[Senate Executive Report 110-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Exec. Rept.
SENATE
2d Session 110-26
======================================================================
THE HAGUE CULTURAL PROPERTY CONVENTION
_______
September 16, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Biden, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany Treaty Doc. 106-1(A)]
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred
the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in
the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded at the Hague on May 14,
1954 (Treaty Doc. 106-1(A)), having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with four understandings and one
declaration, as indicated in the resolution of advice and
consent, and recommends that the Senate give its advice and
consent to ratification thereof, as set forth in this report
and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Major Provisions.................................................4
IV. Entry Into Force.................................................7
V. Implementing Legislation.........................................7
VI. Committee Action.................................................8
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................8
VIII.Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification.................9
I. Purpose
The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the ``1954 Hague
Cultural Property Convention'' or the ``Convention'') is
designed to preserve cultural heritage and protect cultural
property from destruction or damage in the event of an armed
conflict.
II. Background
Though wars have been fought for millennia, it was only
within the last two hundred years that the law of armed
conflict began to address seriously the preservation of
cultural property. Historically, if the war was just, virtually
any destruction of property accomplished along the way was
considered acceptable. The old adage ``to the victor go the
spoils'' was a common excuse for egregious cases of theft and
destruction of cultural objects during armed conflicts and
subsequent occupations. Yet, philosophers, historians, and
leaders have long raised objections to this view, generally
arguing that the pointless destruction of cultural property in
the absence of military necessity is at best idiotic and at
worst immoral. Polybius, an ancient Greek historian, urged
respect for religious sites, and stated that ``to do wanton
damage to temples, statues and all such works with absolutely
no prospect of any advantage in the war to our own cause or
detriment to that of the enemy must be characterized as the
work of a frenzied mind at the height of its fury.''\1\ Cicero
argued in prosecuting Gaius Verres for the pillage of Sicily
while he was the governor and ``the wielder of supreme military
and civil power,'' that the theft of cultural objects was not
just greedy, but immoral and unscrupulous.\2\ Swiss philosopher
Emer de Vattel in 1758 urged the protection of objects, stating
that ``we ought to spare those edifices which do honor to human
society, and do not contribute to increase the enemy's
strength,--such as temples, tombs, public buildings and all
works of remarkable beauty. What advantage is obtained by
destroying them? It is declaring one's self an enemy to mankind
....''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Polybius, The Histories 31 (W.R. Paton trans., G.P. Putnam's
Sons (Loeb Classical Library 1922)); Polybius (c.200-c.1118bc), a
Hellenistic historican, wrote of ``Rome's rise to Mediterranean
dominion and of the world in which that happened.'' Oxford Classical
Dictionary 1209-11 (Hornblower and Spawforth eds., 3d ed. 1996).
\2\See Cicero, The Verrine Orations 289-299 (L.H.G. Greenwood
trans., Harvard Univ. Press 1928). Cicero was only thirty-six years of
age when, in the year 70bc, he prosecuted Gaius Verres in the court of
Repetundae for an accusation brought by the Sicilians against their
former governor for a systematic and ruthless spoliation of the
province. See also Margaret M. Miles, Cicero's Prosecution of Gaius
Verres: A Roman View of the Ethics of Acquisition of Art, 11 Int'l J.
Cultural Prop. 28, 30-31 (2002).
\3\ Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), The Law Of Nations Or, Principles
Of The Law Of Nature, Applied To The Conduct And Affairs Of Nations And
Sovereigns 571 (Kapossy and Whatmore eds. 2008) (1758).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1800s, the protection of cultural property was
formally incorporated into a code of military conduct. The
Lieber Code of 1863, which was developed by Francis Lieber at
the request of President Lincoln during the Civil War,
explicitly provides that ``[c]lassical works of art, libraries,
scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as
astronomical telescopes ... must be secured against all
avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified
places whilst besieged or bombarded.''\4\ The Lieber Code also
states that cultural property may be transported in order to
protect it from injury.\5\ The Lieber Code led to the inclusion
of similar and expanded provisions on the protection of
cultural property in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions,\6\ to
which the United States is a Party.\7\ After World War I, which
saw the destruction of significant cultural property, such as
the medieval Cathedral in Rheims, the burning of Louvain, and
the historic town of Arras, further efforts were made to
strengthen the protection of cultural property during times of
armed conflict, but those efforts met with little success.\8\
Not until after World War II and the enormous destruction of
cultural property that occurred during the war was real
progress made, leading to the conclusion of the 1954 Hague
Cultural Property Convention. This Convention constitutes the
first comprehensive treaty for the protection of cultural
property during armed conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Lieber Code, Section II, Article 35.
