 Well, a dear archaeologist of Europe, I love you all very much, but most of you have no idea on what international law is all about. Although many of you might have high or at least some expectations on what international law can do for us, especially in this room because you showed up for a session called A Roadmap Towards a Global Convention. So what I thought I'd better start this lecture with some explanation on the key essence of international law and then move on to the key question what can international law do for us. Then elaborate a bit on what might be a good strategy to undertake some action regarding international cooperation. We might end up with a roadmap towards a global convention, but I shouldn't be too optimistic about that. Before drawing such a roadmap, it might be wise to give some thoughts on the need of a new global convention. What do we actually want to achieve? Ladies and gentlemen, in order to make you familiar with the principles of international law, I chose to highlight three historical events dated 1648, 1885 and 1946. And I start in the middle in the 19th century. In 1985, at the invitation of Otto von Bismarck, first chancellor of a unified Germany, an international conference was held in Berlin and its outcome, not surprisingly called the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as a formalization of the so-called scramble for Africa. This conference was held in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eventually eliminate or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance. In 1885, the European powers divided the whole continent, even though in large parts of this continent, no European ever set a foot. Still, these lines on these maps in Berlin became a reality soon enough. And after a period of decolonization, we ended up with a fundamentally changed organization of African society. In general, a tribal-based order had been replaced by a nation-based system. And the recent elections in Kenya show that this is not without problems. These tribal forces are still relevant. But on the other hand, the African football cup shows that the process of nation-building has become reality even within, from an African point of view, these more or less random lines on a map, which has been drawn by some Europeans in the 19th century who had no idea what they were deciding about. This is a curious situation, I would say. And now you can feel proud of being a Cameroon and playing for the Cameroon national team. And so nationalism becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, as we are used to it, and we find it quite normal, but, and Michael Shanks was referring to it yesterday, it's only since a relatively short period of time that the world order, the organization of our world community, has been put into a nation-based system. This being, in itself, a system of territories. And the African example makes it clear, but it's true for the rest of the world. The stories of Asia and the Americans are different, but the system of nation-states has become reality in those continents as well. This modern state system was a European intention. When we go back in history, the system was more or less invented in 1648 at the peace treaties of Westphalia, hosted by the cities of Munster and Osnabruk. Thus ending a devastating 30-year war which raged throughout Europe. Lots of things can be said about this. And as always, we see a development in thinking which led to these peace treaties. And afterwards, we see a development of how it went on. But in the literature on the development of international law, it is generally accepted that in 1648 European powers agreed upon a totally new system of political order, later called the Westphalian sovereignty, based upon a concept of co-existing sovereign states. Interstate aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power, and a norm was established against interference in one another's domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order. So these key principles of the peace of Westphalia are acknowledgement of the territorial sovereignty of states, and the fundamental right of a political self-determination, including the choice of religion, a legal equality between states, and the principle of non-intervention. Matters of war and peace have always been a main driver for the making of international law, and these bloody 30 years of law of war had such an impact and had such big disadvantages for all parties that the minds were set and ready for something else. Actually, the negotiating parties taught that these principles of non-interfering with each other would prevent us from having these terrible wars again, alas history proved otherwise. So we're stuck now with a nation-based system, and Sneszka Aquatvili this morning was referring to it, and he said, well, this nation system is being challenged right now, from upward and from downward. But we're stuck with this system, and as with all systems, it's not perfect. We have something to repair. There are certain matters which cannot be dealt with within this system. This repair action, actually the Resonator of International Law, is repairing the nation-based system, and I know there are nationalist movements who deny the necessity of international law, well, what can I say, but they're wrong. There are things in life you simply cannot deal with when you stick within the borders of some territory, large or small. Whenever I ask my students at Leuven University the question on why do we have international law, always at first they come up with very fine ideals, which help us moving on towards a better world. And of course it's a good thing that they react that way. Actually, they should react that way, certainly at that age, but the truth is much more down to earth. When you travel from one country to another, when you make a phone call or send a postcard, when you buy a foreign product, when you import goods, you should realize this is possible, because there are rules that make it so, and in this room right now are many nationalities present, and there are rules that facilitate this. In fact, that is the first answer to