연구원 法學論文集 法學論文集 제33권 제2호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
211 - 244 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
We have witnessed the destruction and pillage of cultural property in the event of armed conflict through the history. In the Second World War, the Nazi had wantonly destroyed many great cultural properties of mankind. In view of this bad practice, the international community tried to make international norms to protect cultural properties in the event of armed conflict. The 1954 Hague Convention is the first universal international treaty which intends to safeguard cultural properties in the event of armed conflicts. The 1954 Hague Convention system is composed of the 1954 Hague Convention, Regulations implementing the Convention, 1954 Protocol and 1999 Protocol. This Convention system introduced the safeguard and respect obligation of cultural property which secures immunity from armed attack in certain cases. The Hague Convention also introduced the special protection system to ensure safer protection of cultural property of very great importance. The 1999 Protocol introduced the enhanced protection system which provides stronger protection to certain cultural property than that of the special protection system. Korea has acceded to neither the Convention nor the Protocols. In view of imperative to protect cultural properties both in the peace time and in the event of armed conflict, it is recommended to accede to the Convention and Protocols. However, before we decide to accede to them, we have to consider whether the accession to them makes any conflict of obligations incumbent on us. Up to now, the Korean operation control in time of armed conflict is reserved with the US army. And also the USA acceded to the 1954 Hague Convention only. Given the situation if Korea accede to them but the USA not, we may imagine the Korean army may encounter military order which is not consistent with, for example, some provisions in 1999 Protocol, then the Korean army faces conflict of obligations between the international obligations based on the Protocols and obligations flowing from operational control of the US army. In this regard, we have to be careful to accede to the Protocols.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (11)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0