Paras Shah: Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity.
Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war.
This is the Just Security Podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.
Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty.
Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic’s Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative.
Paras: Hi, Bonnie, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for joining us today.
Bonnie Docherty: Thanks for having me, Paris.
Paras: I want to start with a definition question because when I think of the idea of cultural heritage, I often think of places like libraries and museums. But as you write in your report for Human Rights Watch on the Harvard International Human Rights Clinic, there's a lot more to the idea. When we think about cultural heritage, what are we talking about?
Bonnie: Cultural heritage show is a term that should be really understood broadly. And we, in our interpretation, came up with it from a combination of conversations with experts and from legal analysis. And we understood it to include things ranging from architectural, to historical, to religious significance, such as places of worship to historical homes. We also included public spaces, like places of worship and things that like you mentioned, that could contain cultural heritage, like museums and archives, but also that are significant buildings in themselves. They cut across time, whether it's archaeological sites or modern architecture, and can be of global or local significance. And the last thing I'd say is one thing that's common across cultural heritage is that it is something that people feel a connection to, and consider something they might pass across generations from one generation to the next.
Paras: So these are places that are deeply important to people's cultures, to their sense of identities, to their sense of who they are. And they're often targeted during armed conflict. And one dimension of that is the role of explosive weapons. So what have you documented in your research about how explosive weapons in particular are harming and damaging cultural heritage?
Bonnie: So explosive weapons are weapons that could include rockets or missiles, or artillery shells or aerial bombs. And they're particularly dangerous when used in populated areas. So in our report, we documented significant harm to cultural heritage sites. They also damage of course, kill civilians and cause infrastructure damage, but we're focused on the cultural heritage harm. So for example, Israeli forces damaged the great Omari mosque in Gaza, which is the oldest mosque in Gaza, and they crumbled the minaret and walls around it. And they also caused fragmentation damage, pock marking the walls that remained.
There can also be secondary fires. You mentioned in your introduction, the Skovoroda Museum in Ukraine, which burnt the walls to the to the ground. And finally, there can be indirect damage. For example, if a power plant is knocked out, that can interrupt the electricity, which can in turn destroy climate control and security systems.
Paras: As you mentioned, there's a link between harm to cultural heritage and harm to civilians. So help us understand that. What exactly is that link that you've observed in your work?
Bonnie: So cultural heritage damage, it's not just damage to buildings and objects, but it's also damage and harm to civilians. It can cause economic damage, for example, to the to the people that work in a site or gather tourist income for a site and that happened a lot in the Taiz in Yemen, for example, it can also cause displacement among civilians who live in a historic city, for example, it can cause a loss of history. For example, when the Saudi and UAE forces damage the old city of Sinan, Yemen with a bombing attack, they not only caused damage to UNESCO World Heritage Site, but also to a place where civilians had lived for over a millennia. Finally, it can break something that unifies a community. And a classic example of that is the bridge in Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was damaged and destroyed by Croatian forces and the bridge had for centuries since the Ottoman Empire united the Muslim community and the Croat community in Mostar.
Paras: Well, those are so many examples of loss from so many different parts of the world. And there are certainly measures that can be used to protect cultural heritage during armed conflict. What are some of those?
Bonnie: The main example, the cornerstone of international law in this area is the 1954 Hague Convention. And its primary rule in this particular area, is the rule to respect, called general protection, is the rule to respect and protect cultural property from the use of cultural property that might attract targeting, and from the actual acts of hostilities that might be directed at cultural property sites. One difference from what we're talking about in our report is the use of the term cultural property rather than cultural heritage, which focuses more on damage to objects or sites that are of value to all people. And they don't take into account places that are of local significance. It also has the connotation of things that belong to people, and rather that are intrinsically valuable,
There is, however, a military necessity exception. And that exception has been interpreted broadly and used as an excuse to bomb and shell cultural heritage sites, in many cases. There’s also protections in additional protocol, one and two to the Geneva Conventions and which very much echo the 1954 Hague Convention and there is a second protocol to the Hague Convention, which has somewhat higher protections, but is not customary international law and has been ratified by fewer states.
Paras: Okay, so as we've talked about some of the existing international law rules that we have, including from the 1950s talk about cultural property in a narrower way than what we're thinking about, which is cultural heritage. And there is this exception for military necessity, which states can use to interpret very broadly and allow attacks on cultural heritage. In the middle of all this, in the last few years, this new political declaration, the 2022 political declaration for protecting civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has emerged. Bonnie, what is that political declaration? And how is it filling some of these gaps that we're seeing in international law?
