Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Legal Consequences under International Humanitarian and Criminal Law

During the recent conflict and the attacks carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, Iran’s cultural heritage was exposed to extensive and alarming damage. According to official reports, at least 149 historical monuments and museums across 20 provinces have been affected, reflecting the breadth of destruction and demonstrating that cultural properties throughout the country were not spared from the direct and indirect consequences of the military operations.
Among these sites are several of the most prominent symbols of Iran’s historical and civilizational identity. Six Iranian properties inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List — including Golestan Palace, Naqsh-e Jahan Square, the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, the Khorramabad Valley, the Trans-Iranian Railway, and the historic Chehel Sotoun Palace complex — were damaged during the attacks. These monuments constitute part of the common heritage of humankind and therefore enjoy a distinct legal status.
The extent of the damage is not confined solely to symbolic and cultural values. Preliminary estimates indicate that the total damage inflicted on the country’s historical monuments amounts to at least 42 million US dollars. This figure reflects only a portion of the material losses, as a significant part of the value embodied in these sites is inherently irreplaceable.
The international reaction to these events has also been notable. Shaikha Nasser Al Nowais, Secretary-General of the United Nations Tourism Organization (UN Tourism), highlighted the human and cultural consequences of the recent attacks on Iran and stated that the organization is monitoring with deep concern the assaults on Iran’s cultural heritage and tourism infrastructure, as well as the suffering inflicted upon the population, and strongly condemns such actions.
These developments echo a long and troubling historical pattern. In many armed conflicts, aggressors have not only attacked the lives and property of civilians but have also sought to destroy historical monuments, eradicate cultural symbols, and eliminate civilizational markers, thereby targeting the historical memory and collective identity of nations. Such acts amount to an assault on the history, identity, and memory of a people.
In international law, cultural heritage is not merely the property of a single state; it forms part of the “common heritage of humankind” and is therefore subject to heightened protection under the international legal order. This protection was first codified in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which obliges states to refrain from any attack on, destruction of, or military use of cultural property, and to adopt all necessary measures for its safeguarding. The 1999 Second Protocol expanded this regime by introducing the concept of “enhanced protection” and establishing more detailed mechanisms for the criminal accountability of violators.
Under Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions, Article 53 prohibits attacks against historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship, while Article 85(4)(d) characterizes such attacks as “grave breaches” of international humanitarian law. Under customary international law as well—specifically Rules 38 to 41 of the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law—the protection of cultural property and the prohibition of attacks thereon constitute binding legal obligations.
In the domain of international criminal law, Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies intentional attacks against historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship as war crimes. Judicial practice has reinforced this rule, including the judgment of the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar concerning the attack on Dubrovnik, and the ICC judgment in Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (2016), which held that the destruction of historic sites in Timbuktu constituted an attack on the cultural identity of the affected community.
Taken together with the 1972 UNESC

O World Heritage Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017), which considers the intentional destruction of cultural heritage a threat to international peace and security, this body of norms constitutes a comprehensive protective framework for the cultural values of humankind. Moreover, the protection of cultural heritage is widely regarded as an erga omnes obligation, the breach of which constitutes an injury to the international community as a whole.
Within the framework of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA 2001), any wrongful act resulting in the intentional or negligent destruction of cultural property engages the international responsibility of the offending State and entails obligations of cessation and full reparation.
Accordingly, the intentional or reckless military destruction of Iran’s historical and cultural sites constitutes not only an assault on the historical identity of the Iranian nation but also a violation of the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law and an attack on the common heritage of humankind. Such conduct may give rise not only to the international responsibility of States but also to the individual criminal responsibility of those who ordered or executed these acts before international judicial bodies.