Introduction: Heritage Destruction, Human Rights and International Law in Times of Conflict and in Peace

Cultural heritage has always been targeted in times of conflict and transition for its symbolic value. However, the difference between historical acts of iconoclasm and the destruction of heritage today is that there now exists a general consensus, embodied in the corpus of international law, that intentionally destroying cultural heritage is an international wrong and, except in the case of absolute military necessity, a war crime entailing individual criminal responsibility.1 This was made clear in the now infamous Al Mahdi case before the International Criminal Court, which concerned the deliberate attack on cultural sites in the World Heritage city of Timbuktu, Mali.2 If law mirrors the general norms of society, then the increasing recognition by international law can be read as a reflection of a general public consensus that finds heritage destruction unacceptable, even if violations still occur. Yet, despite the proclamation of heritage destruction in situations of conflict as an international wrong, no such assertion can be made for its equivalent in peacetime.