Globalization is both a fact of life, principally in economics, technology and communication, and an international view of the world. It needs to be considered in terms of its inherent ambivalence and contradictions: it can, for instance, promote cultural and scientific exchange, but it also facilitates coordination between criminal organizations; through the dissemination of human rights it may help to give greater freedom, but may also destroy cultures or inflict damage on traditional economies.

The similarity between military occupation and certain operations by international organizations has been stressed by legal scholars. These operations involve the deployment of military forces on a given territory in an often politically and militarily highly unstable context. In the case of transitional international civilian administrations, the authorities thus installed are vested with extensive powers.

However, the formal applicability of the law of occupation to international operations is limited. Insofar as this set of rules is governed by the principle of maintaining the territorial and legislative status quo, it is ill-adapted to the needs of most such operations, which often are deployed to accompany or even bring about institutional change.

In providing for institutions destined to modify the law and institutional structure of certain regions to be put in place, the Security Council's intention was to create situations diverging from the law of occupation's material field of application and consequently requiring identification of a special set of rules. This legal regime should be based on the law of occupation at the start of such operations, and could then be progressively adjusted to meet the specific needs of populations under international administration.

Countless historic monuments, works of art and places of worship have been destroyed in recent conflicts, despite the fact that cultural property, as part of the cultural heritage of all mankind, is protected by the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 — the fiftieth anniversary of which is being celebrated this year — and by other provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular Articles 53 and 16 respectively of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions. his article retraces the origin and development of the main rules of international law adopted to safeguard cultural property in the event of armed conflict, and shows their place in the context of international humanitarian law.

The recent war in Iraq is a perfect illustration of the growing risks faced by journalists working in conflict zones. It is therefore important to call renewed attention to the fact that attacks against journalists and media equipment are illegal under international humanitarian law, which protects civilian persons and objects, as long as they are not making an effective contribution to military action: The media cannot be considered a legitimate target, even if they are being used for propaganda purposes, unless they are being exploited to instigate grave breaches of humanitarian law. Journalists and media personnel also benefit from precautionary measures — not confined to them alone — such as the principle of proportionality and the obligation to give advance warning. There is nonetheless an evident need for the adoption of a new instrument, on the one hand to reaffirm those elements of humanitarian law that apply to journalists and media personnel, and thus to reestablish the authority of certain basic rules that are all too often flouted, and, on the other hand, to improve existing law and adapt it to the requirements of today, for instance the phenomenon of “embedded” journalists. Such is the goal of the “Declaration on the safety of journalists and media personnel in situations involving armed conflict”, drawn up in 2003 by Reporters without Borders.

In 1962 Switzerland ratified the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. It thereby undertook to guarantee optimum protection for all its valuable cultural property. Specific legislation drawn up in 1966 marked a decisive step forward: it stipulates the protective measures to be planned, encourages their implementation by means of grants, and designates competent authorities responsible for their enforcement. The Confederation bears the full costs in some spheres. Most of the measures required under Article 5 of the Second Protocol are already in place in Switzerland; a Swiss inventory of cultural property of national and regional importance has been prepared, as have documentary and microfilm records, and shelters have been provided for the storage of cultural property. Staff have been trained, the general public has been informed and cooperation has been set up with institutions and partners such as the fire brigades.

Fifty years after the adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention, the entry into force of the Second Protocol is the most recent step forward in the legal protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. The aim of this article is to explain the significance of the new rules introduced by this instrument. Drawn up within the framework of UNESCO, the Second Protocol takes into account major developments in international humanitarian law, international criminal law and cultural heritage law. It significantly reinforces the provisions of the Hague Convention, particularly regarding measures to safeguard and ensure respect for cultural property, provides for a new system of enhanced protection, establishes a new institutional framework, defines serious violations, which entail individual criminal responsibility and the duty upon States Parties to establish jurisdiction over those violations, and, finally, extends the scope of application to non–international armed conflicts.