the question, why do archaeologists need international law? Well, because everyone needs international law, and you need to come to Maastricht and listen to what I have got to say. The mere existence of national states and international relations of whatever kind entails the existence of international law, as the ancients Romans knew, whenever there is a society, there will be law, that is Cicero. And the absence of a single overarching authority is perhaps the most noteworthy characteristic of international law. It's as simple as that. We don't have a world government, we don't have one. We don't think we should have one, that's another question. Okay, now it's time to switch to another important event in history, and it's pretty well known under the name World War II. This war and the post-war period gave a tremendous boost to the development of international law. Actually, it looks like a bit like an explosion of international law, actually more than we can handle. And as you know, the most important organization in the field of heritage protection are of course UNESCO and European scale, the Council of Europe and the European Union. So, well, let's focus on them. The founding of these international institutions are a reaction to World War II. It's good to know that, but it is a different reaction than had been done in previous times. And this I find fascinating and actually I find it spectacular and unique in history. Think about UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. I repeat, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization talks about the need of such an organization went on during the war and it was agreed upon during a conference in San Francisco in the spring of 1945. The world was still in a big turmoil and at that moment in time the allied parties thought of an international organization whose aim is to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through soft values like education, the science and culture. Think about that, spring of 1945, spectacular. And it's more spectacular, they realized an organization that and we can be critical about UNESCO, but go back to these ideals, think about that. In the year 1946 the Treaty of the Founding of UNESCO was signed. Another event took place in the same year. A well-known British leader of the conservative party held his famous speech to the academic youth of the University of Zurich. I wish to speak to you about the tragedy of Europe. As you know, Winston Churchill spoke with a strong Dutch accent. There is, I won't go on like that. There is a remedy which would in a few years make all Europe free and happy. It is to recreate European family as much of it or as much of it as we can and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. And a little bit further, he said, the first step is to form a Council of Europe. Read this speech. Read this speech. And I assure you, these quotations are not out of context, as Mr Nigel Farage is trying to convince of us. Think of it, this is the same Churchill who had nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. The idea was brought further to conference like the one in The Hague in 1948, chaired by the same Winston Churchill. Watch his speech on YouTube. What do you do? It's on YouTube. The Zurich one is not. And of course it could happen because there was a new kind of political will all over Europe. Men like Winston Churchill, Conrad Ahnauer, Robert Schumann, Alcide de Casperi, Jean Monnet, Paul Henry Sparck, these men, they choose to overcome differences and feelings of hate and revenge. And they knew that if they would connect their economies of their nations to one another, the chance of war would be far less. And the first step was to come up with the European coal and steel community, which was an organisation of then six European countries to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority. This community was the first international organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism and started the process of a formal integration which ultimately led to the Maastricht Treaty. We are today celebrating and the European Union, Lisbon Treaty. In fact, it forms a step away from the non-interfering principles of Westphalia. Voluntarily, nations handed over a piece of their sovereign powers to an international organisation for the benefit of all. This organisation was first proposed by the French Foreign Minister Robert Schumann as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany and he declared his aim was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible. If you have no power over the resources of war, that was clever thinking, that was clever thinking. So we entered into a long process toward connecting the economies of the European nations toward a common market and that was, of course, a difficult process. It was a hard economy, what it was all about. And Snezka, quite frankly, has been talking about it and she made a remark that these cultural articles should have been in the Treaty of Rome already, but of course they weren't. They weren't ready to do it and as you pointed out also there was a parallel tragedy as well and things might come together now. Churchill's initiative led in 1949 in London to the founding of the Council of Europe so that was a soft line. The hard line was connecting these economies but at the same time there was a soft line. But the Council of Europe, an international organisation who stated the aim is to uphold human rights, democracy, rule of law in Europe and to promote European culture. And that's 14 members cover and covers approximately 820 million people. Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws. It lacks this supranational power but it does have the power to enforce select international agreements, selected international agreements reached by European states on various topics. Doing so, the Council of Europe has been playing a pioneering role in making international agreements on the protection of these soft values like nature and heritage. That's why these heritage conventions are with the Council of Europe. So that was a good thing, this pioneering role. At the same time connecting the economies and there was another line connecting these. Keep this in mind, the Council of Europe is still the home base of the Valletta Treaty and the main objectives of the Council of Europe are human rights, democracy and rule of law. So always connect the subject of archaeology to these objectives. So what our EAA President, Philippe Criado Boado writes in his candidate statements makes sense. He wrote that the EAA amidst the current complex geometry and problems of Europe must faster the ideal of a trans-European value exchange solidarity communication and openness. He is thus making a connection with the ideals of post-war Europe. He's not here, I don't know if he knows, I think he knows. Cannot ask him right now. Because there is where we find the legitimation of our international agreements on archaeology. Let's cherish them, it's our home base. And this is one of the reasons that I as a member of EAA gave my vote to Philippe Criado Boado. He was casting my vote. I won't bother you too much with the theory of international law but it's good to know that we see a clustering of five, and now it's becoming a little boring, five reasons for international cooperation, international law and they're all relevant to us. It's war and peace. Most of the time, most of the time you are reaching international agreement after a war. It might be sensible to reach an international agreement preventing a war. That was some kind of a new concept. And of course there are rules how you fight a war. So that's of course there are the seas, the air and the outer space. The nation system is not out there. We don't have sovereign right on the seas. Economics, just trading, that's relevant for us. There's a lot of illicit excavations and the trading of these artifacts. Protecting the environment. Of course it's no use as the Netherlands becoming climate neutral if other countries don't. It's so obvious. International crime, when you want to cut, you want to cut. When they go across the border, after they murder someone, you want to get to them, don't you? I'm using the male phrase on that example. Human rights, the human rights that's of course the students in Leuven. They always start with the human rights. Okay. Oh no, go the wrong way. I take out this one. I find it such nice. And I realize you already seen these slides. You were... Mara Librem. This was about the situation in 1950. This is... There were no... The territories were not at sea. And then this happens. We got a united nation law, the sea conference. This become... And now we end up with this. It's an explosion of international... And this is one of the topics, one of the topics. So we related this as well. I'm not going to explain the system. I know the system. You can ask me. Here. Here is what... This is also part of the explosion. Well, there are a lot of international conventions on heritage, I would say. I don't know if we got a lack on internet. And to get a grip on that, I know... There's nobody in this room. I teach these conventions. And I'm professionally... I'm working with these conventions. And even I don't get a grip on them. There's so many words. There's so many words. How do they work out? How do they... Pretty complicated, I would say. But it's... The UNESCO conventions, they really match with these reasons for international convention. The war issue, the environmental issue, the illicit trade impetus. It's about economy and trade. That's the human rights issue. We interlink with these reasons. Okay. Where am I? Of course, we celebrate 25 years of Valetta right now. And I have to pay some attention to it. ESC has done so when we had our 20th anniversary and we had a publication on it and a symposium in Albania. So now it's 25. I think we're going to reach 30, for sure. Yesterday, Jors Gasselmans mentioned that it is probably the most successful or the most influential heritage convention of the Council of Europe. I think he's right. And I'm using the same phrase quite a lot. But this statement is probably more based on a feeling than on facts. The truth is we simply don't know how this piece of international law is working out in 45 countries who ratified it. We just don't know. The Council of Europe has a task to have an eye on this. But they have no resources to do so. ESC is trying to do a bit, but we need money for it also. We ended up not knowing how this convention works out. Okay. Well, we got a good feeling about it, so we might go on. And a couple of weeks ago, I took the trouble of rereading the text of the Velletta Convention and the explanatorial report. And I must say, well, at some articles, it had gone a little bit out of date. Today, we might use other words. But in general, I think it's still pretty good and useful. And you always can go and read the Farah Convention, which came on top of it and gave actually new meanings to the words of the Velletta Convention. Let's cherish that and do with it what we can. Ladies and gentlemen, these above mentioned conventions are usually called hard law. Well, this means conventions or treaties that are legally binding between sovereign states. Next to that, we have an overwhelming amount of so-called soft law. Soft law, declarations, resolutions, charters, codes of conducts, guidelines, and just road maps, agenda, strategic plan, etc., etc., regarding the importance of heritage. The term soft law refers to quasi-legal instruments, which do not have any legal binding. And I hope that I'm not offending someone, but the ICUM is Lausanne Charter for the Protection and the Management of the Archaeological Heritage, which was mentioned in the introduction text. It was new to me. What does that mean? I didn't know these words. It kind of surprised me. I didn't know. I should feel ashamed. I don't, but this illustrates an important point I want to make. It's not so much all these legal texts, which are important, but what people do with it or to be more precise, what we do with it, and how are they being brought to life? This is as much true for soft law as it is true for hard law. A question to you. Fingers up. Who knows the Venice Charter? Who's