# data[].attributes.body
Heritage sites being destroyed

https://earth.org/heritage-at-risk-4-unesco-sites-under-threat/

https://youtu.be/l_SMqCoXRl4?si=LbcTo60MuXftulQe

# data[].attributes.headline
Sites being destroyed due to urbanization in India

# data[].attributes.subject
Sites being destroyed due to urbanization in India

# data[].attributes.body
https://hyperallergic.com/835308/the-rampant-erasure-of-muslim-heritage-in-india/

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
Sites being destroyed due to urbanization in India

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/04/18/destroying-cultural-heritage/explosive-weapons-effects-armed-conflict-and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The bombing and shelling of populated cities, towns, and villages produces horrific humanitarian consequences. In recent armed conflicts-in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere-this use of explosive weapons has killed and injured thousands of civilians and caused foreseeable long-term harm. In November 2022, 83 countries endorsed the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas(the Declaration). The Declaration sets standards for preventing and remediating the effects generated by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

There has been growing awareness and concern about the damage and destruction that armed conflict inflicts on cultural heritage. Such heritage ranges from ancient archaeological sites to modern exemplars of architecture, world-renowned monuments to regional museums, places of religious worship to centers for artistic performance. Cultural heritage passes from one generation to another and is of global and local significance. Harm to cultural heritage is, therefore, inseparable from harm to the civilian population.

This report examines the connections between the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and damage to and destruction of cultural heritage. It aims to increase awareness of the specific impacts of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and, by extension, civilians. It also offers recommendations for using the recently endorsed Declaration to better protect cultural heritage. While this report focuses on the Declaration as a tool to enhance safeguards within populated areas, cultural heritage should receive comparable protection from explosive weapons wherever it is found.

When used in populated areas, explosive weapons, such as aerial bombs, artillery and mortar projectiles, rockets, and missiles, kill and injure civilians and destroy civilian objects at the time of attack. These weapons also have long-term indirect, or "reverberating," effects. They disrupt civilian infrastructure, which interferes with basic services, infringing on human rights to standard of living, health, and education, among others. In addition, they inflict psychological harm, displace communities, and cause damage to the environment and the subject of this report: cultural heritage.

Chapter I of this report provides an overview of the 2022 Declaration and the concept of cultural heritage. The Declaration is dedicated to protecting civilians from the effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It explicitly enumerates among its list of effects the "damage and destruction of ... cultural heritage sites" and associated "civilian suffering." While this report draws on the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, it adopts a more current definition of "cultural heritage," which takes into account, for example, heritage of local significance as well as universal value. The effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage warrant attention because cultural heritage protection can help communities recover, preserve intergenerational connections, and save sites of existential meaning to civilians.

Chapter II examines how the use of explosive weapons in populated areas endangers cultural heritage. It presents Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine as a case study. The chapter surveys five examples of attacks on and harm to cultural heritage in Ukraine, including to local museums and archives, cultural sites in urban centers, and places of worship. The case study highlights the frequency, diversity, and gravity of the effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and why these effects matter to the civilian population.

Drawing on examples from recent armed conflicts in different parts of the world, Chapter III applies the Declaration's framework of effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas to the cultural heritage context. The chapter describes the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage. It also shows how such damage and destruction aggravate civilian suffering by directly causing civilian casualties and indirectly inflicting psychosocial, economic, and other types of harm.

Chapter IV sets forth how states should interpret and implement the Declaration to enhance protections for cultural heritage. Specifically, it identifies five categories of actions that states should take in this area: preventive steps, data collection and sharing, remedial measures, an inclusive approach, and review and promotion of the Declaration. The chapter analyzes provisions of the Declaration that fall in each of these categories and offers recommendations for applying them in a way that maximizes cultural heritage protection.

Finally, Chapter V discusses how the Declaration can bolster current means for safeguarding cultural heritage from armed conflict. The Declaration commits endorsing states to strengthen compliance with and implementation of existing international humanitarian law, which encompasses treaties addressing cultural heritage. More important, it encourages them to go beyond existing law to protect civilians and civilian objects, including through the protection of cultural heritage. This chapter lays out four areas in which the Declaration, if interpreted and implemented as this report recommends, can strengthen and clarify current law to better prevent and remediate cultural heritage-related harm.

To address the harm to cultural heritage and associated harm to civilians, Human Rights Watch and the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at Harvard Law School call on states to do more to safeguard cultural heritage from the use of explosive weapons.

