The Protection of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Towards a New Model of Preventive Legal Diplomacy?

This article forms part of the work of the Conflict Prevention and Resolution Division of the International Institute for Geopolitical Studies (IIEG), of which the author is a member.

It builds upon the Institute's reflections on preventive diplomacy and the conditions under which international law can be mobilized before violations occur. The article is written by the author in a strictly personal capacity and does not represent the views of the Permanent Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO or the Lebanese authorities.

Abstract

Contemporary armed conflicts reveal a persistent paradox: despite the existence of a relatively developed international legal framework, the destruction of cultural heritage remains a reality. UNESCO's decision of 1 April 2026 to grant provisional enhanced protection to 39 Lebanese cultural properties raises questions about the capacity of multilateral mechanisms to prevent damage to cultural heritage beyond their declaratory significance.

Drawing on the Lebanese case and a comparative perspective, this analysis examines the possibilities, legal limitations, and conditions for the effective implementation of the regime established by the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention. It advances the hypothesis that enhanced protection could contribute to the emergence of preventive legal diplomacy, provided that the activation of legal mechanisms is accompanied by operational dissemination, independent monitoring, and effective accountability among the actors concerned.

I. The Protection of Cultural Heritage: From Legal Principle to Preventive Imperative

The destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflict is not limited to the disappearance of monuments or historical remains. It can also affect collective memory, the transmission of identities, and the conditions necessary for the reconstruction of societies.

This dimension explains the progressive development of an international legal framework dedicated to safeguarding cultural property. The Hague Convention of 14 May 1954 constitutes a fundamental reference in this regard. Article 4 requires States Parties to respect cultural property, particularly by refraining from using it for purposes likely to expose it to destruction and from directing acts of hostility against it, subject to strictly regulated exceptions relating to imperative military necessity [1].

However, as Thomas Desch demonstrated in his analysis of the foundations of the 1999 Second Protocol, conflicts occurring after the Convention's adoption revealed the shortcomings of traditional instruments, particularly concerning implementation and accountability [2].

The Second Protocol of 26 March 1999 sought to strengthen this framework by introducing more precise obligations and an enhanced protection mechanism for cultural property of the greatest importance to humanity [3].

Article 11(9) notably provides for an emergency procedure allowing provisional enhanced protection to be granted in the event of hostilities. This procedure may be activated without awaiting proof of all the legal and administrative safeguards required under the ordinary procedure, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in Articles 10(a) and 10(c).

The significance of this mechanism lies in its temporal dimension: international law is no longer limited to organizing protection during peacetime or sanctioning certain violations after they have occurred. It also provides a procedure enabling legal action during ongoing hostilities.

The question nevertheless remains as to the extent to which this institutional capacity for action can produce effective prevention.

II. Lebanon in 2026: Rapid Mobilization of International Humanitarian Law

On 1 April 2026, at Lebanon's request, the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict convened an extraordinary session at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The meeting resulted in the granting of provisional enhanced protection to 39 Lebanese cultural properties and the allocation of more than USD 100,000 in international financial assistance for emergency operations [4].

This decision followed that of 18 November 2024, which had already placed 34 Lebanese cultural properties under provisional enhanced protection, bringing the total number of properties concerned by the two successive decisions to 73.

Beyond its heritage-related significance, this sequence is particularly relevant to the analysis of how multilateral mechanisms operate.

According to official document C54/26/5.EXT.COM/4, Lebanon submitted its 39 requests on 25 March 2026. They were registered by the Secretariat the following day and transmitted to the States Parties concerned on 27 March. The applications included cartographic boundaries and individual declarations of non-military use signed by the Lebanese Ministry of Defence [5].

Within one week, a national request was thus transformed into a multilateral decision based on a pre-existing treaty instrument.

This process illustrates the capacity of a specialized international organization to mobilize its legal instruments rapidly, even when traditional collective security mechanisms encounter difficulties.

However, it would be premature to equate this procedural success with demonstrated preventive success.

The inclusion of a property on the International List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection modifies its status under the applicable treaty regime. It does not, in itself, prove that the armed forces concerned have changed their conduct, nor does it provide a material guarantee against future damage.

It is precisely this distinction between normative significance and operational effectiveness that should guide the scientific evaluation of the mechanism.

