Intangible Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: An International Law Perspective

Résumé 0

This thesis investigates the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage (‘ICH’) under international law in armed conflict, addressing the seeming gap in existing legal frameworks. In general usage within international law, the term ‘cultural heritage’ is understood to comprise tangible as well as intangible cultural heritage. This holistic vision quickly dissipates where concrete legal protections are concerned, with entirely separate treaty regimes governing the protection of different forms of cultural heritage. One consequence of this is that ICH has no direct protections in armed conflict, since existing rules of international humanitarian law were crafted mainly with tangible cultural heritage in mind. While the rapid uptake of the first ICH treaty, the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, has gone some way towards building a robust legal framework for ICH, this treaty does not explicitly address armed conflict, nor have its broadly worded obligations been interpreted with sufficient specificity in such contexts. This disjuncture raises two pivotal questions: why international law remains silent on ICH in conflict and whether this silence puts ICH at risk. The thesis employs a dual approach. Initially, it explores the historical and political context that led to the unequal development of protections for tangible and intangible cultural heritage. It argues that geopolitical and gendered biases have delayed the recognition and integration of ICH within international law, including within domains relevant to armed conflict. Subsequently, the thesis seeks to synthesise existing rules of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law, and aspects of transitional justice with safeguarding obligations under the ICH Convention to demonstrate that there is potential for a more inclusive reading of the law. The thesis makes the case that the lack of direct protections need not be determinative, since a coherent integration of ICH concerns into these domains can establish the basis for more effectively safeguarding ICH in situations of conflict.