THE LIMITS OF LEGAL ARCHITECTURE: HOW TEXTUAL DEFICIENCIES AND POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS INTERACT TO DEFEAT CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION IN ARMED CONFLICT
Keywords:
Cultural Heritage, Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law, ICC, Hague Convention, War Crimes, Jus Cogens, Accountability, Structural deficiencyAbstract
Cultural heritage destruction in armed conflict is not incidental to war it is frequently a deliberate strategy of identity erasure and ideological domination. Despite a substantial body of international law comprising the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and dedicated United Nations Security Council resolutions, systematic destruction continues across Syria, Ukraine, Mali, and Iraq with near-zero criminal accountability. This article argues that these failures arise not from political will deficits alo.ne, nor from legal inadequacy in isolation, but from the interaction between specific textual deficiencies that create exploitation surfaces and the political actors who predictably use them. Three compounding deficits a consent-based jurisdictional architecture that excludes the majority of modern perpetrators by design, the absence of legally binding proactive mechanisms leaving protection entirely reactive, and a prosecutorial framework that structurally subordinates cultural crimes to geopolitical calculation interact and mutually reinforce one another in ways that make accountability for cultural destruction exceptional rather than routine. Through doctrinal analysis of primary instruments and critical examination of four case studies, including the landmark ICC conviction in Prosecutor v Al Mahdi, this article demonstrates that incremental reform cannot resolve these deficits at the pace demanded by modern asymmetric conflict, and proposes three structural interventions targeting the interaction between textual gaps and political exploitation.
References
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 14 May 1954, entered into force 7 August 1956) 249 UNTS 215.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (adopted 26 March 1999, entered into force 9 March 2004) 2253 UNTS 172.
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (adopted 17 October 2003, entered into force 20 April 2006) 2368 UNTS 3.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA Res 61/295 (13 September 2007) UN Doc A/RES/61/295.
### Cases
Kononov v Latvia App No 36376/04 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 17 May 2010).
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226.
Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Judgment and Sentence) ICC-01/12-01/15-171 (ICC Trial Chamber VIII, 27 September 2016).
Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Reparations Order) ICC-01/12-01/15-236 (ICC Trial Chamber VIII, 17 August 2017).
Prosecutor v Anwar Raslan (Judgment) Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, 3 StE 4/21-4 (13 January 2022).
Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez (Judgment) IT-95-14/2-T (ICTY Trial Chamber, 26 February 2001).
Prosecutor v Prlić and Others (Judgment) IT-04-74-T (ICTY Trial Chamber III, 29 May 2013).
Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) IT-01-42-T (ICTY Trial Chamber II, 31 January 2005).
Pueblo Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku v Ecuador (Merits and Reparations) IACtHR Series C No 245 (27 June 2012).
### Books
Henckaerts J-M and Doswald-Beck L, *Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules* (ICRC and Cambridge University Press 2005).
Lemkin R, *Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress* (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1944).
Lostal M, *International Cultural Heritage Law in Armed Conflict: Case Studies of Syria, Libya, Mali, the Invasion of Iraq, and the Buddhas of Bamiyan* (Cambridge University Press 2017).
O’Keefe PJ, *Commentary on the 1970 UNESCO Convention* (2nd edn, Institute of Art and Law 2007).
O’Keefe R, *The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict* (Cambridge University Press 2006).
Prott LV and O’Keefe PJ, *Law and the Cultural Heritage, Volume 3: Movement* (Butterworths 1989).
Schabas WA, *Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes* (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2009).
van Woudenberg N and Lijnzaad L (eds), *Protecting Cultural Property in Armed Conflict: An Insight into the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict* (Martinus Nijhoff 2010).
### Book Chapters and Journal Articles
Evans MD, ‘The Optional Protocol: More than a Panacea?’ in Rachel Murray (ed), *The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture* (Oxford University Press 2011) 19–38.
Francioni F, ‘The Human Dimension of International Cultural Heritage Law: An Introduction’ (2011) 22(1) *European Journal of International Law* 9–16.
Gerstenblith P, ‘The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Crime Against Property or a Crime Against People?’ (2016) 15 *John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law* 336.
Heinsch R and Sanjanwala K, ‘Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law through Domestic Implementation’ in Heike Krieger (ed), *The Diversity of International Law* (Brill Nijhoff 2019).
Lenzerini F, ‘Cultural Rights as Human Rights’ in Francesco Francioni and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (eds), *The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law* (Oxford University Press 2016) 45–72.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment No 21: Right of Everyone to Take Part in Cultural Life (Art 15, para 1(a) of the Covenant)’ (21 December 2009) UN Doc E/C.12/GC/21.
Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No 23: The Rights of Minorities (Art 27)’ (8 April 1994) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5.
International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on the Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens)’ in *Report of the International Law Commission: Seventy-Third Session* (2022) UN Doc A/77/10.
ICC Assembly of States Parties, ‘The States Parties to the Rome Statute’ (ICC) https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties accessed 11 June 2026.
ICC Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim AA Khan KC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Receipt of Referrals from 39 States Parties and the Opening of an Investigation’ (2 March 2022) https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-situation-ukraine accessed 11 June 2026.
ICC, ‘Situation in Ukraine: ICC Judges Issue Arrest Warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova’ (Press Release ICC-CPI-20230317-PR1, 17 March 2023) https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and accessed 11 June 2026.
Secretary-General’s Bulletin, ‘Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law’ (6 August 1999) UN Doc ST/SGB/1999/13.
UN Security Council Res 2199 (12 February 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2199.
UN Security Council Res 2347 (24 March 2017) UN Doc S/RES/2347.
UN Security Council, Draft Resolution S/2014/348 (22 May 2014).
UN Press Release, ‘Security Council Fails to Adopt Draft Resolution Referring Situation in Syria to International Criminal Court’ (22 May 2014) UN Doc SC/11407.
ALIPH (International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas), ‘Ukraine Emergency Response’ (ALIPH, 2022–24) https://www.aliph-foundation.org/en/cases/ukraine accessed 11 June 2026.
Boylan PJ, *Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention of 1954)* (UNESCO 1993) CLT-93/WS/12.
UNESCO, ‘Damaged Cultural Sites in Ukraine Verified by UNESCO’ (UNESCO 2024) https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco accessed 11 June 2026.
UNESCO, ‘States Parties to the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954’ https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/states-parties-1999-second-protocol-hague-convention-1954 accessed 11 June 2026.
UNESCO, ‘Ukraine Emergency: UNESCO’s Response’ (UNESCO 2023) https://www.unesco.org/en/emergencies/ukraine accessed 11 June 2026.
UNESCO and Google Arts & Culture, ‘Safeguarding Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online’ (2022) https://artsandculture.google.com/project/ukraine accessed 11 June 2026.
UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 39 COM 7A.27, *State of Conservation of the Ancient City of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)* (2015) https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6293 accessed 11 June 2026.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rajishkha KMS (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the International Journal of Law, Culture & Society (IJLCS) the right of first publication. All published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited. Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is original and does not infringe the rights of others.