III. Applicability to Non-Party States: The Fundamental Legal Limitation

The effectiveness of enhanced protection raises a major legal difficulty when not all parties to a conflict are bound by the 1999 Second Protocol.

Under the principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, enshrined notably in Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not, in principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent [6].

Article 3(2) of the Second Protocol nevertheless provides for a particular situation: where a party to an armed conflict is not bound by the Protocol, States Parties remain bound by its provisions in their mutual relations. They are also bound by its provisions in relation to a State party to the conflict that has not acceded to the Protocol, if that State accepts its provisions and for as long as it applies them [3].

It would therefore be legally inaccurate to assert that granting enhanced protection automatically makes the entire 1999 regime binding upon every State involved in a conflict.

The Lebanese case illustrates this distinction. According to official UNESCO data, Lebanon has been a party to the Second Protocol since 2020, while Israel is a party to the 1954 Convention but not to the 1999 Second Protocol [7].

Consequently, the specific obligations of the enhanced protection regime, particularly the immunity provided for in Article 12 of the Protocol, cannot automatically be invoked against Israel solely on the basis of its accession to the 1954 Convention.

This limitation does not imply an absence of international obligations.

As a State Party to the 1954 Convention, Israel remains subject to its relevant obligations. Independently of treaty commitments, customary international humanitarian law rules concerning the protection of cultural heritage may also apply to parties to a conflict.

The International Committee of the Red Cross study identifies, particularly through Rules 38 to 40, customary obligations concerning protection against attacks, military use, and acts of destruction or pillage of cultural property [8].

However, these general obligations must not be confused with the entirety of the specific treaty regime of enhanced protection established in 1999. The mere existence of customary rules protecting cultural heritage is insufficient to demonstrate that every provision of this particular regime has acquired customary status.

This distinction reveals a structural limitation of preventive legal diplomacy: multilateral recognition of protective status may have universal diplomatic significance without automatically producing identical treaty-based effects for all actors.

From this perspective, the universalization of the Second Protocol, the promotion of voluntary commitments consistent with its principles, and the dissemination of already applicable obligations should constitute complementary objectives of multilateral diplomacy.

IV. Measuring Preventive Effectiveness: Beyond the Number of Protected Properties

One of the main methodological difficulties lies in assessing the actual effects of enhanced protection.

The number of listed properties, the speed of decisions, and the volume of international assistance make it possible to measure institutional activity. However, they are insufficient to measure the prevention of violations.

A more rigorous evaluation should distinguish four complementary dimensions.

Procedural efficiency could be assessed by examining the time elapsed between the national request and the international decision, the quality of the submitted applications, and the speed with which the relevant actors are notified.

Operational effectiveness would require examining whether information concerning protected properties has actually been communicated to military authorities, incorporated into operational planning mechanisms, and taken into account in target verification procedures. Acknowledgements of receipt, training provided, and accessible operational directives would constitute useful indicators.

Protective effectiveness would require studying changes in damage sustained by protected properties, as well as military incidents occurring nearby. Such an analysis should consider the intensity of hostilities, the location of the sites, and their initial exposure to risks.

Finally, legal effectiveness could be assessed through the documentation of alleged violations, investigations initiated, corrective measures adopted, and, where applicable, judicial proceedings undertaken.

The most relevant methodology would consist of comparing developments affecting properties benefiting from enhanced protection with those affecting comparable properties without such protection, whenever the available data permit.

Ideally, this comparison should rely on a baseline established before listing, followed by periodic monitoring after the decision. It should also incorporate variables such as the intensity of fighting, proximity to military objectives, and the nature of the sites.

An additional difficulty must be emphasized: the most threatened properties may be precisely those for which enhanced protection is requested. This selection may distort comparisons if it is not properly taken into account.

Furthermore, the absence of observed damage does not necessarily prove a deterrent effect. Conversely, the occurrence of damage does not automatically demonstrate the legal ineffectiveness of the mechanism, since it may result from multiple factors.

Satellite monitoring, particularly through cooperation between UNESCO and UNITAR/UNOSAT, offers a relevant tool for documenting physical changes at sites [4]. Nevertheless, it should be supplemented, whenever possible, by field information and independent data concerning the circumstances of incidents.

It would therefore be more rigorous to regard enhanced protection as an intervention whose preventive effects must be demonstrated rather than presumed.

