This is one of the legal issues that I will discuss in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’
See also the ‘Cultural Genocide’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk, on which I argue that, while excluded from the Genocide Convention, the concept of ‘Cultural Genocide’ is a useful tool for courts to link the destruction of cultural heritage with:
(i) the Crime of Genocide; and
(ii) Crimes against Humanity.
Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places.
Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want.
Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others, and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction – ‘Genocide’.
Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:
(i) the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
(ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and
(iii) Genocide.
The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore an offence against humanity as a whole.
My copy of ‘Making Amends for Historic Wrongs – Reparative Justice and the Problem of the Past’ (2025) (OUP) by Mayo Moran arrived last week, and forms part of the research reading for my book, which I am on schedule to complete by the end of June this year.
The public mood about ‘Reparative Justice’ which influences policy and political decison-making is changing. On page 2 of her book Mayo Moran states:
‘There is nothing new about the pursuit of justice after atrocity. In the aftermath of mass violence and abuse, survivors typically sought rectification, amassing evidence and pleading their cases to political leaders and sometimes even to courts. But they almost always failed. Political leaders were largely unmoved by their pleas, and courts pointed to numerous barriers and told them to go away. … However, beginning in the late 1980s, that ground started to shift. …. After many decades of inertia, the tide has discernibly turned in favour of return … Courts and other bodies are also showing themselves to be far more supportive of return [i.e. of cultural artefacts]. … For the purposes of the discussion here, the salient fact is that the meaning of the past and its significance as a matter of justice is now at the forefront of public debate, even when that significance is being disputed.’
The scope and embrace of the Principles of ‘Reparative Justice’, extend far beyond the return of cultural artefacts, and include civil claims for compensation as a result of wrongs done during an illegal war of aggression, or period of occupation.