Destruction of Odesa’s Cultural Heritage as an Element of War Escalation: An Analysis of Russian Attacks on Ukrainian Monuments in Light of International Law

Odesa, the “Pearl of the Black Sea,” a city recently inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, has become one of the principal targets of Russian missile strikes, resulting in the destruction of priceless monuments that symbolize Ukraine’s identity and history.

The deliberate bombardment of cathedrals, museums, and nineteenth-century tenement houses raises an important question: are such acts merely “collateral damage” of war, or do they constitute a conscious strategy of cultural terror punishable as a war crime?

Cultural Heritage and Its Protection During Armed Conflicts

Cultural heritage encompasses both tangible and intangible manifestations of culture that possess particular historical, artistic, or scientific value for a given community. It includes, among others, historic architecture, works of art, places of worship, archives, libraries, and museums.

International humanitarian law grants such objects a status of special protection. Their destruction is regarded as a loss for all humanity, regardless of the nation to which they belong. The preamble to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict emphasizes that “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world.” For this reason, the international community has established a range of legal norms intended to safeguard cultural heritage in times of war.

The primary legal instrument in this field is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, together with its Additional Protocols. It imposes on parties to a conflict the obligation to respect cultural property, prohibiting its destruction, looting, or use for purposes that might expose it to damage. Under both the Convention and customary international law, parties must not only refrain from direct attacks on monuments but also avoid actions that could indirectly cause their destruction.

These principles were further reinforced by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. For example, Article 53 of Protocol I prohibits acts of hostility directed against historic monuments and places of worship. These norms are considered universal and customary in character, a view confirmed, among others, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which held that the destruction of cultural heritage is prohibited under customary international law.

Read more