Administrative and Governmental Practices

Agata Guirard (Federal Office for Civil Protection, Bern) presented Switzerland’s approach to cultural property protection from a governmental perspective. She emphasized that, due to the Swiss federalist system, the division of powers between the Confederation and the cantons – as stated in the Federal Constitution – mandates that the protection of cultural property is a shared responsibility. Switzerland’s commitment to the protection of its cultural property was reinforced following the 1954 Hague Convention’s ratification in 1962, leading to the establishment of a complex and detailed legal framework. A significant revision of the Swiss Protection of Cultural Property during Armed Conflicts, Disasters and Emergencies Act in 2015 expanded its scope beyond armed conflicts to include natural disasters and other emergency situations. The revision introduced key innovations, such as enhanced protection status for cultural property of exceptional importance and the establishment of a refuge (safe haven) for the temporary custody of threatened foreign cultural property. Despite progress over the past decade – including the identification and cataloguing of over 3,400 objects of national importance and 80,400 of regional importance, as well as the construction of over 320 shelters to guarantee the protection of movable cultural property – many challenges remain. Some cantons underestimate the obligations associated with the protection of cultural property, which contributes to a shortage of specialized personnel. Furthermore, the tools provided by the 1954 Hague Convention remain underutilized. For instance, cultural property signage is rarely used, no Swiss cultural property benefits from enhanced protection, and the safe haven remains inactive. To address these challenges, Guirard emphasized the need for greater international cooperation, particularly with UNESCO, greater engagement in European projects, enhanced awareness among local and national stakeholders, and closer collaboration with cultural institutions and the military. The integration of new technologies for digital heritage preservation and emergency planning will also play a vital role moving forward.

Prevention

Franck Ogou (École du Patrimoine Africain, Porto-Novo) outlined two major programs to prevent the destruction of heritage in Africa. First, he discussed a 2015 conference that addressed issues with and solutions to the destruction of heritage. The conference participants stressed the importance for African states to ratify all relevant international treaties and to create national cultural heritage inventories, a step still too often neglected by many African states. Second, he introduced the “Patrimoine culturel et maintien de la paix en Afrique” program, developed in collaboration with the African Union. The initiative is based on the premise that cultural heritage can serve as a source of resilience in times of conflict. The program has two components: training security and defence forces in cultural heritage protection, and inventorying endogenous conflict prevention mechanisms. These mechanisms, such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda (traditional community courts that contributed to reconciliation after the 1994 genocide) and the “parenté à plaisanterie” in Congo (ritualized interactions that mediate tense or potentially fraught social relationships), should be integrated into education and advocated to the African Union, so that these solutions are further integrated into broader conflict prevention strategies, emphasizing that local problems are best resolved through the use of local mechanisms.

Peter Stone (Blue Shield International/Newcastle University) elaborated on the work of the Blue Shield, recalling that the NGO’s primary role is the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its protocols, underpinned by wider international humanitarian law as well as the UN and UNESCO strategic agenda. He emphasized that while cultural property can foster peace, it is often used as a weapon in conflicts. He cited the 2006 destruction of the Great Mosque of Samarra in Iraq as a stark example of the consequences of the absence of cultural protection strategies, where the lack of political and military vision regarding safeguarding led to massive looting and the rise of sectarian conflicts. Stone argued that the signatory states of the 1954 Hague Convention must fulfill their commitments more effectively, despite financial and political constraints. Blue Shield, he noted, operates at the intersection of humanitarian, heritage, and military sectors, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration as heritage professionals alone cannot ensure proper protection before or during a conflict.

Alessandra Russo and Camilla Pagani (University of Trento) explored the role of cultural heritage in international relations and security policies, highlighting a gap in political science and international relations studies regarding cultural heritage as a security issue. Russo first presented some key findings of the European project, Defending Art: Italy and the International Security of Cultural Heritage, which explores the various interests that states have in intervening to protect cultural heritage abroad and how heritage protection can be instrumentalized for diplomatic purposes. By analyzing actors such as China and Russia, the study seeks to demonstrate how certain states use cultural heritage to strengthen their geopolitical influence, gain international recognition, and consolidate their presence in strategic areas. Pagani then expanded on by examining the different approaches towards the protection of cultural heritage by various international actors. She emphasized that, within the same organizations, intervention strategies can vary significantly depending on the context. For instance, she noted that while the European Union has been involved in Ukraine since 2014, its interaction with local actors could be improved for a more inclusive and effective approach. She further illustrated the challenges in coordinating efforts between cultural institutions, governments, and humanitarian organizations, stressing that effective heritage protection requires integrating local communities into reconstruction projects rather than relying on a purely top-down approach, which risks overlooking the cultural and social realities of affected populations.

Looting and Illicit Trafficking

Captain Timothée Le Berre (Foreign Legion Museum, Aubagne) discussed the military challenges in protecting cultural property. He emphasized the complexity of defining cultural property in military operations and the necessity of translating the 1954 Hague Convention’s principles into actionable measures. In this context, military personnel and heritage professionals operate according to different principles and values. For instance, while military action is guided by necessity and proportionality, archaeologists’ work is based on integrity and authenticity. The challenge lies in reconciling these differing approaches to develop effective field strategies. Le Berre underscored the armed forces’ lack of awareness regarding cultural heritage protection, including looting, and insisted on the need for improved military training to integrate cultural considerations into operations. He called for stronger collaboration between the military and heritage professionals, emphasizing the importance of networking and information exchange for effective protection. He further stressed the need for more efficient use of existing military resources and active involvement of heritage experts in shaping protection strategies.