\5\Id. at Article 36. See also Hays Parks, Protection of Cultural
Property From the Effects of War in The Law of Cultural Property and
Natural Heritage: Protection, Transfer and Access Sec. 3:03 (1999)
(noting that the Lieber Code's provisions``form the basis for the law
relating to the protection of cultural property to this day,'' but that
Articles 35 and 36 are only part of the legacy. Articles 14, 15, 16,
31, 34, 37, 38, 44, 45, and 46 should also be reviewed; the Lieber Code
``recognized all private property, including perhaps especially
cultural property (as so identified in articles 35 and 36), whether
public or private, as protected from intentional damage or seizure
absent `military necessity' . ...'').
\6\See Article 23, 25, 27, and 56 of the Regulations annexed to the
1899 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
done at The Hague on July 29, 1899; Articles 23(g), 25, 27, and 56 of
the Regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) respecting
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, done at the Hague on October 18,
1907.
\7\The 1899 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War
on Land, done at The Hague on July 29, 1899, entered into force for the
United States on April 9, 1902. Shortly thereafter, however, the United
States joined the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, done at The Hague on October 18, 1907, which
entered into force for the United States on January 26, 1910, and in
accordance with Article 4 of the 1907 Hague Convention, superseded the
1899 Hague Convention as among Parties to both conventions.
\8\For a discussion of efforts made between World War I and World
War II, see Parks, supra note 5, at Sec. 3:06 (noting, for example,
that progress was made at the 1922-1923 Hague Conference on
incorporating articles bearing on the protection of cultural property
in the Hague Air Rules of 1923, but that these rules were never adopted
by any nation and similarly, subsequent efforts at the League of
Nations in this area were not terribly successful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States participated actively in the negotiation
and drafting of the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention,
and was one of the first to sign.\9\ For some time, the United
States has been a world leader in promoting and protecting
cultural property. Congress has passed numerous laws designed
to preserve historic and cultural sites,\10\ and since the
civil war the U.S. armed forces have consistently recognized in
their rules of conduct appropriate protections for cultural
property during armed conflicts.\11\ General Dwight D.
Eisenhower, for example, took pains to protect cultural
property in Europe during World War II, and the Department of
Defense has sent special teams to protect cultural property at
risk during the course of more recent conflicts. The Department
of Defense has carefully studied the Convention, and its impact
on military practice, and has found it to be fully consistent
with good military doctrine and practice as conducted by U.S.
forces. As noted in the Secretary of State's Letter of
Submittal, ``[i]n large measure, the practices required by the
Convention to protect cultural property were based upon the
practices of U.S. military forces during World War II'' and
since the Convention's entry into force, ``U.S. military forces
have not only followed but exceeded its terms in the conduct of
military operations.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The United States signed the 1954 Hague Cultural Property
Convention on May 14, 1954, the same day it was concluded.
\10\See, e.g., The American Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 433; The Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 462-67;
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470; The
Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 470. See
generally Patty Gerstenblith, Identity and Cultural Property: The
Protection of Cultural Property in the United States, 75 B.U.S. Rev.
559 (1995).
\11\The U.S. Army codified the obligation to protect cultural
property in Articles 34-36 of General Order No. 100 (1863), which was
regarded as a reflection of the customary practice of nations.
\12\See Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State, Treaty
Doc. 106-1 at p. VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principles underlying the 1954 Hague Cultural Property
Convention are grounded in the Regulations to the 1899 and 1907
Hague Conventions. Nevertheless, the 1954 Hague Cultural
Property Convention goes a step further by, among other things,
defining the term ``cultural property;'' providing for the
protection of cultural property during not only armed conflict,
but also military occupation; providing for preparations in
peacetime for safeguarding of cultural property against the
foreseeable effects of armed conflicts; establishing an emblem
for use in the protection of cultural property; and
establishing a regime for the special protection of a highly
limited category of cultural property included on an
International Register established by the Convention.
