{"id":4473,"date":"2020-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-07-21T12:31:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.voelkerrechtsblog.org\/articles\/turning-hagia-sophia-into-a-mosque-again\/"},"modified":"2020-12-09T12:03:28","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T11:03:28","slug":"turning-hagia-sophia-into-a-mosque-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/turning-hagia-sophia-into-a-mosque-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque (again)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The announcement by Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan to change the status of Hagia Sophia and to turn it into a Mosque last Friday, 10 July 2020, has provoked a worldwide outcry. With a ruling of\u00a02 July 2020, published also on Friday, 10 July 2020 (No 2020\/2595<\/a>), the Council of State, Turkey’s highest administrative court,\u00a0invalidated the 1934\u00a0transformation of Hagia Sophia from a Mosque into a museum. On the day the court ruling was released, the Turkish President signed\u00a0decree no 2729<\/a> opening the UNESCO world heritage site \u2013 once again \u2013 to Muslim worshipers. Consequently, Hagia Sophia ceases to be a public museum, becomes a Mosque again, and the inaugurating Friday prayers will take place on 24 July 2020<\/a>, coinciding with the 97th<\/sup> anniversary of the conclusion of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This is yet again a historic change in the long history of Hagia Sophia, which was built in 537 AD on the orders of emperor Justinian\u00a0I, constituting once the world\u2019s largest church. Following the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II in 1453, it was immediately converted into a Mosque. The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk, transformed Hagia Sophia some 500 years later on 24 November 1934<\/a> into a museum. As a museum, it lasted from 1 February 1935 until 10 July 2020. This status change met worldwide opposition. For instance, Pope Francis said that he is \u201cvery saddened<\/a>\u201d by this decision, Greek\u2019s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis \u201ccondemned<\/a>\u201d it, and also UNESCO expressed<\/a> its \u201cdeep regret\u201d, calling upon the Turkish authorities \u201cto initiate dialogue without delay\u201d and announcing that \u201cthe state of conservation [\u2026] will be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its next session\u201d. This contribution seeks to explore whether international law has a role to play in this incident.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the UNESCO did not only regret the decision made, but also called on Turkey to \u201cabide by its \u2018legal commitments and obligations<\/a>\u2019\u201d stemming from the ratification of the World Heritage Convention in 1983 in general and the listing of Hagia Sophia as a World Heritage Site in particular. UNESCO\u2019s Director-General, Audrey Azoulay<\/a>particularly highlighted Hagia Sophia\u2019s \u201cstatus as a museum [which] reflects the universal nature of its heritage and makes it a powerful symbol for dialogue.\u201d It has been admitted to the World Heritage List as part of the \u201cHistoric Areas of Istanbul\u201d in December 1985.<\/a> Yet, in a 2019 Report on a Joint UNESCO WHC and ICOMOS Advisory mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul<\/a>, the currently ongoing reconstruction of the adjacent 19th<\/sup> century Ottoman Madrasa (place of Islamic higher learning) was applauded and it was acknowledged as \u201ca building in use rather than a museum or monument\u201d. And indeed, in an open letter about the status of Hagia Sophia<\/a>, scholars of Byzantine and Ottoman art state that \u201cin a certain sense, Hagia Sophia is currently functioning as both a museum and a mosque\u201d as \u201c[s]ince 2016, Hagia Sophia has been served by a full-time imam, the call to prayer has sounded from the minarets, and Qur\u2019anic readings and prayers have taken place within during the annual observation of Laylat al-Qadr [the most important festive night during Ramadan].\u201d<\/p>\n

This provokes to take a closer look at the selection criteria according to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention<\/a> which have led to the listing of the \u201cHistoric Areas of Istanbul\u201d in general and Hagia Sophia in particular. Criterion (i)<\/a> highlights that \u201c[t]he Historic Areas of Istanbul include monuments recognized as unique architectural masterpieces of Byzantine and Ottoman periods\u201d and explicitly refers to Hagia Sophia as an example, mentioning its design by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus in 532\u2013537. Criterion (ii)<\/a>emphasizes that \u201c[t]hroughout history the monuments in Istanbul have exerted considerable influence on the development of architecture, monumental arts and the organization of space, both in Europe and the Near East.\u201d Criterion (ii) further specifies this, again by pointing to Hagia Sophia, which \u201cbecame a model for an entire family of churches and later mosques, and the mosaics of the palaces and churches of Constantinople influenced both Eastern and Western art.\u201d The acceptance of Hagia Sophia as a World Heritage Site, thus, implicitly refers to the very specific history of Hagia Sophia, being first object of desire and pray, and then serving somehow the purpose of unification and tolerance between world religions. Yet, the listing must not be reduced to a specific function or use as for the inclusion in the World Heritage List at least one criteria must be met.<\/p>\n