In particular, states should:

1. Endorse, if they have not done so already, the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas;

2. Interpret and implement the Declaration to enhance protections for cultural heritage; and

3. Raise awareness of and condemn the foreseeable harm to cultural heritage and, by extension, civilians arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

This chapter introduces the humanitarian consequences stemming from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the Declaration that seeks to recognize and respond to this foreseeable and devastating pattern of civilian harm. It also offers a definition of cultural heritage and highlights the importance of its protection, even in the context of other harm to civilians and civilian objects.

Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas and the Political Declaration

The Declaration is the product of close collaboration among states; United Nations agencies, particularly the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); international organizations, notably the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); and civil society organizations coordinated by INEW.

The Declaration aims to advance the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Its preamble recognizes the practice's "devastating impact on civilians and civilian objects." The Declaration's operative paragraphs enumerate commitments to reduce that impact, including through national policies and practices, data collection, victim assistance, and humanitarian access. The introduction, or "chapeau," to the operative section articulates the document's overarching purpose and notes that the Declaration commits states to "strengthening compliance with and improving the implementation of applicable international humanitarian law." It also makes clear that the Declaration, while non-binding, goes beyond existing international law by committing endorsing states to taking additional steps to advance humanitarian ends. Elaborating on the goals expressed in the Declaration's title, the chapeau specifically highlights "strengthening the protection of civilians" and "addressing the humanitarian consequences arising from armed conflict." These commitments thus refer to the prevention and remediation of harm from explosive weapons in populated areas.

What is Cultural Heritage?

There are different legal definitions of "cultural heritage," and experts in art history, archaeology, and other related fields have elaborated on the concept. The Declaration does not define what it refers to as "cultural heritage sites," but states can look to these sources when interpreting and implementing the Declaration in a way that maximizes cultural heritage protection.

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people...;

(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a)...;

(c) centers containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a)and (b), to be known as "centers containing monuments."

The definition, which also gives examples of each category, encompasses a broad range of cultural property, including immovable structures (e.g., "monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular"); movable objects (e.g., paintings and other works of art, books, manuscripts, etc.); and buildings that house the latter (e.g., museums, archives, and libraries). The definition also establishes a threshold of significance for something to amount to cultural property by stipulating that it must be "of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people."

The Hague Convention's approach offers the benefits of breadth of coverage with specificity of examples, but it also has some limitations. It employs the term "cultural property," rather than "cultural heritage," while more recent international law favors the latter term. Cultural property "emphasize[s] the idea of property as something you own and the right to do what you want with it." Cultural heritage, by contrast, focuses on human achievements that belong to groups collectively and can be passed from one generation to another.

The Declaration does not explicitly define the term cultural heritage, but it refers to "cultural heritage sites." Its inclusion of the word "sites" implies that it generally focuses on tangible cultural heritage. Nevertheless, "sites" should be understood broadly to include not only museums, archives, libraries, and the like, but the movable cultural heritage they contain. It is also worth noting that the legal definition of intangible cultural heritage does include "instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces," all of which could be damaged by explosive weapons, and protecting that list of civilian objects can help protect other elements of intangible heritage. Because the Declaration uses the more current term cultural heritage rather that cultural property, it should be interpreted to protect heritage that is of local significance as well universal value. This report uses "cultural heritage" as a shorthand term to cover the concept discussed in our testimonial and desk research as well as the Declaration.

The Significance of Cultural Heritage

The significance of cultural heritage, globally and locally, makes its destruction in armed conflict a matter of serious concern. As noted above, the Declaration references damage and destruction of cultural heritage sites and the associated civilian suffering. While the use of explosive weapons in populated areas inflicts harm ranging from death and injury to psychological trauma to destruction of infrastructure, the devastating impacts on cultural heritage also warrant close attention. Protection of cultural heritage can help communities recover, preserve intergenerational connections, and save sites of existential meaning to civilians.

Because cultural heritage makes individuals part of a community, damaging it has psychosocial effects that can interfere with post-conflict recovery. Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a nongovernmental organization that monitors explosive weapons use around the world, found that "[e]xplosive violence does more than just harm in a physical way-it has the ability to transform landscapes and cause deep cultural trauma." According to a Syrian architect, people in Homs felt like "strangers in their own city" after it was heavily shelled: "They feel disorientated and have lost their sense of belonging, where they have lost not only the faces they used to see, but also the buildings, shops, and streets they used and visited." According to the director of the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative, Corine Wegener, cultural heritage should be protected because people need it for recovery, resilience, and economic reasons. She recalled discussing the significance of loss of cultural heritage with a survivor of a major earthquake in Haiti, which she analogized to a conflict situation. While the man mourned the deaths of his fellow citizens, he told her: "The dead are dead, but without our heritage the rest of us can't keep going." Ukrainian studies professor Olenka Pevny described cultural heritage as a "lifeline ... something to live for."Destroying cultural heritage deprives people of the healing function of heritage.

