TEHRAN- Cultural heritage, beyond stone structures and historical artifacts, represents the tangible manifestation of a nation’s identity, collective memory, and civilizational continuity.

Accordingly, under the system of international humanitarian law, such property enjoys “enhanced protection,” because its destruction is not merely damage to physical assets, but an attack on the spirit of a society and the shared heritage of humanity. Nevertheless, we are witnessing military attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States against the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which have damaged cultural infrastructure and taken the lives of innocent civilians—an indication of a “dual violation” and a systematic disregard for fundamental international norms.

The legal framework: From the Hague Convention to the Additional Protocols

The cornerstone of protection for such property is the 1954 Hague Convention. Under Article 4 of this treaty, states are obligated to respect cultural property and refrain from any hostile acts against it. 

Even the exception of “imperative military necessity,” which is sometimes invoked to justify attacks, has been strictly limited by the 1999 Second Protocol. According to this protocol, for property of exceptional value, the threshold for proving military necessity is so high that the mere existence of a potential military advantage can never justify an attack.

In addition, Article 53 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits any hostile acts against historical monuments and places of worship. Today, these rules are regarded as part of customary international law, meaning that even states not party to certain treaties are bound to observe them as universal obligations.

 The inseparable link between the right to culture and the right to life

A key point that must not be overlooked in analyzing these attacks is the strong connection between cultural rights and human rights. Under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, access to cultural heritage is part of fundamental human rights. When military strikes target museums or historical sites, they effectively violate the rights of present and future generations to connect with their roots.

This issue takes on even more tragic dimensions when it is coupled with human casualties. Reports of the deaths of Iranian citizens—particularly in painful cases such as the attack on the Ritaj recreational-tourism complex in Ahvaz, which resulted in injuries and the death of an innocent child—constitute a clear violation of the principles of distinction and proportionality. 
Under international law, no conceivable military advantage can justify the killing of civilians and the destruction of a region’s cultural identity. Moreover, the precision of modern guided weapons significantly reduces the likelihood of “accidental error,” thereby reinforcing the hypothesis of deliberate attacks.

From state responsibility to individual war crimes

From a legal perspective, these actions are not merely state violations but also carry criminal liability. Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against religious, educational, artistic, or historic sites that are not military objectives constitutes a clear example of a war crime. 
International jurisprudence—such as the Al Mahdi case before the ICC—has demonstrated that courts no longer remain silent in the face of the destruction of cultural heritage.

 Beyond condemnation: the necessity of accountability

Although reactions by institutions such as UNESCO and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) are politically significant, they are not sufficient for deterrence. The international community must employ more robust mechanisms:

Activation of the committee for the Protection of Cultural Property: UNESCO should dispatch fact-finding missions to document the damage and submit official reports to the United Nations General Assembly.
Universal Jurisdiction: National courts around the world, under customary international law, are authorized to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes—including those responsible for attacks on civilians and cultural heritage—regardless of where the crimes were committed.
Digitalization and preventive protection: Strengthening international cooperation to accurately document endangered heritage as legal evidence for future proceedings.

Conclusion

What we are witnessing today goes beyond a conventional military conflict; it is an assault on the moral and legal foundations of the international community. The destruction of cultural heritage in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the killing of civilians are two sides of the same coin, both of which threaten the international order. 

A “dual violation” requires a “dual response”—one that must be realized not merely through diplomatic statements, but in international courts and through the enforcement of the rule of law, in order to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies against humanity.

AM