According to UNESCO<\/a>, however, \u201c[a]ny modification requires prior notification by the State concerned to UNESCO and then, if necessary, examination by the World Heritage Committee.\u201d UNESCO\u2019s Assistant Director-General for Culture, Ernesto Ottone<\/a>, specified that \u201c[i]t is important to avoid any implementing measure [\u2026] that would affect physical access to the site, the structure of the buildings, the site\u2019s moveable property, or the site\u2019s management\u201d.<\/p>\n

The law, however, seems not to be fully supportive of such an assessment. Article 4 of the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention, WHC, 1037 UNTS 151) stipulates that each State Party \u201crecognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.\u201d Article 5 WHC obliges State Parties \u201c[t]o ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory\u201d. This includes no concrete provision on how to use a World Heritage Site, except of course any usage being detrimental to its preservation. And indeed, other inscribed sites, such as the Notre-Dame de Paris or the Cologne Cathedral like many other churches on the World Heritage List, are open to worshipers. Article 6 WHC, finally, explicitly mentions the respect of the \u201csovereignty of the States on whose territory\u201d the cultural heritage is situated. Precisely to Turkey\u2019s sovereignty, also Erdo\u011fan has appealed when he announced his decision to inaugurate the Mosque Hagia Sophia with prayers on 24 July 2020. Thus, prima vista the announced status change of Hagia Sophia seems not to be forbidden by international heritage law<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Even if we would come to conclude that the change of status is forbidden, the legal sanctions of the World Heritage Convention seem to be rather toothless. According to Article 11 para 4 WHC, the World Heritage Committee runs a \u201cList of World Heritage in Danger\u201d. Subject to a listing on this red list, however, is only property a) which is already listed as world heritage, b) \u201cfor the conservation of which major operations are necessary\u201d and also c) \u201cfor which assistance has been requested under this Convention\u201d. The last criterion is actually not given in our case, as Turkey did not request any support. However, the Committee has \u2013 in a somewhat creative interpretative fashion \u2013 already disregarded c) in earlier decisions as for instance when listing the \u201cHistoric Centre of Vienna<\/a>\u201d in 2017 and arguably this little sanctioning tool has become a case of \u201cother subsequent practice\u201d according to Article 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. ILC Special Rapporteur Georg Nolte<\/a> has specified that other subsequent practice \u201cas a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32 [VCLT] consists of conduct by one or more parties in the application of the treaty, after its conclusion\u201d. As the contracting parties to the WHC did not protest against prior decisions, the extension of the mandate by the decision of the WHC can arguably be attributed to them. In case of \u201curgent need\u201d, as the last sentence of para 4 explains, the Committee \u201cmay at any time [\u2026] make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicize such entry immediately\u201d.<\/p>\n

Besides that, what still remains as a consequence is the loss of reputation coming with a listing as an endangered site. However, isn\u2019t the turmoil that would come with such a listing precisely the aim of the Turkish President? Beyond these doubts, would the next step after the red list, the withdrawal of the world heritage status, be actually an appropriate legal sanction? Does the Hagia Sophia cease to be a world heritage, because of its envisaged use as a Mosque? Or is the architectural masterpiece \u2013 given the fact that its physical status remains intact (and Christian traces, such as Jesus Christ Pantocrator<\/em> are not destructed) \u2013 not still a world heritage within the listed \u201cHistoric Areas of Istanbul\u201d? In other words, the sanction of delisting or rather excluding Hagia Sophia from the world heritage \u201cHistoric Areas of Istanbul\u201d would be a defeat for both sites. Turkey would face a loss of reputation and UNESCO would lose its protection status concerning Hagia Sophia.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Myrabella \/ Wikimedia Commons \/ CC BY-SA 3.0<\/p><\/div>\n