Cultural heritage is passed from one generation to another, and its loss breaks that chain. Responding to the 1993 destruction of the Stari Most ("Old Bridge") in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian author Slavenka Drakulić wrote:

We expect people to die. We count on our own lives to end. The destruction of a monument to civilization is something else. The bridge, in all its beauty and grace, was built to outlive us; it was an attempt to grasp eternity. Because it was the product of both individual creativity and collective experience, it transcended our individual destiny. A dead woman is one of us-but the bridge is all of us, forever.

More recently, people in Ukraine and Yemen who documented cultural heritage destruction in their countries expressed similar sentiments. Volodymyr Yermolenko, president of PEN Ukraine, said, "Heritage is something that ensures a connection between the dead, the alive, and the not yet born." It goes "beyond individuals' lives" and, if preserved, allows them to connect to people of previous centuries. Karina Nguyen grew up in Kharkiv, Ukraine, which has suffered significant damage to its cultural heritage since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Noting that cultural heritage cannot always be restored or rebuilt, she said, "[F]or future generations, [cultural heritage] is really important." Arwa Othman, a Yemeni author and former minister of culture, said that "people are destroyed when their collective memory is destroyed."

States should recognize that the protection of cultural heritage and the protection of civilians during armed conflict, including from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, are both essential and not mutually exclusive.

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas in contemporary armed conflicts endangers cultural heritage around the world. The ongoing war in Ukraine provides a compelling case study of this problem. Russian and Ukrainian forces have used explosive weapons extensively; the effects of Russian forces' use on different types of cultural heritage in Ukraine is well documented; and culture is central to Ukrainian identity and to Russia's stated war aims. The damage and destruction discussed below exemplify the frequency, diversity, and gravity of the effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and why these effects matter to the civilian population.

This chapter seeks to illuminate the risks that cultural heritage faces from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas in Ukraine. It documents five examples of attacks on and impacts to cultural heritage, examining the details of the damage or destruction and the significance of the loss. The study of specific Ukrainian museums, urban cultural centers, and places of worship is indicative of a larger humanitarian problem in this armed conflict and others across different times and places. A similar story is unfolding in Gaza; the extent of damage to its cultural heritage should be fully documented and analyzed as soon as conditions on the ground allow.

Context

Local Museums and Archives

From the very beginning of the conflict, cultural heritage in Ukraine has been at risk. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas of Ukraine destroyed multiple small but significant local museums, such as the Ivankiv Local History Museum and the National Literary and Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda. Both contained works from individuals at the heart of Ukrainian artistic and literary identity. Both were left in ruins due to a combination of the weapons' blast effects and ensuing fires.

Ivankiv Local History Museum

Fires resulting from the Russian shelling of Ivankiv, a town north of Kyiv, burned and destroyed the local history and art museum on the second and third day of Russia's full-scale invasion. The Ivankiv Local History Museum housed art and artifacts of local and national heritage. In particular, it held the works of the well-known 20-century Ukrainian folk artist Maria Prymachenko, who had been a resident of Ivankiv. The destruction of the museum and some of its collections demonstrates the vulnerability of movable cultural heritage to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

After the initial shelling ended, Kharitonova noticed that a munition had hit the roof of the museum. At that point, the museum remained largely intact, although the roof sustained some damage. More shelling occurred later, however, and a fire started, igniting quickly because of the strong wind. Despite initial reports to the contrary, thanks to rescue efforts led by Anatoliy Kharitonov, all 14 works by Prymachenko were saved. Natalia Kharitonova, who went to the museum after the attack, noted, however, that fire had burned exhibits detailing the district's history, "pre-revolutionary materials, various certificates, towels by Hanna Veres (a famous folk weaver), paintings by Savchenko, Ignatiuk, Skopych, and works of the 19 century." The fire was so intense that stone axes from the Medieval period cracked. Dmytro Koval, the legal director for Truth Hounds who has expertise in cultural heritage law, visited the site at a later date and reported finding that the museum still had no roof or inside walls. He told Human Rights Watch and IHRC, "It was completely destroyed" and only a "shell of the building is left."