Vincent Michel (University of Poitiers) addressed the evolution of illicit trafficking, particularly the role of digital platforms such as Facebook in facilitating the sale of looted artifacts. He noted the difficulties in tracking stolen antiquities due to falsified provenance records and limitations in official databases. Nevertheless, collaborative efforts between researchers, museums, and law enforcement agencies have led to successful recoveries of cultural artifacts that have passed through auctions. Finally, he stressed the importance of international and interdisciplinary cooperation involving archaeologists, police forces, lawyers, and cultural institutions to effectively combat the illicit trade of cultural artifacts.

Fabienne Baraga (Federal Office of Culture, Bern) discussed the impact of the Swiss Cultural Property Transfer Act, particularly in light of the Ukraine conflict. She detailed Switzerland’s initiatives, including the provision of protective equipment to over 200 museums, the funding of research projects, and the digitization of endangered archives. In addition, measures are being taken to prevent the illegal transfer of cultural property. Ukrainian cultural property is subject to targeted controls when imported and offered for sale on the art market in Switzerland, where the due diligence obligations imposed on dealers are strictly monitored. In this context, she emphasized the importance of a holistic approach combining strict regulation, public awareness, and cultural promotion while calling for an even stronger commitment to preserving heritage in times of crisis and war.

Emergency Measures to Protect Heritage in Gaza and Inventorying Destructions

Fabrice Virgili (UMR SIRICE/CNRS), Falestin Naïli (University of Basel), and Marion Macé (University of Nancy) presented the project “Gaza, inventaire d’un patrimoine bombardé” to inventory demolished architectural and historical heritage in Gaza, bringing together an interdisciplinary team of historians, archaeologists, and conflict specialists. Given the urgency of the situation and the lack of immediate access to conventional academic funding, the initiative seeks to document the destruction of heritage by drawing on UNESCO lists and supplementing this data with independent research conducted by team members. Its primary goal is to preserve the memory of these sites and provide an open-access resource that can be used for scientific, journalistic, legal, and reconstruction purposes. Virgili addressed the methodological challenges, including defining heritage, ensuring source reliability, and recognizing lesser-known sites such as civic buildings and cemeteries. Additionally, the project explores the future of Gaza’s heritage by considering reconstruction efforts and the transmission of cultural memory, relying on partnerships with organizations such as Riwaq and the Virtual Museum of Gaza.

René Elter (French School of Biblical and Archaeological Research, Jerusalem/University of Lorraine) presented the ongoing “Intiqal” program aimed at social and economic development through the training of a new generation of local archaeology and heritage professionals in Gaza. This project, run by the French School of Biblical and Archaeological Research and the NGO Première Urgence Internationale, has trained 110 young people with a strong commitment to gender equality and the autonomy of participants in the conservation, study, and transmission of local heritage. Despite the ongoing conflict, the team on-site continues to protect and document archaeological sites, including the fourth-century Saint-Hilarion monastery, which was recently inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Elter emphasized the importance of raising awareness among the local population, particularly young people, a long-term effort that is bearing fruit, especially at the site of the Saint-Hilarion monastery. However, reconstruction efforts remain challenging. The shortage of building materials has made archaeological sites even more vulnerable, as they are sometimes repurposed by the local population. Elter stressed the importance of fieldwork despite the widespread destruction and emphasized maintaining a strong link with the local population to ensure the long-term protection and transmission of heritage.

Reconstruction, Examples from Lebanon

Nadine Panayot (American University of Beirut Archaeological Museum) presented the challenges of heritage conservation in Lebanon through the example of the American University of Beirut Archaeological Museum. She traced the history of the museum, from its foundation in the nineteenth century to recent conflicts and crises that have impacted the country. The explosion in the Beirut harbor in 2020 severely damaged the museum, blowing out doors, windows, and display cases, destroying 72 pieces of Classical and early Islamic period glass vessels. Thanks to the rapid mobilization of and partnerships with local and international institutions and heritage conservation specialists, an innovative restoration process was set up, combining traditional methods and digital technologies, enabling partial object reconstruction and the creation of 3D replicas thereof. Eight reconstructed vessels were exhibited at the British Museum in 2022. Faced with new threats of war in 2024, the museum took steps to protect its glass collection by creating a secure bunker, ensuring the preservation of the museum’s memory in the event of further destruction. Using these examples, Panayot illustrated the resilience of individuals safeguarding local cultural heritage in the face of crises.

Valéry Freland (ALIPH Foundation, Geneva) presented ALIPH, an organization founded in 2017 to protect heritage in conflict zones. Supported by 25 international public and private donors, ALIPH intervenes before, during, and after crises, with actions ranging from prevention to reconstruction and, more recently, the protection of heritage threatened by climate change. The organization has carried out over 500 projects in 40 countries, including Iraq, Ukraine, and Lebanon. In Gaza, despite logistical challenges, ALIPH is working with local partners such as the Palestinian Museum and Riwaq to protect collections and stabilize damaged sites. Freland concluded by highlighting the benefits of a pragmatic and reactive approach, promoting international dialogue and working with local actors.

The conference concluded with a consensus on the necessity of coordinated action to protect cultural property. From the documentation of destruction to post-crisis restoration via emergency interventions, the initiatives discussed demonstrate the importance of taking pragmatic approaches, raising awareness, and networking involving local actors, experts, and international institutions. A major challenge lies in reconstruction: how do we rebuild while both preserving the memory of destruction and avoiding erasure of the past? The future of heritage protection lies in the development of digital tools, the training of new generations, and the strengthening of legal frameworks. Beyond the preservation of monuments, it is the collective memory and identity of peoples that are at stake, making heritage an essential lever of resilience and reconstruction for societies in crisis.