I am still trying to get to the bottom if this!
The picture I now have is that simple "use" of the Blue Shield is national matter, albeit within the provisions of the various Conventions (in particular that the buildings so marked are not used for military purposes) and with International coordination more recently through "Blue Shield" ( http://www.ancbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=51
) , and is separate from the "International Register" which post-dates and is separate from the provisions under which the Blue Shield may be deployed
This rather dense investigation into the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands in the 21st Century covers the issue in Para 3.1.6 ( www.ejcl.org/132/abs132-4.html
)"Article 27 of the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, as well as Article 3 and Article 16 of the 1954 Hague Convention, and Article 5 of the Second Protocol oblige the State Parties to take the appropriate measure (in times of peace) for the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict. One such measure is the identification and marking of buildings as referred to in Article 27 of the 1907 Convention, as well as in Article 8 of the 1954 Hague Convention and Article 13 of the annexed Regulation. In the Netherlands, the identification of immovable cultural property to fall under the special protection regime of the Conventions was done in cooperation between the then Ministry of Culture, Social Wellbeing and Recreation (now: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science) and the then National Service for Monument Care (now RACM).In first instances some 100 monuments were granted special protection and were marked with the symbol of the "Blue Shield"".
There is no mention here of a "Register" when marking buildings with a Blue Shield (nor is there in the "What we do" of the Blue shield Web site). This US training exercise regarding the "Blue shield" also makes no mention of any register. The example of Iraq (mis)using the sign at Ctesiphon shows that "visibility" of the sign and determination that the rules were being followed properly are the only issues (i.e no need to refer to a "Register") http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-10iraqenl.html
So where does the "Register" come in? Because the basic provisions were not considered strong enough in all cases "Chapter II [Articles 8-11] of the 1954 Hague Convention introduces and regulates the concept of "Special Protection". Under this UNESCO, after consulting all High Contracting Parties, may place on a special list at the request of the state concerned, a limited
number of temporary refuges or shelters for movable cultural property, and also "centres containing monuments and other immovable property of very great importance"
, subject to the defending State being both able and willing to demilitarize the location and its surroundings."
See the 1954 convention - http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
The 1994 WHC in Phuket ( http://whc.unesco.org/archive/94-3-f12.htm
) discussed further the concept of "Special Protection" and states inter alia "Such refuges are listed in the "International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection" and may be marked by a triple use of the emblem. The above US training exercise contains a paragraph on the use of this "Triple" shield marker to demonstrate "Special Protection".
It also states unambiguously that "To date, only one monumental complex, the whole of the territory of the Vatican City State, has been entered in the Register."
This confirms the document dated 2000 referred to in an earlier post on this forum thread. i.e as late as 2000 only Vatican was on the International Register as a monument (rather than as a refuge). A complexity is that the first document uses the phrase "special protection" in relation to ALL the blue shield identified locations. However, both the context and the use of lower case letters (I.e not a proper noun) indicate to me that this is NOT the same as the particular "Special Protection" offered by the "Register" over and above the Blue Shield alone
Unfortunately even that isn't the end of the matter! Following the wars in Yugoslavia it was recognised that the existing conventions/protocols were not sufficient and, in 1999 "it was decided to adopt a new supplementary legal instrument to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, in the form of an Additional Protocol, named the Second Protocol (the original 1954 Protocol being renamed the First Protocol). Chapter 3 (of this protocol) creates a new category of 'Exceptional Protection' for the most important sites, monuments and institutions. This will be an international designation publicised in advance (rather along the lines of the World Heritage List under the 1972 World Heritage Convention)"
). Note that it states this WILL be an "international designation" and, coming in 1999, must be separate from the "Register" which was being referred to in 1994 and goes back to the 1954 Convention. As yet I have been unable to
a. find any examples of sites which have been given this designation
b. establish the relationship between "Exceptional Protection" and the "Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection"
Can anyone take this further?