National Literary Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda

Attacks on local museums continued as the war continued. On May 6, 2022, at 11:30 p.m., a Russian explosive weapon hit the roof of the National Literary and Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda in Skovorodynivka in the Kharkivska region, sparking a fire. The fire, which was not fully extinguished until 8 a.m. the following day, caused significant damage to the site. The museum was important because it was the last home of Hryhorii Skovoroda, a major Ukrainian philosopher, theologian, poet, and academic from the 18 century and because it served as the repository of collections dedicated to him. This attack exemplifies the impact that explosive weapons can have on historic homes and archives, which contain information crucial to preserving intellectual identity.

The explosive weapon attack and resulting fire severely damaged the exhibition spaces and a memorial room to Hryhorii Skovoroda (1722-1794) in the 18-century main building. Although many of the collections had been previously removed because staff had recognized they were vulnerable to the conflict, the incident destroyed almost all of the furnishings and interior decor as well as the museum in which to house and display the saved exhibits in the future. Architect and restorer Viktor Dvornikov who visited the site after the attack said that blast and fire also destroyed two other buildings on the grounds: a wooden storehouse and a nearby guest house where it is believed Skovoroda spent his last years. A charred statue of Skovoroda, left intact, has become a symbol of defiance in the face of what many Ukrainians perceive as a war on Ukrainian cultural identity.

Skovoroda was born into a Cossack family. His work explored questions around self-knowledge, identity, happiness, and the meaning of being. Through fable and allegory, he examined the ideas of rights and equality. His simple way of life inspired many. Volodymyr Lopatko, an assistant professor of civil engineering and architecture at Kharkiv National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, said in an interview with PEN America and PEN Ukraine that Skovoroda "had a mystical and religious belief in the equality of people ... and his idea that all unequal people should be equal became the basis of his religious and mystical idea of humanity."

The use of explosive weapons in this case destroyed what Dvornikov referred to as a "significant historic object." The heritage site was a place that people could go to learn about and remember a person who was crucial to the development of religion and philosophy in Ukraine. Ukrainian studies professor Pevny told Human Rights Watch and IHRC that the destruction of the Skovoroda museum "strikes at the intellectual core of Ukrainian identity." Pevny described him as "Ukraine's leading philosopher of the late 18 century" and as "a national figure, like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln" might be to Americans. PEN Ukraine's Volodymyr Yermolenko said that Skovoroda was "one of the pillars of Ukrainian culture" who stressed "the importance of balance, equilibrium, and education." Skovoroda's philosophy and way of life left a lasting impact on Ukraine's culture. Several Ukrainian universities now bear his name, and his image appears on the 500 hryvnia note.

Urban Cultural Heritage

Kharkiv's Freedom Square and Environs

In Freedom Square itself, an office building called Derzhprom, or the State Industry Building, which is on the Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, suffered "some minor damage" from early shelling, and on January 2, 2024, an explosive weapon shattered clear and stained glass on its northwestern façade. Architect Viktor Dvornikov told a Ukrainian news source, Suspilne Kharkiv, after the most recent attack, "The scope of the [repair] work is very large-scale. Today's damage affects the condition of the building, because temperature fluctuations can lead to damage to the interior decoration, which is a serious problem. There are a large number of wooden structures inside Derzhprom, (and temperature fluctuations) will be very harmful." A 1928 constructivist skyscraper, the Derzhprom spans the avant-garde and art-deco eras. In the Soviet era, it gained international recognition and inspired modernism around the world.

Derzhprom is part of a larger culturally significant neighborhood that Dvornikov described as a monument of constructivism and "one united piece of cultural heritage." The January 2 attack caused serious damage to a residential building located in that area and immediately behind Dzerzhprom. Dvornikov, who has observed the damage, reported finding significant cracks across four floors of the structure, which forced all the residents to evacuate.

Explosive weapons also damaged several architectural and historic landmarks near Freedom Square in March 2022 and at later points in the conflict. Due to an explosive weapons attack on March 2, 2022, the Palace of Labor suffered the "heaviest damage" to one such object in that area, according to Dvornikov, who saw the building later that year. "I haven't seen any one place with such a high level of ruin.... Everywhere was totally damaged," he said. He found fallen slabs of roof, five stories of collapsing walls, crumbling interior plaster walls and ceilings. Some of the exterior walls survived because they were made of sturdier masonry, but the interior wooden structure could not survive the detonation of explosive weapons. An apartment building constructed in the early 20 century, the Palace of Labor combined the art nouveau and neoclassical styles and has been described as an "architectur[al] and urban development monument of local significance."

