How to Paint Destruction

The article analyzes the actions of occupation of the territory of the Republic of Artsakh by Azerbaijan following the 44-day war and the ongoing destruction of cultural heritage within the context of grave crimes against humanity (genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, aggression, war crimes). It examines them under the clauses of the Rome Statute and other international regulations regarding the protection of cultural heritage in times of war and in occupied territories. Additionally, it identifies the grounds according to which the destruction of the cultural heritage of the people of Artsakh can serve as a basis and evidence of the "violent" aspect of the displacement of Artsakh Armenians. The article presents the processes of destruction of Artsakh's tangible and intangible heritage or suspension of cultural practices as examples of violations of the fundamental right to culture of Artsakh Armenians and serious crimes against humanity. The paper attempts to link the policy processes of destroying the cultural heritage of Artsakh, implemented at the state level by Azerbaijani authorities, with the actions of forced displacement, considering them as mechanisms for the implementation of a unified anti-Armenian policy within the framework of the broad concept of cultural heritage. As a result of the study conducted, having analyzed the clauses of the Rome Statute and a number of international treaties regarding displacement and destruction of heritage, as well as the ongoing destruction of cultural heritage of Artsakh by Azerbaijan, we can claim that systematic destruction of the values of both tangible and intangible heritage of Artsakh and the elements of identity related thereto, as well as the processes of forced displacement of a part of Artsakh Armenians following the 44-day war, creating an atmosphere of threat and total distrust, are grave crimes against humanity (including genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, acts of aggression, war crimes, and actions humiliating human dignity) and factors contributing to the total depopulation of Artsakh Armenians. The overarching goal of the policy of systematic destruction of Artsakh's cultural heritage by Azerbaijan was not only the conquest of the territory but also the change of the ethnic composition of the territory and the expulsion of the people of Artsakh from their homeland. Moreover, we can claim that under the Rome Statute and other international regulations, the destruction of the cultural heritage of the people of Artsakh can serve as a basis and evidence of the "violent" aspect of displacement of Artsakh Armenians. The right to culture of Artsakh Armenians, including the right to communicate, enjoy, and pass on the heritage to the generations, was undermined by the forced displacement and destruction of the cultural heritage. Taking into consideration the significance of cultural heritage in terms of collectivity as well, the great role it played in ensuring the identity and social unity of Artsakh Armenians and their loss as a result of displacement, we can affirm that as a result of the processes mentioned, Artsakh Armenians were deprived of their natural right to recreate and ensure the continuity of their identity.

The Aftermath of Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Factoring In Cultural Rights in Post-Conflict Recovery Processes

Conflict over cultural heritage has increasingly become a standard part of war. Today, systematic exploitation, manipulation, attacks, and destruction of cultural heritage by state and non-state actors form part of most violent conflicts across the world. Such acts are often intentional and based on well-planned strategies for inflicting harm on groups of people and communities. With this increasing awareness of the role cultural heritage plays in war, scholars and practitioners have progressed from seeing conflict-related destruction of cultural heritage as a cultural tragedy to understanding it as a vital national security issue. There is also a shift from the desire to protect cultural property for its own sake to viewing its protection as connected to broader agendas of peace and security. Concerns about cultural heritage have thus migrated beyond the cultural sphere to worries about the protection of civilians, the financing of terrorism, societal resilience, post-conflict reconciliation, hybrid warfare, and the geopolitics of territorial conflicts. This volume seeks to deepen public understanding of the evolving nexus between cultural heritage and security in the twenty-first century. Drawing on a variety of disciplines and perspectives, the chapters in this volume examine a complex set of relationships between the deliberate destruction and misuse of cultural heritage in times of conflict, on the one hand, and basic societal values, legal principles, and national security, on the other.

Intentional destruction of cultural heritage by extremist non-State actors—be it by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, or Boko Haram in Nigeria—is on the rise. Using the destruction of cultural heritage in Mali in 2012–13 as a case study, this chapter argues that the creation of the self-proclaimed independent State of ‘Azawad’ in Mali became a ‘test case’ for the United Nations’ will and capacity to prevent further destruction of world cultural heritage, and it also analyzes the legal foundation of the 2013 French military Operation Serval in Mali. It also discusses the responsibility to protect as applied to cultural heritage, evaluates the subsequent deployment of the United Nations MINUSMA, and evaluates the mandate given by UN Security Council Resolution 2100 (2013), the first in UN history that included comprehensive protection of cultural and historical sites as a task of a UN peacekeeping operation. Therefore, the chapter reviews critically not only the mandate of MINUSMA, but also its potential relevance concerning future culture-embedded UN peace missions, and also contributes to the debate of the usefulness of more ‘robust’ cultural protection action by the United Nations.