V. Towards Preventive Legal Diplomacy: What Prospects?

Recent UNESCO practice, particularly in Lebanon and Ukraine, demonstrates that international enhanced protection mechanisms can be activated within relatively short periods. In September 2023, 20 Ukrainian cultural properties were granted provisional enhanced protection under the same emergency procedure [9].

These experiences make it possible to envisage an evolution in diplomatic practices without establishing the existence of a new autonomous category of international law.

Preventive legal diplomacy may be understood as the coordinated mobilization of treaty instruments, multilateral procedures, and technical resources to influence the conduct of actors before violations occur.

Three approaches could strengthen this model.

The first involves developing better coordination between cultural institutions and military authorities. Protection decisions should be accompanied by notification procedures, training, and appropriate coordination mechanisms. The Military Manual on the Protection of Cultural Property, published by UNESCO in 2016, provides a useful operational foundation in this regard [10].

The second approach concerns establishing a framework for periodic evaluation. Competent bodies could encourage the development of common indicators relating to notification of decisions, changes in damage, and implementation of preventive measures. Such an approach would make it possible to distinguish more clearly between administrative achievements and actual protective effects.

The third priority lies in strengthening the relationship between prevention and accountability. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court in the Al Mahdi case, concerning attacks against religious and historical monuments in Timbuktu, recalls that intentional destruction of cultural heritage may, where the legal conditions are met, constitute war crimes engaging individual criminal responsibility [11].

The prospect of prosecution does not guarantee effective deterrence. Nevertheless, it may contribute to strengthening the credibility of the protective framework, provided that appropriate investigation, jurisdictional, and enforcement mechanisms are in place.

Conclusion — From Declared Protection to Demonstrated Prevention

The decision of 1 April 2026 concerning Lebanese cultural heritage illustrates the capacity of specialized multilateral mechanisms to produce legal effects rapidly during periods of crisis. At the same time, it highlights the limitations of an international system in which the effectiveness of obligations depends on the scope of treaty instruments, the conduct of parties to conflicts, and the ability of institutions to monitor their implementation.

The future of the enhanced protection regime should therefore not be assessed solely through an increase in the number of properties included on an international list. It should also be evaluated according to its ability to encourage the consideration of cultural heritage in the conduct of military operations, reduce documented risks, and strengthen accountability in cases of violations.

In this sense, preventive legal diplomacy would not constitute an alternative to existing rules of international humanitarian law, but rather a method aimed at strengthening their mobilization and effectiveness.

The true progress of multilateralism would then lie not merely in its capacity to recognize threatened cultural properties, but in its ability to demonstrate that such recognition effectively contributes to their preservation.

Legal and Bibliographical References

Legal and Institutional Sources

[1] UNESCO, Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 4. Official text, ICRC.

[2] Desch, Thomas, “The Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,” Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 63–90. DOI: 10.1017/S1389135900000374.

[3] UNESCO, Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999, Articles 3, 10–13 and 15. Official text.

[4] UNESCO, “Lebanon: 39 cultural properties placed under enhanced protection,” press release, 1 April 2026, updated 14 October 2026.

[5] UNESCO, Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Requests for the Granting of Provisional Enhanced Protection to Cultural Properties in Lebanon, C54/26/5.EXT.COM/4, 27 March 2026. Official PDF document.

[6] United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, particularly Articles 34, 35 and 38. Official text, International Law Commission.

[7] UNESCO, States Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention and its Two Protocols, updated 13 April 2026. Official list of States Parties.

[8] Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules, Cambridge University Press / ICRC, 2005, Rules 38–40. ICRC database, Rule 38.

[9] UNESCO, “Ukraine: 20 cultural properties receive enhanced protection by UNESCO’s Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention,” 7 September 2023. Official press release.

[10] O'Keefe, Roger, Péron, Camille, Musayev, Tofig, and Ferrari, Gianluca, Protection of Cultural Property: Military Manual, UNESCO and International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2016.

[11] International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Case ICC-01/12-01/15, Reparations Order of 17 August 2017. Official press release.

Additional Doctrinal Reference

Hladík, Jan, “How the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 Contribute to Better Protection of Cultural Property,” International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 104, Nos. 920–921, 2022, pp. 1948–1970. DOI: 10.1017/S181638312200042X.