International law
Assessing the legal obligations of states to protect cultural landscapes and intangible heritage during crises.
This article examines how international law frames state duties to safeguard living cultures, sacred sites, and heritage-rich landscapes amid wars, disasters, and political upheaval, highlighting responsibilities, mechanisms, and practical gaps.
August 06, 2025 - 3 min Read
In modern international law, states bear a duty to protect cultural heritage as a core element of human civilization. This obligation arises from multiple sources, including treaties, customary norms, and the broader edifice of human rights protections. When crises erupt—whether armed conflict, natural catastrophe, or systemic political disruption—the imperative to shield tangible sites, monuments, archival districts, and sacred landscapes becomes both moral obligation and legal obligation. States are expected to undertake risk assessments, implement protective measures, and avoid actions that would harm cultural assets. The legal framework also recognizes the special vulnerability of indigenous and minority cultural expressions, which require heightened sensitivity and inclusive decision-making processes.
Beyond preservation, international law emphasizes the safeguarding of intangible heritage: living traditions, languages, rituals, music, and craft knowledge that give communities their unique identities. Treaties under UNESCO, regional agreements, and customary principles obligate governments to foster transmission, support education, and prevent the loss of intangible wealth during crises. This requires practical steps: documenting practices with consent, supporting community-led safeguarding plans, and ensuring that emergency responses do not erode customary norms. The law acknowledges that emergencies can disrupt access to heritage practitioners, makers, and spaces where knowledge is taught and shared, thus requiring targeted, culturally competent interventions.
Safeguarding cultural heritage requires proactive planning and empowered communities.
Legal obligations are reinforced by a duty to consult with affected communities before and during emergencies. This consultative approach is not merely procedural; it ensures that protective actions align with cultural values and governance norms. International frameworks advocate engaging elders, ritual leaders, local historians, and youth representatives to map sensitive sites and living practices. In practice, meaningful consultation helps identify risks, prioritize interventions, and build community trust, which is essential for successful protection. It also reduces the likelihood of antagonistic measures that could alienate communities or misinterpret their needs. When communities are partners, safeguarding strategies become resilient and legitimate.
Another critical element concerns cooperation among states and international organizations. Crises often transcend borders, and shared resources, expertise, and funding amplify protective capacities. Multilateral institutions provide guidance, technical support, and rapid aid to safeguard cultural landscapes and intangible heritage. Yet coordination must avoid top-down imposition; it should foster local leadership and regional knowledge networks. International law enshrines mechanisms for restitution when heritage is unlawfully displaced or looted, and it promotes safe corridors for the movement of cultural objects necessary for restoration work. The result is a collaborative framework that respects sovereignty while advancing universal cultural preservation.
Respectful engagement with communities anchors lawful protection and practical outcomes.
Governments are encouraged to integrate heritage protection into disaster risk reduction and crisis response planning. This means conducting risk mapping that identifies vulnerable sites, engaging heritage professionals in emergency drills, and financing protective measures that align with conservation standards. Planning should account for climate-induced risks, urban development pressures, and armed conflict dynamics that threaten cultural landscapes. By incorporating heritage considerations into public safety, housing, and infrastructure policies, states can minimize damage and accelerate rehabilitation after crises. The integration process also strengthens social cohesion, as communities see their heritage valued within national resilience narratives.
Financing is a recurring challenge, but sustainable funding mechanisms exist to support culture during upheavals. Donor coordination, blended funding, and transparent procurement help ensure that resources reach frontline safeguarding efforts. International grants can support documentation projects, repertoire revival, and the training of local custodians. Equally important is the development of domestic budgets that reflect heritage protection as a public good, not a luxury. When communities receive predictable support, they can maintain cultural functions and protective measures even amidst economic strain. This stability fosters trust, continuity, and long-term cultural resilience during and after crises.
Mechanisms and accountability strengthen compliance with protections.
Respect for cultural contexts shapes the interpretation of legal obligations. Different regions hold diverse concepts of heritage—some tied to sacred landscapes, others to living cities or intangible practices. Legal instruments must be flexible enough to account for these variations while upholding universal standards against desecration and destruction. This balance requires clear guidelines on permissible excavations, restoration ethics, and the handling of sacred objects. It also entails safeguarding intellectual property rights related to traditional knowledge. When laws recognize customary ownership and consultation rights, they promote responsible stewardship rather than coercive control.
The protection of heritage during crises also intersects with human rights guarantees. Rights to culture, freedom of expression, education, and participation in public life all play a role in informing state duties. Crises can threaten cultural rights through displacement, censorship, or denial of access to sacred sites. International law provides remedies, including monitoring, accountability processes, and avenues for communities to claim protection. States must ensure non-discrimination in safeguarding efforts, so marginalized groups are not sidelined by recovery priorities. A rights-centered approach strengthens legitimacy and is compatible with inclusive governance.
The evolving legal landscape invites ongoing reform and adaptability.
Accountability frameworks are essential to ensure that protective promises translate into action. Reporting requirements, independent monitoring bodies, and transparent incident investigations help track compliance and address violations promptly. International jurisprudence supports claims when cultural heritage has been harmed in conflict or disaster, offering avenues for remedy and deterrence. States should publish annual reports on heritage protection measures, including the outcomes of risk assessments, protection of sites, and engagement with communities. Public awareness campaigns also play a role, informing citizens about the value of heritage and the responsibilities tied to safeguarding it. A transparent system cultivates trust and reinforces long-term commitments.
Rapid response protocols are equally important, enabling swift actions to preserve cultural assets in the immediate aftermath of crises. International guidance encourages derivative protection, salvage operations for at-risk objects, and safe access to heritage districts for communities. This requires trained first responders with cultural sensitivity, specialized equipment, and clear lines of authority. Importantly, protocols should respect community ownership and consent, avoiding detachments that would undermine legitimacy. When responders work in concert with local custodians, they can stabilize sites, document damage, and plan for reconstruction that honors cultural meaning and continuity.
The legal landscape around cultural protection continues to evolve in response to new threats and opportunities. Emerging challenges include digital heritage, transboundary smuggling, and the ethical complexities of heritage repatriation. Jurisprudence increasingly recognizes the importance of returning cultural objects to communities of origin and supporting their stewardship. States are urged to develop digital preservation strategies that respect privacy, consent, and access to information, while preventing exploitation. International dialogue, cross-border cooperation, and national legislation must keep pace with these shifts to ensure that protections are not only aspirational but enforceable in practice.
Ultimately, safeguarding cultural landscapes and intangible heritage during crises demands a cohesive legal culture that binds states to shared responsibilities. This entails harmonizing international standards with local practices, ensuring resources reach frontline guardians, and upholding the dignity of communities whose identities are grounded in living culture. While no framework guarantees immunity from every loss, a robust, participatory, and transparent legal regime can minimize harm, accelerate recovery, and transmit cultural wealth to future generations. The goal is resilient societies that honor their past while facing uncertainty with collective strength.
