Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Research and development in criminal law and criminology

A Critical Analysis of the Approach of International Tribunals to Crimes Against Cultural Heritage: Focusing on the Case of Ahmad Al-Mahdi

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Aramesh shahbazi 1
katayoon ashrafi 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student in international law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jclc.2025.2067890.1229
Abstract
Crimes against cultural heritage, including the deliberate destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural artifacts and property, target not only the identity and history of nations but also, in certain instances, threaten the shared heritage of humanity. Examples such as the demolition of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, the destruction of ancient Palmyra in Syria, and the devastation of historical sites in Timbuktu, Mali, demonstrate the scope and depth of these threats. Despite the adoption of international instruments like the 1954 Hague Convention, the existing framework of international criminal law—including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—lacks an independent offense of “crimes against cultural heritage” categorized under Crimes Against Humanity. Consequently, these acts are predominantly prosecuted as “War Crimes.” This classification creates a significant gap, as it often precludes prosecution in times of peace, reduces the effectiveness of deterrence, and diminishes the focus on reparative aspects. Adopting an analytical-critical approach, this study examines international documents and judicial practice—ranging from the Nuremberg Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to the ICC, with a specific focus on the Ahmad Al-Mahdi case—to analyze the objectives of punishment regarding these crimes. The analytical framework combines the traditional approach (retribution and deterrence) with the modern approach (restorative and compensatory). Findings indicate that although restorative elements were incorporated into the sentencing process in certain rulings, notably Al-Mahdi, the prevailing approach remains largely traditional. It is argued that reforming the approach of international tribunals and recognizing “crimes against cultural heritage” as a specific crime under Crimes Against Humanity could facilitate prosecution during both armed conflicts and peacetime. Furthermore, strengthening reparative objectives in sentencing and developing international mechanisms—such as establishing an “International Fund for the Reconstruction and Restoration of Cultural Heritage” under ICC supervision—could elevate the goals of criminalization from a purely punitive reaction to a comprehensive, preventive, and restorative approach. This research utilizes a descriptive-analytical methodology, relying on library resources for data collection.