This article seeks to analyze and explain the UNESCO’s procedures for the protection of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq through comparative method and use of library resources. Cultural heritage in these countries has been always prone to destruction and theft due to armed conflicts. The terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq seek to eradicate the culture and identity of these two countries through destruction of cultural heritage (cultural cleansing) or illicit trade of cultural heritage. UNESCO has focused on combating cultural crimes within a special procedure, known as “Cultural Heritage Regime”, in order to protect the cultural heritage. According to the analysis of the present paper, UNESCO has failed to prevent the destruction of the cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq. However, this organization has been successful in reconstructing cultural heritage of Syria and Iraq. It also has acted successfully in cooperating with relevant institutions in order to confront with cultural crimes. Having regard to the UNESCO’s legal procedure, most of the rules applied to the status of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq are related to the international rules for the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, which include the UNESCO’s 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Event of Armed Conflict and its protocols, as well as customary international humanitarian law. Regarding the declarative procedure, UNESCO has played an important role in alerting the international public opinion in order to protect the cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq.

Located at numerous historical interfaces (i.e. between Eastern and Western Christendom, and between the Ottoman and Habsburg empires), Bosnia and Herzegovina boasts an exquisite cultural heritage, with a rich ethnic and religious diversity. Unlike other Yugoslav countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina was home to a demographic patchwork comprising three principal ethno-national/ethno-religious groups: Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Bosnian Croats (Roman Catholics) and Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox Christians). This proved to be the trigger point for a very aggressive race for territory and ethno-national exclusivism in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia. This, among other things, resulted in the systematic and deliberate destruction of cultural and religious heritage during the 1992–1995 Bosnian War.

Throughout history, destruction and loss of cultural heritage have frequently occurred as a consequence of fanatic iconoclasm or as 'collateral' effects of armed conflicts. The devastation of the great rock sculptures of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by military and para-military forces of the Taliban Government of Afghanistan in March 2001 presents some unprecedented features. The discriminatory intent, reflected in the sheer will to eradicate any cultural manifestation foreign to the Taliban ideology, and the deliberate defiance of the United Nations and international public opinion make this destruction a very dangerous precedent. The authors try to assess the adequacy of international law in dealing with acts of this kind, and to identify gaps as well as relevant principles and rules applicable in the context of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage. They conclude that extreme and discriminatory forms of intentional destruction of cultural heritage of significant value for humankind constitutes a breach of general international law applicable both in peacetime and in the event of armed conflicts, entailing international responsibility of the acting state and the possibility to make recourse to international sanctions against it, as well as criminal liability of the individuals who materially order and/or perform the acts of destruction.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to inform individuals that the looting and destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage was an attack on the rich culture of humanity itself.Design/methodology/approachPublished works, both recent and ranging back to the middle of the twentieth century, such as articles, books, Congressional Bills/Parliamentary Acts, and United Nation reports were examined. By reviewing various pieces of literature and legislation, this paper reveals the long and difficult road to preserving a nation's cultural heritage.FindingsIn the wake of the USA's and coalition's invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq's National Library and Archives, National Museum, and other significant cultural heritage sites were pillaged by looters and thieves. This paper discusses the response by librarians and archivists to the destruction of Iraq's historical collections and the actions taken. The safeguards, which have, over time, developed to preserve a nation's cultural identity, were not enforced during or after the invasion of Iraq. This paper examines a few examples in the twentieth century of nations' repositories that were purposely destroyed.Originality/valueThis paper identifies key pieces of legislation and events that will allow individuals to comprehend to the fullest the danger to libraries and museums from modern warfare.

No Longer Lost in the Wilderness:

Our complicated relationship with our environment is a perennial stimulus to the development of material and immaterial cultural heritage and has contributed substantially to environmental development, It is the reason human beings are such a central element in post-crisis reconstruction, especially in historic cities and around archaeological sites. Ten years of war and crisis in Syria have resulted in the destruction of cultural heritage and in the hearts, minds, and lives of the country’s citizens. The crucial role that reconstruction and recovery of cultural heritage has to play in rebinding war-torn communities and reintegrating Syrians of all religions, nationalities, and political affiliations is clear from a recent survey by the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in Syria, which showed Syrians’ overwhelming rejection of the theft or destruction of cultural heritage – a result with promise for rebuilding social cohesion and cultural heritage in tandem. The accounts by Syrians, inside and outside the country, of their experiences and their attitudes toward cultural heritage presented in this paper offer valuable insight into cultural heritage’s potential role in human-centred post-war reconstruction.

