Human Rights Watch (HRW), a major non-governmental organisation focused on upholding human rights during peace and war times, has come up with a report concerning the deployment of explosive weapons in traditional civilian areas and its grave humanitarian consequences for civilians and cultural heritage sites.
HRW, after reconstructing the history of the creation of international law safeguards against the use of explosive weapons, introduces the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (hereinafter the “Declaration”), which sets out standards for limiting ante-facto and ex-post-facto the effects of explosive weapons in generated areas. This constitutes the starting point of a broader discussion on civilian protection and cultural heritage protection, whose focus is to increase awareness of the effects explosive weapons have on cultural heritage and, thus, civilians, and introduce a reading of the 2022 Declaration, which could heighten the protection of civilians and cultural heritage.
Impact of explosive weapons
HRW explains that there are direct and indirect effects of the deployment of explosive weapons in urban areas against cultural heritage and civilians.
Direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage
- Direct effects: the blast, fragmentation, and secondary fires originating from the use of explosive weapons can damage or break the structural elements of buildings, possibly leading to their collapse. Attempts to pre-emptively intervene by enhancing the cultural heritage site’s resilience are usually complex, expensive, and unachievable or do not suffice to preserve the cultural heritage site against explosive effects.
- Indirect effects: the solicitation by attacks on cultural heritage’s structure might make the site vulnerable even after the armed conflict has ceased, leading to its possible collapse. Explosive attacks against fundamental civilian infrastructure – for instance electricity and water suppliers – can weaken the cultural heritage site, gradually leading to its physical or cultural deterioration, for instance, by destroying the site’s catalogues and archives
Direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons on civilians
- Direct effects: explosive weapons directed at cultural heritage endanger the site’s employees and any civilian visiting it, as well as those residing in areas adjacent to cultural heritage sites and those engaged in rescue operations in those sites right after the attack. Furthermore, direct harm to civilians is heightened due to civilians seeking refuge in such sites due to their special protection enjoyed under the law.
- Indirect effects: the destruction of cultural heritage sites entails erasing the cultural history of civilians, which could lead to them suffering psychosocial harm and possible economic hardship related to eliminating revenue deriving from tourism in cultural sites.
Protection of civilians and cultural heritage
HRW argues that the Declaration, despite not being strictly related to cultural heritage, has the potential to strengthen the international pre-existing protection of cultural heritage as it requires states to enhance the protection of civilians and civilian objects, where cultural heritage falls in the latter category. The protection measures linked to the protection of cultural heritage from explosive weapons the Declaration proposes include:
- State’s engagement in policies and practices – by either implementation or review – operationalising what is states in the Declaration, for instance, the establishment of a domestic framework for civilian protection addressing all the threats to civilians and civilian objects listed in the Declaration, namely improve the national policy and practice about the protection of civilians during armed conflict involving the use of explosive weapons;
- Comprehensive training of the armed forces on the application of international humanitarian law so that they could have a good understanding of the standard of protection of cultural heritage, covering the 1954 Hague Convention and its Second Protocol and Additional Protocol I and II of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, armed forces should learn about the cultural heritage of the region in which they are operating;
- Refraining from or restricting the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as this could help prevent damage to cultural heritage sites and prevent civilian causalities;
- Data collection and sharing information regarding cultural heritage destruction and related harm to civilians caused by explosive weapons where feasible and appropriate. This provides a better understanding of explosive weapons’ impact and can thus inform the state’s policy, as well as facilitate assistance by identifying the support needed and, lastly to assess the legality of the use of explosive weapons in the specific situation.
To conclude, HRW advocates for a margin of protection of cultural heritage and civilians furthering the one in the Declaration by demanding states at national and international level to
- Expand the understanding of “cultural heritage” by strengthening the contention that not only “property” but “heritage” in general should be protected;
- Narrow the military necessity waiver to the immunity of cultural heritage, as the invocation of the military necessity exception for the targeting of cultural heritage with explosive weapons in populated areas would be inconsistent with the state’s commitment under the Declaration to further civilian protection as much as possible;
- Create comprehensive protection standards of a preventive and remedial nature to address the humanitarian consequences of explosive weapons in populated areas, which could potentially bolster a comprehensive approach to the protection of cultural heritage from explosive weapons in populated areas.
To read more, please visit:
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2024/04/arms0424web.pdf