Bonnie: The political declaration was finalized in 2022, and is currently endorsed by 87 countries from around the world, including large numbers in Latin America, and many NATO states, and six the top eight arms exporters. It was an initiative of Ireland and was negotiated by a partnership of states, civil society, and international organizations. The goal of the declaration is to better protect civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It does this through a number of commitments that both seek to prevent the harm from explosive weapons and address the harm that has already occurred.
To give you just a couple examples, states commit to restrict or refrain, that’s the language they use, restrict or refrain from the use of explosive weapons when it is expected that it will cause civilian harm, which is many or most cases, and it also recalls on states to assist victims and affected communities from harm that has occurred. So again, it is preventive and remedial.
Paras: So the political declaration has these important goals and this important language, how does that connect to protecting cultural heritage?
Bonnie: So the preamble lays out the direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas on civilians and civilian objects. And it enumerates many of these including, you know, physical harm, psychological harm, damage to infrastructure, damage to the environment, and so forth. But among these, it mentions damage and destruction to cultural heritage, and it says that it exacerbates civilian suffering. So it suggests from the very beginning that cultural heritage should be something that should be taken into account in its other commitments.
Paras: The declaration is an important new tool, but when it comes to international law, often where the rubber hits the road is implementation. So how should states implement the declaration?
Bonnie: So I can think of several ways that it can be used to be implemented to address cultural heritage harm. Many of its different provisions can, but I'll give you a few examples. The first is its commitment to encourage comprehensive training. For examples, troops should be trained on cultural heritage law, and they should be trained on the cultural heritage they might encounter in their area of operation. This will both prevent misidentification of cultural heritage sites, and also motivate troops to better respect cultural heritage, a second area is data collection and sharing. If those cultural heritage damage sites are better documented, it can help preserve sites or recreate them after the fact it can promote accountability, it can also lead to lessons learned that can revise policy. And the third example I would give us on the provision the commitment to humanitarian access. Getting cultural heritage experts in the field as soon as possible is crucial. They can recognize and preserve what is left of a damage site before it is too late. They can also contribute to the data collection I just referred to. And therefore we believe that cultural heritage experts should get the same kind of access rights that other humanitarian aid organizations receive.
Paras: Yeah, some very practical steps that states can implement right now. What are you hoping to see next when it comes to the political declaration and protecting cultural heritage?
Bonnie: For next steps, I highlight four steps. The first is I think it's very important for states, and civil society, and international organizations to all recognize the link between cultural heritage and the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. And this can be done even in the course of current armed conflicts; that they acknowledge that this is an important thing to be considering.
Second, I think it's important to document the harm to cultural heritage in ongoing conflicts as soon as the access is available. This can, again promote accountability and help preserve the remaining cultural heritage as we discussed with data collection earlier. Documentation is crucial to these effects, and needs to be done in a timely fashion.
Third, on a more diplomatic level states and others should encourage other states to endorse the declaration as soon as possible. This will help build the norm and strengthen the protections for civilians. And finally, states that have endorsed the declaration should be implementing the declaration in a timely fashion. And as they do so, they should take cultural heritage protection into account.
Paras: Is there anything else that we haven't touched on that you'd like to add?
Bonnie: I believe the report that we've published, as far as I know, is the first in depth exploration of the link between destruction of cultural heritage and the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the associated political declaration. Many people have documented the destruction of cultural heritage in armed conflict. And many people have looked at the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the benefits of the political declaration.
But so far, the discourse of these two has been largely distinct. And I'm hoping that our report will help bring them together. I hope that the people working on cultural heritage protection will see the political declaration as a new tool in their advocacy, and I hope disarmament advocates will see cultural heritage destruction as another important area to explore. And another reason that states should join the declaration, and also that states who are implementing it will take it into account and implemented in order to not only protect cultural heritage, but to protect civilians, which is the ultimate goal of the declaration.
Paras: Well, Bonnie, thanks so much for joining the show, and for helping us unpack this area that is so often overlooked and so important to people all over the world. We'll be following all these issues at Just Security. Thanks again.
Bonnie: Thanks for having me.
Paras: This episode was hosted and produced by me, Paras Shah, with help from Audrey Balliette.
Special thanks to Bonnie Docherty.
You can read all of Just Security’s coverage of International Humanitarian Law and armed conflicts, including Bonnie’s analysis, on our website. If you enjoyed this episode, please give us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.