This chapter focuses on the practice of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, which has represented a plague accompanying humanity throughout all phases of its history and has involved many different human communities either as perpetrators or victims. In most instances of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, the target of perpetrators is not the heritage in itself but, rather, the communities and persons for whom the heritage is of special significance. This reveals a clear discriminatory and persecutory intent against the targeted cultural groups, or even against the international community as a whole. As such, intentional destruction of cultural heritage, in addition of being qualified as a war crime, is actually to be considered as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, it also produces notable implications in terms of human rights protection. Protection of cultural heritage against destruction is today a moral and legal imperative representing one of the priorities of the international community. In this respect, two rules of customary international law exist prohibiting intentional destruction of cultural heritage in time of war and in peacetime.

The standard discourse around the destruction of cultural heritage is largely confined to a concern about the physical destruction of monumental, and thus immoveable, objects and is almost exclusively about tangible things. Because conceiving of cultural heritage as being mainly tangible and monumental has a strongly Western flavour this also means that this discourse is imbricated with an “us and them”, West and the rest, flavour. In the current geo-political situation, understanding the destruction of cultural heritage in these terms focuses upon motivations for destruction that are broadly political and/or indicate the absence of acceptable (Western) values. In this article, I argue that the notion of the destruction of cultural heritage should, rather, be focussed on situations where the inherent nature of something as heritage is destroyed. Such a concept might very well include the dynamiting of ancient sites, but my argument is that it is much broader. In order to sustain this argument the article reflects on the inherent nature of heritage, movable and immovable, tangible and intangible. The article then moves on to suggest an alternative vision of the destruction of cultural heritage that is rooted, not in some epochal clash between the West and the rest, but rather in the geo-political movements and legal ordering that have emerged in the post-colonial period.

Throughout history, destruction and loss of cultural heritage have constantly occurred as a consequence of fanatic iconoclasm or as “collateral” effects of armed conflicts. As early as 391 A.D., the Roman Emperor Theodosius ordered the demolition of the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria to obliterate the last refuge of non-Christians. In 1992, Indu extremists were intent on the destruction of the sixteenth century Babri Mosque. 1 In more recent times, the Balkan wars have offered us the desolate spectacle of the devastation of Bosnia’s mosques, libraries, and the ancient city of Dubrovnik. Extensive looting and forced transfer of cultural objects have accompanied almost every war, including the recent Iraqi war. 2 Aerial bombardments during the Second World War and in the more than one hundred armed conflicts that have plagued humanity since 1945 have contributed to the destruction and disappearance of much cultural heritage of great importance for the countries of origin and for humanity as a whole.

In connection with the numerous facts of violations of the special legal regime of historical and cultural lands, in particular, their illegal development, a number of draft laws have been developed, which increase the responsibility for the destruction of immovable cultural heritage and violation of the traditional nature of the environment. The presented work is devoted to the analysis of legislative initiatives enshrined in the draft law No. 4562 «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Strengthening Responsibility for the Destruction of Immovable Cultural Heritage and Violation of the Traditional Nature of the Environment», and the correlation of the provisions of this draft law with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Land Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine «On the Protection of Cultural Heritage». Thus, the draft law is proposed to supplement Art. 197-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine «Unauthorized occupation of a land plot and unauthorized construction» with three new parts regarding the unauthorized construction of buildings or structures: in the historical area of historical settlements (Part 5 of Art. 197-1); on the territory of a historical and cultural reserve, a historical and cultural protected area, a world heritage site or in its buffer zone (Part 6 of Art. 197-1); and the acts provided for by parts five and six of this article, if they are committed repeatedly (Part 7 of Art. 197-1). In addition, it is proposed to determine the type and amount of punishment for these acts. The conducted research shows that the criminal law norms described in Art. 197-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, are able to implement a protective function regarding illegal occupation or unauthorized construction on lands of historical and cultural purposes, and therefore there is no need to adopt the law draft No. 4562 «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Strengthening Responsibility for the destruction of immovable cultural heritage and violation of the traditional character of the environment», which is imperfect in terms of legal drafting methodology. However, a promising direction of scientific research and possible legislative initiatives on the issue under consideration may be the development of measures of criminal legal action against persons who illegally build up the lands on which cultural heritage sites are located.

In this article, I explore the possibility of treating cultural destruction and the destruction of cultural heritage as a genocidal act. My argument proceeds in two stages. I first suggest that we ought to view cultural destruction as a necessary by‐product of genocide and a member of a set of jointly sufficient conditions for genocide. However, to securely establish that cultural destruction and the destruction of cultural heritage ought to be viewed as genocidal acts, we need to additionally show why loss of culture and heritage are significant harms, comparable to other instances of genocide. In light of this, I then propose an account of the harms of cultural destruction that grounds these harms in loss of normative agency and show how destruction of cultural heritage contributes to this. In particular, I argue that cultural heritage can be viewed both as a condition for normative agency and as itself an expression of normative agency.