The reactions of the people of Kharkiv reflect the significance of the city's cultural heritage to the local population. Karina Nguyen, a former Kharkiv resident, told Human Rights Watch and IHRC that she grew up having great pride in the architecture of the city and regularly attending the theater and ballet around Freedom Square. By the time the war started, she was living in the United States and working as a student researcher at the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley. Through open-source data, Nguyen has systematically documented damage to cultural sites in Ukraine, including Kharkiv, and published her analysis with Bloomberg. Highlighting the esteem with which the community held Kharkiv's cultural heritage, she noted that some residents "put in a lot of effort to protect sites." "They were using sandbags, for example, around statues.... They are risking their lives to protect culture." When asked how she felt about the loss of heritage in her hometown, Nguyen expressed sorrow at the damage in Kharkiv and concern that important sites "will not be rebuilt in the way they were originally." According to Nguyen, the damage in and around Freedom Square risks overshadowing the cultural identity of Kharkiv and those who live there in the eyes of the global community: "I don't want my city to be remembered by our collective memory as the city of destruction. I want it to be remembered for its cultural artifacts and identity."

Donetsk Academic Regional Drama Theater, Mariupol

A Russian airstrike all but destroyed the theater on the morning of March 16. A man who lived about 300 meters from the theater said he saw a plane approaching the city center. The plane descended and dropped two bombs. He heard a loud explosion and, not long after, a neighbor told him the theater had been hit. The attack was most likely carried out by Russian aircraft that dropped two 500-kilogram bombs onto the theater's roof, which penetrated the building and detonated in the main auditorium at about stage level, possibly with the aid of delayed-action fuzes. Human Rights Watch, Truth Hounds, and Amnesty International interviews documented that at least 15 people were killed during the attack. The New York Times reported claims that between 60 and 200 were killed. Because many people were able to leave the theater in convoys between March 14 and early on March 16, it appears that the several hundred people still present at the time of the attack were able to move to parts of the theater that were considered more secure. Human Rights Watch's research found that Russia's attack on the theater was unlawful, and those who ordered it and carried it out should be investigated for a war crime.

Places of Worship

Transfiguration Cathedral, Odesa

A Russian attack using an explosive weapon severely damaged Odesa's Transfiguration Cathedral (also known as the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral) on July 23, 2023. Although the current cathedral is a rebuilt version of the original 19-century structure, it is a site of spiritual and historical significance to the Ukrainian people and Odesa residents. The attack and its aftermath highlight the consequences of using explosive weapons on a place of worship for the site and the community.

The explosive weapon struck the cathedral by entering through the roof and leaving a gaping hole in one corner of the building. According to the cathedral's chief priest, Myroslav Vdodovych, in an interview with the Guardian, the attack "was a direct hit, right in the altar area." The blast also blew off other parts of the roof, exposing supporting beams and raining debris into the inside of the structure. An ensuing fire inflicted further damage, endangering wall paintings, icons, and other interior decorations. Members of a neighboring congregation assisted with clean-up efforts, donning hard hats and carrying out pieces of the cathedral and munition fragments.

Harm to Cultural Heritage

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas both directly and indirectly harms cultural heritage at the time of attack and in the aftermath.

Direct Effects of Explosive Weapons on Cultural Heritage

Explosive weapons' blast, fragmentation, and secondary fires inflict direct effects on the full range of cultural heritage sites at the time of attack. The blast produced by detonations on or near cultural heritage can bend and break the structural elements of a building, even concrete and steel, leading to the collapse of part or all of an entire edifice. In December 2023, the use of explosive weapons by Israeli forces "largely destroyed" the Great Omari Mosque, Gaza's oldest mosque, first constructed in the 7 century and rebuilt multiple times since. Images show the mosque's courtyard full of rubble surrounded by crumbling walls. Explosive weapons use is particularly harmful to cultural heritage because sites are often old or made of more vulnerable materials, such as "unreinforced masonry," clay, stone, or wood. For example, an analyst reported that because the buildings of Yemen's Old City of Sanaa, constructed before the 11 century, "are made from clay, the bombing has affected them very heavily." Furthermore, attempts to preemptively protect heritage can be very difficult, expensive, or unachievable. Even reinforcement frameworks may not withstand explosive weapons, actions to temporarily relocate portable cultural heritage are much more difficult during wartime, and efforts to protect cultural heritage can sometimes damage it.