familiar with the Venice Charter? Who knows? I'm going to have a hard time making my point now. Who knows the Granada Treaty? Who's familiar with the Granada? Just about the same amount of people. I think the Venice Charter has been far more influential than the Granada Treaty. The Granada Treaty is hard law. The Venice Charter is some architects who joined in Venice in 1961 and came up with the declaration. This declaration has been of a big influence to the restorations throughout Europe and I think all over the world. This has been a pretty influence. It was just soft law. My point is it's not so much about soft law or hard law, because as we know it is inevitable that the wording of these hard law conventions are pretty soft. It's about soft values and the conventions have to leave a lot of room for nation states to make decisions on how to protect the heritage and to illustrate it. I made a first draft. I'm going to help you. I'm skipping that. I made the first draft on how a global convention for the protection of archaeological heritage might look like. There it is. Pretty good work, eh? It's all my words in there. This is a good beginning, I would say. It's a good beginning. Yeah, sure. What do you think? Good beginning? Yeah, of course. Well, it's more than that. Actually, this is a quotation of the Articles 5 and 7 of the World Heritage Convention. You know that, Chris. I know you know. The Articles 5 and 7 of the World Heritage Convention, which counts at this moment 193 party states. Think of that. 193 out of 197 states have signed and ratified this text. This is hard law. This is valid. I just replaced the words cultural and natural heritage for archaeological heritage. And I think I'm entitled to do so. Archaeological heritage, after all, is surely a part of cultural heritage, so it's legally correct what I did. But what do we do with these words? What do these words mean in practice? And what would we gain if we replace these words with other words who might be more specific on the archaeological issue? Of course, all these states who joined up with World Heritage Treaty, what did they have in mind? It's all about the World Heritage List, becoming a World Heritage List. There's a lot of people who want to be important. I'm important also. My piece of real estate is as important as the pyramids in Egypt or Stonehenge or Machu Picchu or Easter Island. And we forget about the other articles. But they're there, legally binding. Okay, might be a chance. And let's not forget about the other UNESCO Convention on Archaeology. This is the one. The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 2001. This is purely about archaeology. Until now, only 51 states have joined, only two in Asia. And how does it work in practice? I'm pretty much involved in the ratification implementation of this convention in the Netherlands. And we've had a hard time finding good examples of the profitable working of this convention in practice at this point. I'm almost there. I just want to sum up a few remarks now. Eight, got eight remarks. One, realize that international law is there to organize, repair the disadvantages of the modern world order of nation. It is not something you can turn to if you're not having it your way in your own country. Two, use the tools you already got, the World Heritage Convention, the Valetta Convention, the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, make a life what you already agreed upon. There are a lot of deaf words waiting for us. Know how the conventions work out in practice and use that information for appropriate action. Confront the people who you have to confront with these deaf words and say, well, they're dead, but you signed. This has been negotiated upon. Word for word has been negotiated upon that. And we voluntarily said, well, we agree upon. We ratified. We put it in a, well, that must mean something. You can remember people. That's what we've got to do. So this hard law often turned to be pretty soft and there's a task for us to take up. Four, influence and strengthen the international organization with deal with heritage. And I'm talking about UNESCO and Council of Europe. They are understaffed and badly financed and they're so easy to be criticized. Well, it's better to help them to do that job than just putting your wishes and your bad temper on their table. And understand why they are dealing with heritage protection. Make a link with their objectives. Five, don't forget, use your influence on a national and local scale as well. You can be busy trying, you can be busy trying to change the course of the European Union. But it might be a lot more effective and more close at hand to talk to the government of your municipality. And international NGOs can be pretty influential on a national and a local base as well. Realize that. So let's join forces as EA with other NGOs like Europe and Astra and Ikemos. Six, and don't expect too much from governments and from international law. People have the tendency to put everything on the plate of government, as is the case with these international organizations, but realize that government is formed by people, not by wizards or gods. Seven. As you figured it out by now, I'm rather hesitant to try and go for a new global convention. In the current political climate, it's not likely that this will be a success. And even if we reach a new convention, then the question remains how to prevent that these words turn out to be dead words again, as is the case with so many conventions. But if you go for a new convention, realize that the discussion and energy in the process of the making of, that is the important thing. It may be even more important than the final result. And now I'm going to stop after I made one last remark. Dear archeologists of Europe, as you know now, I love you very much. Remember, please remember the ideals of the men and women of the post-war period. They tried to do things differently. No, they did things differently. In a way that history has never seen before. And a lot of good came from that. And we are all profiting until this day on. Too often we forget. Well, doomed.