By Michael Bruk
DOI: 10.57912/25606929
As the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalates following the initial invasion in 2020, numerous international laws and orders issued by the United Nations have been breached by Russian military forces. From initiating the war to the targeting of civilian centers, Putin’s rampage across Ukrainian territory has devastated local communities. Leaving in the wake, a struggling nation fighting for its right to remain sovereign. Yet, with a tunnel vision focused often on human conflict, the protection of cultural sites and safe-guarded foundations is often overlooked. With protocols in place for the protection of such locations across the globe, Russia’s blatant disregard for the preservation of historical landmarks serves as yet another reminder of its ignorance for international law and the necessity of stricter consequences.
Despite Russia’s indifference towards modern global protections, cultural and religious site protections have existed within the international community for over a century. The first forms of international cultural protection originated in the 1907 Hague Convention, which requires parties to an armed conflict to take “all necessary steps'' for the protection of “buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes''. Additionally, further global protections for cultural sites exist within Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” says Mia Swart, a writer for Al Jazeera.
Under international law, Russia’s illicit targeting of cultural sites and historical landmarks represents violations of protocols that warrant additional consequences. UNESCO, has verified damage to over 329 sites across Ukraine since 15 November 2023, with 125 being religious sites, 143 buildings of historical and/or artistic interest, 28 museums, 19 monuments, 13 libraries, and 1 historical archive.
Recently, a global campaign for the protection of cultural and historical sites has influenced international courts to begin prosecuting the destruction of cultural sites in violation of international law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently witnessed the first conviction of such crimes in the 2016 case of Ahmad Al-Faqu Al-Mahdi. In this case, the member of Ansar al-Dine (an al-Qaeda-connected entity) was convicted under international law for the destruction of religious and historic sites in Timbuktu. Yet despite the collective action recognizing the importance of landmark preservation in global law, the promotion of these ideals has fallen far behind in the Russian and Ukrainian conflict.
Among the damaged sites, two of the most threatened are the Sophia Cathedral, in Kyiv, and the Medieval Center, in Lviv, both listed by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites central to Ukraine’s culture and history. Described as "a masterpiece of human creative genius," according to UNESCO, each site holds a valuable piece of Ukrainian culture that may be forever destroyed through violent attacks if proper preservation tactics are not employed. Joining the port city of Odessa on the list, these three sites have been listed as endangered to deter Russian attacks, yet, without means of enforcement within the international community, true progression of preservation cannot exist.
While Russia’s actions may be explicitly breaking international regulations, its security council and superpower status have prevented explicit targeting of its actions through the UN. However, it is not the only major power to have made such threats. Cultural destruction as a weapon of war is not a new concept to the world. In2020, similar accusations were made by President Donald Trump to Iranian government officials regarding important cultural sites. Following the assassination of Iranian official Qassem Soleimani, then-president Trump threatened to destroy parts of Iran( including notable cultural and historical sites), if Tehran retaliated. In this scenario, the United States (a major superpower and permanent member of the Security Council), threatened to circumvent international law-- destroying important cultural sites as a means of retaliation.
According to Professor Mark Drumbl of International Law at Washington and Lee University, the statements of action made by former-US President Donald Trump were not only “forbidden under various branches of law” but also “amount[ed] to a war crime.” Yet the difference between this situation with the United States and Iran and the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the extent to which the conflicts escalated and the overall international reaction to protect cultural sites. While Russia has continued its aggression with limited repercussions, Donald Trump was ostracized by the international community and even his own military government. In the case of Trump’s threats of destruction, neither the Pentagon nor the US’s global allies backed the threats made, opting to instead distance themselves or even call out the president on his words. On the other hand, Russia’s government and foreign allies have continued to support its catastrophic rampaging of Ukrainian sites through military, weapons, or financial backing across the international stage.
Overall, despite clearly breaking international law with the destruction of Ukrainian cultural sites, the Russian government has had virtually no accountability for its actions as it continues to devastate centuries of history within the Eastern European nation. To create meaningful change the American government's position should prioritize condemning violations of international law, supporting accountability measures, promoting preservation efforts, engaging in diplomatic initiatives, upholding international norms, and emphasizing humanitarian concerns related to the protection of cultural and historical sites in Ukrainian conflict zones.
Comments