Fragments of an explosive weapon and the debris dispersed by its detonation also directly affect cultural heritage. They can scar building facades and surface decorations and shatter stained glass windows. If they penetrate the windows of a place of worship, museum, or archives, they can damage interior walls or objects within, such as paintings, sculptures, tapestries, or books. Human Rights Watch field researchers documented an October 8, 2020 attack during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in which Azerbaijani forces attacked Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, an important 19-century Armenian church in the town of Shusha (Shushi, in Armenian). The explosive weapons' blast left two gaping holes in the cathedral's roof and piles of debris on the floor. Fragmentation marks from the second weapon, likely with a time-delayed fuze, covered the interior walls. Fragmentation from explosive weapons that detonate outside of a building has the potential to extend the weapons' effects beyond the immediate blast radius.

Indirect Effects of Explosive Weapons on Cultural Heritage

Harm to Civilians

The direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas extend beyond damage to cultural heritage. Civilians are killed or injured at the time of attack and local communities suffer a range of psychosocial and practical consequences in the aftermath.

Direct Effects of Explosive Weapons on Civilians

Other civilians suffer harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas because they are drawn to cultural heritage as a result of armed conflict. In some cases, people seek refuge in a site they believe to be safe due to its cultural status or to its structural elements; instead, they find themselves at risk. In October 2023, hundreds of Palestinians were sheltering in the 12-century Greek Orthodox Church of St. Porphyrius, the oldest active church in Gaza, when Israeli forces launched an airstrike, which they said was targeting Hamas forces. "We left our homes and came to stay at the church because we thought we would be protected here," Ramez al-Sury, who lost three children in the attack, told Amnesty International. According to Airwars, a nongovernmental organization that investigates civilian harm in conflict zones, the attack killed between 23 to 27 people and damaged multiple buildings within the church compound.

Indirect Effects of Explosive Weapons on Civilians

Preventive Measures

Policies and Practices (Paragraph 3.1)

States should ensure they address cultural heritage when adopting, strengthening, and operationalizing policies and practices under the Declaration. Paragraph 3.1 commits states to "implement, and where necessary, review, develop or improve national policy and practicewith regard to the protection of civilians during armed conflict involving use of explosive weapons in populated areas." This provision calls on states to establish a domestic framework for civilian protection, and thus should cover all the threats to civilians and civilian objects referenced in the Declaration's preamble.

Paragraph 3.1 takes a broad approach to national implementation measures. It covers both policies (including statutes and regulations, military doctrine, rules of engagement, military handbooks, etc.) and practices (steps taken to operationalize these written standards). If relevant policies and practices exist, a state should implement or, where necessary, strengthen them. If they do not exist, the state should develop new ones. Regardless, the paragraph demands vigilance: a state should review and amend its policies and practices as needed to respond to emerging information or lessons learned. Because policies and practices are produced at the national level, the Declaration allows for flexibility across different states.

Action on this provision in the cultural heritage sphere can take different forms. States can incorporate cultural heritage into existing policies and practices dealing with civilian protection in armed conflict. Alternatively, they can adopt or adapt policies and practices related to cultural heritage protection to address the use of explosive weapons in populated areas in particular. Either way, states should ensure their policies and practices not only uphold existing international humanitarian law but also live up to the Declaration's goals of reducing the humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

Training (Paragraph 3.2)

The Declaration's training provision applies to both existing international humanitarian law and armed conflict-related policies and policies, including those related to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The breadth of training is consistent with the Declaration's goals of not only improving compliance with existing international humanitarian law but also strengthening the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. If properly trained on these topics, armed forces will have notice about their obligations and commitments and be more prepared to implement them in the course of their duties. When an armed conflict arises, well-trained troops should be more likely to uphold the law and to take steps to prevent the harm explosive weapons cause to civilians and civilian objects.

Refraining from or Restricting Use (Paragraph 3.3)

Foreseeability (Paragraph 3.4)

Paragraph 3.4 constitutes a broad commitment with regard to the problem it defines and the response it calls for. First, it covers "the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects." The Declaration's preamble lays out that such effects extend far beyond deaths and injuries to encompass various reverberating effects on people and objects. Second, states should understand and implement the commitment to "take into account" as extending beyond a mere consideration of these impacts and entailing concrete steps to enhance civilian protection, the central goal of the Declaration.

In the cultural heritage context, states should take steps designed to enhance protection for the sites and civilians threatened by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. This commitment bolsters the argument for states to refrain, under Paragraph 3.3, from the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas. In addition, the duty to account for foreseeable effects can inform when and how states should restrict the use of other explosive weapons in populated areas with cultural heritage. When asked how to avoid the inevitable damage to cultural heritage caused by explosive weapons in such densely populated areas as the Old City of Sanaa, Lamya Khalidi, the archeologist specializing in Yemen, responded simply, "Don't hit them."

