5cjxburmr

When the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention and the Hague IV Regulations areboth applicable, the provisions of the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention regardingoccupation supplement the provisions of the Hague IV Regulations regarding occupation. 10Although in some cases the Hague IV Regulations would not be applicable as a matter oftreaty law because belligerent States might not be Parties to Hague IV, many of the provisions inArticles 42 through 56 of the Hague IV Regulations reflect customary international law. 11 Forexample, Article 42 of the Hague IV Regulations, which provides a standard for when the law ofbelligerent occupation applies, is regarded as customary international law. 1211.1.2.3 Occupation and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Common Article 2 ofthe 1949 Geneva Conventions provides that “[t]he Convention shall also apply to all cases ofpartial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupationmeets with no armed resistance.” 13Articles 47 through 78 of the GC specifically address occupied territories. 14 Otherprovisions of the GC also apply to occupied territory. For example, Articles 27 through 34 of theGC contain provisions common to the territories of parties to the conflict and to occupiedterritories. 1511.1.2.4 Occupation and the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention. The1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention applies to all cases of partial or total occupation of theterritory of a High Contracting Party, even if this occupation meets with no armed resistance. 1610 Refer to § 19.17.1.1 (Relationship Between the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention and Certain 1899 and1907 Hague Conventions).11 See, e.g., United States, et al. v. Göring, et al., Judgment, I TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THEIMT 253-54 (“With respect to War Crimes, however, as has already been pointed out, the crimes defined by Article6, Section (b), of the Charter were already recognized as War Crimes under international law. They were coveredby Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46, and 51 of the GenevaConvention of 1929. … But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case, because of the‘general participation’ clause in Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907. … The rules of land warfare expressedin the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption.But the convention expressly stated that it was an attempt ‘to revise the general laws and customs of war’, which itthus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognized by allcivilized nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to inArticle 6 (b) of the Charter.”).12 Refer to § 11.2.2 (Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied).13 GWS art. 2; GWS-SEA art. 2; GPW art. 2; GC art. 2.14 Refer to § 19.16.5.1 (Application of Different Parts of the GC).15 Refer to § 19.16.5.1 (Application of Different Parts of the GC).16 1954 HAGUE CULTURAL PROPERTY CONVENTION art. 18 (“The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partialor total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armedresistance.”).738