Highlights

  1. Al-Ansi, A., Lee, J.-S., King, B., & Han, H. (2021). Stolen history: Community concern towards looting of cultural heritage and its tourism implications. Tourism Management 87.
  2. Anglin, R. (2008). The world heritage list: Bridging the Cultural Property Nationalism-Internationalism Divide. Yale Journal of Law & The Humanities 20(2): 241-275.
  3. Asgari, P., & Masoudi Koushk, H. (2018). Destruction of Syrian cultural heritage by ISIS and strategies to confront it in international law. International Law Journal 35(58), 153–184. (In Persian)
  4. Barrère, C. (2016). Cultural heritages: From official to informal. City, Culture and Society 7(2): 87-94.
  5. Beidaghi, B., Bolouri, P., & Zolghadr, M. (2023). Jurisprudence of international criminal courts in relation to cultural heritage from a human rights perspective. Taali-e Hoquq 9(2), 147–185. (In Persian)
  6. Beigi, J., & Teimouri, M. (2021). A look at cultural genocide as an international crime. Police International Studies 12(47), 129–159. (In Persian)
  7. Blake, J. (2000). On Defining The Cultural Heritage. International And Comparative Law Quarterly 49(1): 61-85.
  8. Charter of the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal. (1945, August 8).
  9. Davoodi Garmaroodi, H. , Heydarpour, H. and Mehrara, Z. (2024). The Function of the Due Diligence Principle in Addressing the Impunity of Israeli Regime Leaders under International Criminal Law. Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 1(1), 137-166. doi: 10.22034/jclc.2024.718661. (In Persian)
  10. De Laiglesia González, J. F. (2020). Tangible Culture: Twelve Symbolic Objects. International Research Journal Of Furniture And Decorative Objects 9(11): 46-64.
  11. Francioni, F., & Lazzarini, F. (2003). The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law. European Journal of International Law 14(4), 619-651.
  12. Francioni, F., & Lenzerin, F. (2024). Commentary Of The 1972 World Heritage Convention (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  13. Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War. (1949, August).
  14. Gerstenblith, P. (2016). The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Crime Against Property or a Crime Against People? UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law15(33), 335-393.
  15. Ghani, K., & Foroughi, F. (2015). War crimes against cultural heritage in the Syrian armed conflict. Criminal Law and Criminology Studies 2(4–5), 333–355. (In Persian)
  16. Ghani, K., & Foroughi, F. (2022). Goals and factors influencing the punishment of perpetrators of crimes against cultural heritage in light of the Al Mahdi case and the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. Criminal Law Teachings 19(24), 261–294. (In Persian)
  17. Ghani, K., Foroughi, F., & Sadeghi, M. H. (2020). Consequences of registering cultural heritage in the UNESCO World Heritage List on sovereignty and state responsibility. Strategic Studies Quarterly 32(2), 181–212. (In Persian)
  18. Goldstone, R. (2018). International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc Tribunals. In T. G. Weiss & S. Daws (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press:567-583.
  19. Hague Convention For The Protection Of Cultural Property In The Event Of Armed Conflict. (1954, May 14).
  20. Hausler ,Kristin, “Cultural heritage and the Security Council: Why Resolution 2347 matters”, question of international law, https://www.qil-qdi.org/cultural-heritage-security-council-resolution-2347-matters/last visited at12 April 2025.
  21. Heidari, F. (2021). Protection of immovable cultural heritage from the perspective of public law: A comparative study of Iranian and English law (Doctoral dissertation). Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch. (In Persian)
  22. Hermann, D. H. J. (2017). Restorative Justice and Retributive Justice: An Opportunity for Cooperation or an Occasion for Conflict in the Search for Justice. Seattle Journal for Social Justice 16(1): 71-103.
  23. Hosini, S. and Razavifard, B. (2024). Proactive Prevention of the Crime of Destruction of Historical and Cultural Monuments: An Etiological Approach. Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 1(1), 66-101. doi: 10.22034/jclc.2024.718663. (In Persian)
  24. (2016). Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08). Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, 21 June 2016.
  25. (2016). Situation in the Republic of Mali in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15). Public Redacted Version of “Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentencing”, 22 July 2016.
  26. (2016). Situation in the Republic of Mali in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15). Judgment and Sentence, 27 September 2016.
  27. (2018). Situation in the Republic of Mali in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15). Judgm on the appeal of the victims against the Reparations Orde, 8 March 2018.
  28. ICTY statute. (1993, May 25).
  29. (2001). Prosecutor V. Čerkez And Kordić (Case No. IT-95-14/2-T). Trial Chamber, Judgment, 26 February 2001.
  30. (2004). Prosecutor V. Jokić (Case No. IT-01-42/1-S). Trial Chamber I, Judgment, 18 March 2004.
  31. (2005). Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar (Case No. IT-01-42-T). Trial Chamber II, Judgment, 31 January 2005.
  32. (2006). Prosecutor V. Krajišnik (Case No. IT-00-39-T). Trial Chamber I, Judgment, 27 September 2006.