The protection of cultural property under the Convention is
not absolute. If cultural property is used for military
purposes, or in the event of imperative military necessity, the
protection afforded by the Convention is waived. Moreover, the
primary responsibility for the protection of cultural property
rests with the Party controlling that property, to ensure that
the property is properly identified and that it is not used for
an unlawful purpose. In sum, the Convention does not prevent
military commanders from doing what is necessary to accomplish
their missions. Protections are lost if the cultural objects
are put to military use, and legitimate military actions may be
taken even if collateral damage is caused to cultural
property.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See, e.g., Article 4(2) and Article 8, as further discussed in
Section III of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention entered into
force on August 7, 1956, and there are currently 118 parties,
including Israel, the Russian Federation, and every NATO Member
State except the United States, Iceland, and the United
Kingdom, which has announced its intention to ratify the
Convention.\14\ In 2001 the American Bar Association adopted a
position supporting ratification of the Convention, which was
recently reaffirmed, and the committee has received testimony
and letters in support of the Convention from the
Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers' Committee for
Cultural Heritage Preservation, the United States Committee of
the Blue Shield, the American Anthropological Association, the
American Association of Museums, the American Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, the American
Schools of Oriental Research, the Association of Moving Image
Archivists, the College Art Association, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, the Society for American Archeology, the
Society for Historical Archeology, the Society of American
Archivists, the United States Committee of the International
Council on Monuments and Sites, and the World Monuments Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See UK statement at http://www.culture.gov.uk/
reference_library/consultations/1183.aspx. The United Kingdom's
Department for Culture, Media and Sport published draft legislation
earlier this year (available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/
publications/culturalproperty armedconflictsdraftbill.pdf) and there
are preparations being made for the introduction of legislation in the
next Legislative Session starting in December.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to the committee dated August 15, 2007, Deputy
Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of
Defense Gordon England wrote to express their strong support
for the Convention and urge the Senate to act promptly.
III. Major Provisions
A detailed section-by-section analysis of the Convention
may be found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of
State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty
Document 106-1. A summary of key provisions is set forth below.
Protection of Cultural Property from the Effects of an Armed Conflict
Chapter I of the Convention (Articles 1-7) sets forth
general provisions regarding the protection of cultural
property.
Article 1 defines cultural property as (1) moveable or
immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage
of every people, which includes monuments of architecture, art
or history, archeological sites, groups of buildings of
historical or artistic interest, works of art, manuscripts,
books and other objects of artistic, historical or
archeological interest, as well as scientific collections and
important collections of books or archives; (2) buildings whose
main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit movable
cultural property, such as museums, large libraries, and
depositories of archives; and (3) centers containing a large
amount of cultural property.
Article 3 provides that Parties must prepare in peacetime
for the safeguarding of cultural property situated within their
territory against the ``foreseeable effects of an armed
conflict'' by taking measures they consider to be appropriate.
Article 7 requires Parties to, among other things, establish in
peacetime within their armed forces certain personnel ``whose
purpose will be to secure respect for cultural property and to
co-operate with the civilian authorities responsible for
safeguarding it.'' The U.S. Army currently maintains such
personnel in its civil affairs reserve force.\15\ In addition,
Marine Corps reserve civil affairs personnel receive training
to perform such functions, if needed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Section-by-Section Analysis in the Letter of Submittal
from the Secretary of State, Treaty Doc. 106-1 at p. 5.
\16\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 4 requires Parties to respect cultural property by
refraining from using such property or its surroundings for
purposes that are likely to expose it to destruction or damage
in the event of armed conflict and by refraining from any act
of hostility directed against such property. Consistent with
customary international law, however, these protections for
cultural property are not absolute. In accordance with Article
4(2), for example, the protection afforded by the obligation
set forth in Article 4(1) to respect cultural property is
waived in the event of imperative military necessity.
Cultural Property Granted Special Protection
Chapter II of the Convention (Articles 8-11) sets forth
provisions on special protection for limited categories of
cultural property. These include specially designated refuges
for moveable cultural property, and centers containing
monuments and other immovable cultural property of ``very great
importance.'' To enjoy such special protection, the property
must be entered onto the International Register of Cultural
Property under Special Protection established by the
Convention. According to the Department of Defense, the Vatican
is one of only a limited number of listings on the Register.
Article 8, among other things, sets forth criteria for
compliance by the Party claiming special protection. In
particular, centers containing immovable cultural property that
is specially protected may not be used for military purposes,
including the movement or stationing of military personnel, the
movement or production of war materiel, or other activities
directly connected with military operations. Article 9 provides
that Parties are to refrain from any act of hostility directed
against registered cultural property that is specially
protected and, with certain exceptions, from any use of such
property or its surroundings for military purposes. Article 11
sets forth certain limitations on the special protection
provided for registered cultural property. Paragraph 1 of
Article 11 provides that Parties to the Convention shall be
released from the obligation in Article 9 to ensure the
immunity of cultural property under special protection if that
property or its surroundings are used for military purposes, so
long as such improper use persists. Paragraph 2 provides, in
addition, that immunity shall be withdrawn from cultural
property under special protection ``in exceptional cases of
unavoidable military necessity'' for such time as that
necessity continues.