Role of Information

Data Collection and Sharing (Paragraphs 1.8, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)

To achieve these goals, the gathering and dissemination of information should encompass data on both civilian harm and military operations. As specified in Paragraph 4.2, states should "collect, share, and make publicly available" data on the full range of humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, including direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects. Fulfilling the Declaration's commitments further entails collecting operational data, such as the types and numbers of weapons used, the locations hit and intended targets, and circumstances of the weapons' use. Such comprehensive information is essential not only to determining the humanitarian impacts of explosive weapons but also to assessing the effectiveness of civilian protection policies and practices and informing reforms where appropriate. To help ensure thorough data collection and avoid bias, Paragraph 4.3 calls on states to facilitate the research of other experts, including from the UN, the ICRC, and civil society organizations.

The data collection and sharing provisions are equally important tools for the protection of cultural heritage from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Documenting and publicizing the gravity and breadth of harm can generate international outrage and stigmatize a method of war that endangers cultural heritage, thus helping to prevent further destruction. In-depth records of a cultural heritage site or object before and after it is damaged can aid the preservation and restoration process. Understanding the cause as well as the nature of the harm can inform the development and evolution of policies and practices under the Declaration. Data gathering and sharing related to cultural heritage, as with regard to civilian harm more broadly, can also facilitate monitoring and promote accountability.

Based on his experience in Ukraine and with cultural heritage law, Dmytro Koval of Truth Hounds outlined the key elements and challenges of a cultural heritage damage assessment. Like Sullivan, he stressed the importance of baseline information. "We don't have a well-developed and well-structured database of cultural heritage in Ukraine," he said. While there are national and regional heritage lists, there is no such municipal list. The lack of standardized information across the country has impeded "identification and assessment of damage." Effective assessment also requires coordination across government agencies, UNESCO, international and nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders. According to Koval, such coordination is also lacking in Ukraine: "If there is some intention to make another intervention and help with documentation, they should at least try to understand what others are already covering." Other elements essential to cultural heritage assessments include funding and making up for the loss of experts during an ongoing armed conflict.

The Declaration's two potential limits to the collection and sharing of data, referenced in Paragraph 4.2, should not be interpreted as providing loopholes in the cultural heritage context. States can ensure data collection is "feasible" by facilitating the collection of data by individuals and groups outside the government, in line with the commitments under Paragraph 4.3. While military investigators may best be able to provide operational data, they will likely need to consult with outside experts, such as art historians, archaeologists, and historians, to gather information on the heritage. In addition, they should involve local community members who can speak with authority to how they have experienced the harm. Granting humanitarian access, as discussed below, is one means of ensuring feasibility on a time-sensitive basis.

Remedial Measures

Humanitarian Access (Paragraph 4.4)

Cultural heritage organizations should be allowed access to affected sites to aid with documentation, preservation, and recovery efforts. Paragraph 4.4 commits states to "facilitate rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need in situations of armed conflict in accordance with applicable international law, including International Humanitarian Law." Given the importance of cultural heritage to local populations and the urgency of action, safe passage should be granted to relevant cultural heritage specialists.

Damaged cultural heritage is at risk of ongoing decay, loss of evidence, and looting, which makes timely access to sites, even during ongoing conflicts, critical. According to Dmytro Koval of Truth Hounds, relevant agencies have to respond quickly to prevent additional harm to damaged cultural heritage. A site compromised by explosive weapons is vulnerable to collapse due to a weakened foundation, cracked walls, or exposure to the elements. Municipalities' desire to clear rubble to repair roads and other structures as soon as possible after an attack can interfere with the imperative for cultural heritage experts to collect evidence. Therefore, "the reaction of investigators and prosecutors needs to be very quick to collect all the needed data and photo and 3-D drone footage, and then leave the space for the municipal agencies dealing with repairs." Timeliness of access is also essential for the accuracy of data collection. According to Patty Gerstenblith, who has worked in multiple capacities to advance the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict, "It's not enough to come back later and say cultural heritage was destroyed.... One of the most important things has to be data collection contemporary with destruction."

Victim Assistance (Paragraph 4.5)

Assistance to victims in the wake of armed conflict could include measures to address the civilian harm associated with the damage and destruction of cultural heritage. Paragraph 4.5 calls on states to:

Provide, facilitate, or support assistance to victims-people injured, survivors, families of people killed or injured-as well as communities affected by armed conflict. Adopt a holistic, integrated, gender-sensitive, and non-discriminatory approach to such assistance, taking into account the rights of persons with disabilities, and supporting post-conflict recovery and durable solutions.