After all, it seems that international law in the form of the World Heritage Convention does not forbid the announced change of status or holds only weak sanctions ready. Technically speaking, the change of status is \u2013 if we dare to believe the statement by the High Board of Religious Affairs on Hagia Sophia Mosque<\/a> \u2013 only a mere reduction of opening hours as Hagia Sophia shall remain open for visitors when no prayers take place. It is sad, indeed, that Erdo\u011fan has finally taken this long impending<\/a> step. However, the international community is arguably better advised not to call for legal consequences as the ground for such measures is weak. Moreover, in the above mentioned open letter about the status of Hagia Sophia<\/a>, scholars of Byzantine and Ottoman art and culture highlight that in their opinion \u201cthe central question is not, \u2018Should Hagia Sophia be a museum or a mosque?\u2019 The central question is rather, \u2018How can we best care for Hagia Sophia?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite this rather sober finding, the public concern following the decision is nevertheless understandable and also appropriate in the face of the symbolic nature of this move. The museum Hagia Sophia stood for the unity, tolerance and understanding of the European Christian world and the Muslim world of the Middle East. The change of status, so it seems at least, is precisely to the detriment of this. If the change of status, however, has also implications for the physical preservation of Hagia Sophia, \u00a0legal obligations would stand against such a decline in protection. What remains to be seen is how the scheduled \u201cconversion process\u201d to make the future Mosque suitable for Islamic prayers unfolds. For instance, the implementation of the Islamic reservation against the depiction of living beings (especially within places for prayer) is \u2013 despite the calming 16 July 2020 statement by the High Board of Religious Affairs on Hagia Sophia Mosque<\/a> which is now in charge speaking of \u201ccurtained or blackened [pictures] during prayers by means of utilizing appropriate methods\u201d \u2013 so far largely uncertain. More practical and monetary concerns relate to the former 100 Turkish Liras entry fee, which was due for visiting the museum. If the fee won\u2019t be kept for tourists either<\/a>, the free entry of 3,7 million tourists visiting Hagia Sophia in 2019 will constitute quite a detrimental financial loss, which might have an impact on expensive conservation practice.<\/p>\n

These are speculations. What is clear, however, is that international law obligations would certainly stand against a potential reluctance of care in the preservation of one of the most important objects of our common heritage. Beyond that and despite the fact that the status change seems not to be forbidden by international law, this move nevertheless reveals a backward-looking international policy, praising national sovereignty and prioritizing it over international cooperation. In this vein, this step squares in a way with the overall image of Erdo\u011fan\u2019s foreign policy. Among of which the deplorable illegal invasion in Syria<\/a> ironically labelled \u201cOperation Peace Spring\u201d or his rather questionable energy \u201cpolicy\u201d in the Eastern Mediterranean<\/a> stand out. In that respect, turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque again is another brick falling out of the unifying wall between Europe, Turkey, and the international community.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lando Kirchmair is Deputy Professor for National and International Public Law with a focus on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Department of Social Sciences and Public Affairs, Bundeswehr University Munich, and Co-PI, European Constitutional Court Network project, Faculty of Law, University of Salzburg. He is grateful for helpful comments from Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Robert Langer and Cornelia Sch\u00e4ffer.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Cite as: Lando Kirchmair<\/em>, “Turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque (again) –\u00a0Has international law anything to say about that?”, V\u00f6lkerrechtsblog<\/em>, 21 July 2020, doi: 10.17176\/20200721-235451-0<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The announcement by Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan to change the status of Hagia Sophia and to turn it into a Mosque last Friday, 10 July 2020, has provoked a worldwide outcry. With a ruling of\u00a02 July 2020, published also on Friday, 10 July 2020 (No 2020\/2595), the Council of State, Turkey’s highest administrative court,\u00a0invalidated the 1934\u00a0transformation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[],"authors":[5946],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-4473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","authors-lando-kirchmair","article-categories-article"],"acf":{"subline":"Has international law anything to say about that?"},"meta_box":{"doi":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4473"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=4473"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=4473"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=4473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}