ISIS has been notoriously known for the intentional destruction of the cultural property located in areas devastated by the Syrian Civil War. The international community, through the United Nations General Assembly, Security Council and the UNESCO has condemned the wanton destruction and plunder of museums and archeological sites. The destruction of antiquities and cultural property in general during an armed conflict constitutes a crime under international criminal law, according to the interpretation of the obligations of the signatory states of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its additional protocols by international tribunals.Corollary to the destruction of monuments with rich archeological significance is looting and plundering of smaller, moveable artifacts or elements of these monuments that can be separated from the main corpus of the said monument, which are eventually channeled into the international black market. The proceeds of these illegal transactions are considered, not with out objections, as funding source of ISIS operations. This article argues that the looting of cultural property constitutes a war crime under CIL. In 1999 the Second Protocol to the 1954 Convention prescribed individual culpability for violations regarding theft, pillage and misappropriation of cultural property. However, neither Syria nor Iraq have ratified the protocol, although Syria signed it in 1999. The examined sources of law include the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the ICTY as well as other well-known cases on the general issue of the principle of legality under international criminal law and the specific issue of the protection of cultural property. The focal point of the analysis is the synonymous terms “plunder”, “pillage” and “loot.” Plundering and pillaging property (not necessarily cultural property), according to Black’s Law Dictionary, entails “the forcible taking of private property by an invading or conquering army from the enemy’s subjects.” However, with cultural property, such forcible taking of property is not always the case. There are two causes for concern: 1) Undiscovered artifacts may not constitute property. 2) Even if they did, there is nothing forceful in digging an artifact out of the ground. I argue that under the definition of cultural property of the 1954 Convention a form of property can be construed to tie undiscovered artifacts to their locations. I also argue that through examination of Nuremberg and ICTY jurisprudence the notion of forcefulness is interpreted broadly. If pillaging uninhabited houses or taking abandoned cars is considered pillage, then so can looting artifacts from the ground. Illegal excavations are not confined only in ISIS control territories. Regarding individual culpability, members of the Syrian Military can be prosecuted either for directly conducting illegal excavations or for failure to protect the cultural property under their responsibility. The members of the all other fighting factions (including ISIS) can be prosecuted for plundering cultural property themselves. Especially for ISIS, arguably its members can additionally be prosecuted for failing to protect cultural property because its organized structure and functioning system of administration could allow ISIS to assume such responsibilities. Most importantly, though, because of the vicarious commander’s responsibility, ISIS leadership can be held liable for the conduct of the forces under its command. The structure and organization of ISIS, especially on cultural artifacts’ looting, is demonstrated by “official” ISIS documents, excavation and trading permits, as well as tax receipts, documenting ISIS antiquities-related operations.