  33. (2009). Prosecutor V. Martinović (Case No. IT-05-87-T). Trial Chamber, Judgment, 26 February 2009.
  34. (2016). Prosecutor V. Radovan Karadzic (Case No- IT-95-5/18-T). Trail Chamber, Judgment, Ch, March 2016.
  35. International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg). (1946). Judgment Of 1 October 1946. In The Trial of German Major War Criminals.
  36. Jafari, F. (2013). Evaluation of theoretical and philosophical challenges of the International Criminal Court. Strategic Studies of Public Policy 11(4). (In Persian)
  37. Khalighi, A., & Barzegar, M. R. (2020). Sexual violence against Yazidi women as genocide with emphasis on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the Akayesu case. Criminal Law and Criminology Research 8(16), 7–31. (In Persian)
  38. Lesani, S. H. (2015). International law protection of cultural and historical heritage during military occupation with emphasis on the responsibility of the United States during the occupation of Iraq. Shiraz University Legal Studies 7(3), 141–166. (In Persian)
  39. Lixinski, L. (2013). Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law. Oxford University Press.
  40. Merryman, J. (1986). Two Ways Of Thinking About Cultural Property. The American Journal Of International Law 80(4), 831-853.
  41. Moffett, L., Viejo Rose, D., & Hickey, R. (2020). Shifting the paradigm on cultural property and heritage in international law and armed conflict: time to talk about reparations? International Journal of Heritage Studies 26(7), 651-667.
  42. Mohammadzadeh, S. (2021, March 25). The case of Ahmad Al-Faqi Al Mahdi: The first trial of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes against cultural property. Iran Academy of United Nations Studies. Retrieved July 1, 2025
  43. Nersessian, D. (2018). The Current Status of Cultural Genocide Under International Law. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  44. Powderly, J. (2022). Prosecuting Heritage Destruction. In J. Cuno & T. G. Weiss (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and Mass Atrocities (pp. 430–447). Getty Publications.
  45. Press Release GA/9858. (2001). General Assembly Tenth Emergency Special Session, 10th plenary meeting. Retrieved from https://press.un.org/en/2001/ga9858.doc.htm
  46. Prott, L. V., & O’Keefe, P. J. (1992). “Cultural Heritage” or “Cultural Property”? International Journal of Cultural Property 1(2), 307-320.
  47. Ranđelović, V., Soković, S., & Banović, B. (2023). International Criminal Law And International Criminal Justice Objectives And Purpose Of Punishment In International Criminal Law Theory And Practice. Journal Of Criminology And Criminal Law 61(1), 67-91.
  48. Razavi Rad, M. (2017). Challenges facing the international legal system in protecting underwater cultural heritage (Doctoral dissertation). Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch. (In Persian)
  49. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998, July 17).
  50. RYŠKA, I. (2020). Types of cultural property and their protection under International Criminal Law. International and Comparative Law Review, 0(1), 220-236.
  51. Saeedi, M. (2016). Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in international law (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tehran, Faculty of Law. (In Persian)
  52. Shariat Bagheri, M. J. (2023). International criminal law. Tehran: Ganj Danesh. (In Persian)
  53. Thake, A. M. (2018, April 15). The intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a genocidal act and a crime against humanity. European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2017 Annual Conference (Naples). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3163108
  54. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. (2003, October 17).
  55. UNESCO Convention Concerning The Protection Of The World Cultural And Natural Heritage. (1972, November 16).
  56. UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (2024, September 24). Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/document/1145
  57. Vadi, V. (2023). Cultural Heritage in International Economic Law. Brill | Nijhoff.
  58. Vakil, A. S., & Ghashghlaqi Nigjeh, A. (2021). Protection of world cultural heritage in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. Judicial Law Perspectives Quarterly 24(94), 119–139. (In Persian)
  59. Vrdoljak, A. F. (2016). The Criminalisation of the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. In M. Orlando & T. Bergin (Eds.), Forging a Socio-Legal Approach to Environmental Harm: Global Perspectives (pp. 430-447). Routledge.
  60. Xanthaki, A. (2017). International Instruments on Cultural Heritage: Tales of Fragmentation. In Indigenous Peoples' Cultural Heritage: Rights, Debates, Challenges. Brill | Nijhoff.
  61. Yahaya, A. (2006). The Scope And Definitions Of Heritage: From Tangible To Intangible. International Journal Of Heritage Studies 12(3), 292-300.
  62. Zamani, S. G., & Sadeghi, M. R. (2020). The International Criminal Court’s approach to sentencing objectives. Criminal Law and Criminology Research 8(16), 79–112. (In Persian)

Keywords
Cultural Heritage
International Criminal Court (ICC)
Genocide
Crimes Against Humanity
Al-Mahdi Case

Subjects

Research and development in criminal law and criminology
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
March 2026
Pages 309-347