Transporting Cultural Property
Chapter III of the Convention (Articles 12-14) addresses
the transport of cultural property. Under Article 12, transport
exclusively engaged in the transfer of cultural property,
whether within a territory or to another territory may, at the
request of the Party concerned, take place under special
protection in accordance with procedures contained in Chapter
III of the annexed regulations. Article 13 authorizes
exceptions in urgent cases to the procedures referred to in
Article 12. Article 14 grants immunity to cultural property in
transit from seizure, although nothing in this provision limits
the right of Parties to visit and search during the course of
such transit.
Protection for Personnel Engaged in the Protection of Cultural Property
Chapter IV of the Convention (Article 15) requires that
personnel engaged in the protection of cultural property be
respected, and that they be allowed to carry out their duties,
consistent with the interests of security, if they fall into
the hands of the opposing Party.
Emblem for Use in the Protection of Cultural Property
Chapter V of the Convention (Articles 16 and 17) provides a
description and procedures for use of the distinctive emblem,
which may be used for marking cultural property to facilitate
its recognition pursuant to Article 6. Article 17 details
criteria for use of the emblem.
Scope of Application
Chapter VI of the Convention (Articles 18 and 19) defines
the scope of the Convention's application. Article 18 specifies
that, in addition to the relevant peacetime applications, the
Convention applies during declared war or any other armed
conflict between two or more Parties. It also applies during
times of occupation of the territory of a Party, even if that
occupation meets with no armed resistance. Article 19 provides
that the provisions of the Convention relating to respect for
cultural property shall also apply to any non-international
armed conflict in the territory of a Party.
Mechanisms for Facilitating Implementation
Chapter VII of the Convention (Articles 20-28) facilitates
implementation of the Convention. Articles 21 and 22 address
the role of Protecting Powers, which are responsible for
safeguarding the interests of the Parties to a conflict.
Article 23 provides that the Parties may call upon the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for
assistance in implementing the Convention. Article 24 provides
for special agreements among Parties to enhance the protection
of cultural property. Article 25 requires Parties to
disseminate the Convention, particularly among their armed
forces and personnel engaged in the protection of cultural
property. Article 27 provides for meetings of Parties to
consider problems of implementation or proposals for revision
of the Convention. Article 28 requires each Party to undertake
all steps necessary, within the framework of its ordinary
criminal jurisdiction, to impose penal or disciplinary
sanctions on persons who violate the Convention.
Regulations
The Convention has attached to it Regulations that set
forth procedures for the implementation and operation of the
Convention and are considered, as stated in Article 20, an
integral part of the Convention. The Regulations are divided up
into four chapters, which respectively address: (1) the
framework to be established by Parties in order to exercise a
degree of control over cultural property for the sake of its
protection; (2) procedures for dealing with cultural property
under special protection, including the procedures for
managing, and making an application for entry onto, the
International Register of Cultural Property Under Special
Protection; (3) procedures for transporting cultural property
pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention; and (4) procedures
governing the use of the distinctive emblem established in
Article 16 of the Convention. In accordance with Article 39 of
the Convention, the Convention and the Regulations are subject
to the same amendment procedure, which requires a States Party
to formally accept an amendment formally before it can enter
into force for that State Party.
IV. Entry Into Force
In accordance with Article 33, the Convention will enter
into force for the United States three months after the date on
which the United States deposits its instrument of
ratification.
V. Implementing Legislation
No implementing legislation is required for this
Convention. The United States already complies in practice with
the norms contained in this Convention. In response to the
committee's questions, the Department of Defense stated that if
the United States were to ratify this treaty, existing
Department of Defense and Military Department directives and
publications that refer to treaties to which the United States
is a party would be updated to reflect that the United States
is a party to this Convention, but no new Department of Defense
directives or regulations would be needed and there would be no
additional costs associated with implementing the Convention.
VI. Committee Action
The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on
April 15, 2008. Testimony was received from Mr. John B.
Bellinger, Legal Adviser at the Department of State; Mr.
