The World Heritage Convention, Customary International Law and the Scope of Protection of Cultural Heritage in Peacetime

The 1972 World Heritage Convention (WHC) has today 194 States Parties. This almost universal membership seems to express the widespread belief that the management of cultural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) should take place under the supervision of the international community. However, while the World Heritage (WH) Committee has advocated strict compliance with the WHC Lists system, States Parties have grown impatient with the WH Committee’s recommendations and sometimes tend to underestimate or outright ignore the impact that Economic Over-Development (EOD) might have on their cultural heritage of OUV. Furthermore, outside of this system, also taking into account the controversial scope of Art. 12 WHC, it is not entirely clear whether this collective interest in the international protection of cultural heritage implies the existence of a corresponding customary prohibition for States to intentionally destroy or damage their own cultural heritage, even of potential OUV, in peacetime. In the light of this, the aim of the present contribution is threefold: first, it will expose and rationalise the inconsistency between the WH Committee and the States Parties’ attitude towards the protection of their cultural heritage of OUV before EOD instances; second, it will examine international practice outside the WHC to inductively assess whether and to what extent customary international law prohibits States’ intentional destruction or damage to their cultural heritage of potential OUV in peacetime; third, it will illustrate the (ambivalent) relationship be- tween the WHC and customary international law in this respect. Finally, it will be argued how, despite the fact that, over the last 50 years, international law on the protection of cultural heritage in peacetime has undoubtedly strengthened, States still appear reluctant to recognise a clear pre-eminence of the collective dimension of cultural heritage protection per se, especially when this conflicts with the pursuit of their economic interests.