Charles A. Allen, Deputy General Counsel for International
Affairs at the Department of Defense; and Brigadier General
Michelle D. Johnson, Deputy Director for the War on Terrorism
and Global Effects, J-5 Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate,
Joint Staff. The transcript for this hearing is attached as an
annex to Executive Report 110-22.
On July 29, 2008, the committee considered the Convention
and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum
present and without objection.
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments
The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that cultural
property can enhance the growth of civilization, enrich the
lives of all peoples, and inspire a mutual respect and
appreciation among nations. Nevertheless, the protection of
cultural property cannot be absolute during the course of an
armed conflict. As stated by General Eisenhower to U.S. forces
on December 29, 1943: ``[i]f we have to choose between
destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then
our men's lives count infinitely more and the building must go.
But the choice is not always so clear-cut as that. In many
cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to
operational needs.'' The 1954 Hague Cultural Property
Convention strikes this careful balance and its ratification,
which requires no change in U.S. law or practice, would allow
the United States to continue its long-standing leadership in
the promotion and protection of cultural property. Accordingly,
the committee urges the Senate to act promptly to give advice
and consent to ratification of the Convention, as set forth in
this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and
consent.
RESOLUTION
The committee has included in the resolution of advice and
consent four understandings and one declaration.
First Understanding
As noted above in Section III of this report, Chapter II
sets forth provisions on special protection for a highly
limited category of cultural property that is regarded as being
of ``very great importance'' and is entered onto the
International Register of Cultural Property under Special
Protection. The proposed understanding makes clear that the
level of protection required for such cultural property is one
that is consistent with existing customary international law.
Second Understanding
The proposed understanding makes clear that the actions of
any military commander, military personnel, or any other person
responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military
action or other activities covered by this Convention, can only
be assessed in light of information that was reasonably
available at the time.
Third Understanding
The proposed understanding makes clear that the rules
established by the Convention only apply to conventional
weapons, and do not affect existing rules of international law
governing other types of weapons, such as nuclear weapons.
According to the executive branch, such a statement reflects
the intent of those States that negotiated the Convention.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See Section-by-Section Analysis in the Letter of Submittal from
the Secretary of State, Treaty Doc. 106-1 at p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Understanding
Article 4(1) of the Convention requires Parties ``to
respect cultural property situated within their own territory
as well as within the territory of other [Parties] by
refraining from any use of the property and its immediate
surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for
purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage
in the event of armed conflict . . . .'' The proposed
understanding makes clear that the primary responsibility for
the protection of cultural objects rests with the Party
controlling that property, to ensure that it is properly
identified and that it is not used for an unlawful purpose.
Declaration
The proposed declaration relates to the self-executing
nature of the Convention and is included in light of the recent
Supreme Court decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346
(2008), which has highlighted the importance of clarity
regarding the self-executing nature of treaty provisions. A
further discussion of the committee's views on this matter can
be found in Section VIII of Executive Report 110-12. In brief,
the Protocol is self-executing, in the sense that it operates
of its own force as domestically enforceable federal law, but
the Protocol does not confer private rights enforceable in U.S.
courts.
VIII. Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO UNDERSTANDINGS AND A
DECLARATION
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the
Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc.
106-1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the
declaration of section 3.
SECTION 2. UNDERSTANDINGS
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following understandings, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification:
(1) It is the understanding of the United States of
America that ``special protection,'' as defined in
Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary
international law in that it, first, prohibits the use
of any cultural property to shield any legitimate
military targets from attack and, second, allows all
property to be attacked using any lawful and
proportionate means, if required by military necessity
and notwithstanding possible collateral damage to such
property.
(2) It is the understanding of the United States of
America that any decision by any military commander,
military personnel, or any other person responsible for
planning, authorizing, or executing military action or
other activities covered by this Convention shall only
be judged on the basis of that person's assessment of
the information reasonably available to the person at
the time the person planned, authorized, or executed
the action under review, and shall not be judged on the
basis of information that comes to light after the
action under review was taken.
(3) It is the understanding of the United States of
America that the rules established by the Convention
apply only to conventional weapons, and are without
prejudice to the rules of international law governing
other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.
(4) It is the understanding of the United States of
America that, as is true for all civilian objects, the
primary responsibility for the protection of cultural
objects rests with the Party controlling that property,
to ensure that it is properly identified and that it is
not used for an unlawful purpose.
SECTION 3. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration:
With the exception of the provisions that obligate
the United States to impose sanctions on persons who
commit or order to be committed a breach of the
Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This
Convention does not confer private rights enforceable
in United States courts.