A commitment to provide assistance in the cultural heritage context should complement not compete with traditional victim assistance.

Victim assistance seeks to ensure the humanitarian consequences of conflict are remediated as well as prevented. States should construe victim assistance broadly to allow victims to realize their human rights and participate fully in society. Assistance encompasses not only medical care but also psychological support and measures to promote social and economic inclusion. It should advance post-conflict recovery, including through the rebuilding of civilian infrastructure.

States can take several concrete steps to ensure victim assistance applies to cultural heritage. First, they can recognize the relevance of the Declaration's commitment to assist victims to the cultural heritage context. In other words, they can make clear that the "holistic" approach to assistance and recovery should incorporate steps to address cultural heritage destruction and its associated impacts on civilians.

Third, victim assistance programs could facilitate access of affected communities to cultural heritage sites. Such efforts would further social inclusion, a goal of victim assistance, and further promote recovery.

Principle of Inclusion

Inclusion is particularly relevant in the cultural heritage context because militaries rarely have the requisite expertise in this area. The Declaration calls for the involvement of the UN, the ICRC, and civil society organizations with regard to actions where an understanding of cultural heritage and its significance is especially valuable. For example, data collection would benefit from in-depth knowledge of the culture of an area of operation, and measures to assist civilians harmed by cultural heritage destruction or to respond to the damage to specific sites are more successful if grounded in an understanding of the affected people and places.

Review and Promotion of Declaration

Regular Meetings (Paragraph 4.7)

The follow-up meetings states committed to in Paragraph 4.7 provide an opportunity for the Declaration to evolve. The paragraph makes clear that the Declaration's protections remain open to improvement. It specifically mentions that "additional relevant measures ... may need to be taken." It suggests basing any revisions on an exchange of policies and practices and thinking about the topic. Following the principle of inclusion, states should follow a collaborative process that involves many stakeholders.

Active Promotion of the Declaration (Paragraph 4.8)

Under Paragraph 4.8, endorsing states should discuss and disseminate the Declaration not only among themselves but also with non-endorsing states and non-state armed groups who are parties to an armed conflict. As part of that commitment, states should work to persuade those actors to follow the Declaration's standards. They should also press other states to endorse the declaration so that they are politically, although not legally, bound by its provisions.

Actively promoting the Declaration is relevant to this report because cultural heritage is one of the humanitarian consequences endorsing states have committed to address. States should highlight that the Declaration explicitly includes cultural heritage destruction and resulting civilian suffering on its long list of foreseeable harm caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Examples of such harm could resonate with certain states or individuals, and provide an added motivation for joining the Declaration. States should also encourage actors to take into account cultural heritage when implementing the Declaration's standards as endorsers or on a voluntary basis. This chapter has provided guidelines for how to do so.

Existing Cultural Heritage Law

Enhancing the Existing Legal Regime with the Declaration

While the exiting legal regime provides some protections for cultural heritage in armed conflict, it has limits. If implemented as discussed in Chapter IV, the Declaration provides a tool for clarifying and strengthening existing legal protections of cultural heritage particularly from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

1) Expansion of Substantive Scope

The reference to "cultural heritage" in Paragraph 1.5 of the Declaration should help broaden states' understanding of the range of sites that should receive protection. As discussed in Chapter I, in the context of armed conflict, international law often refers to cultural property, rather than cultural heritage. Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention uses the narrower concept of cultural property, and Additional Protocol I and II, despite some textual differences, do not purport to modify the property-based meaning of this term.

Chapter I of this report explains, however, that more recent international law favors the term cultural heritage, and the Declaration's use of this term is consistent with and helps further this trend. A commitment to the Declaration may influence the range of cultural heritage that states should protect from the impact of explosive weapons in populated areas.

2) Use of Effects-Based Protections

The Declaration has the potential to advance the protection of cultural heritage because it focuses on addressing the consequences of an attack regardless of the intent behind it.

While the existing legal regime includes a variety of rules that can be used to protect cultural heritage, the prohibitions dedicated to the use of force against cultural property in particular apply specifically to intentional attacks on such sites. For example, the Additional Protocols grant cultural heritage the same protection from indiscriminate attacks as other civilian objects, but they only establish an absolute prohibition on "any acts of hostility directed against" cultural heritage. The 1954 Hague Convention similarly obligates states parties to "refrain[] from any act of hostility, directed against such [cultural] property." While valuable, these prohibitions have limitations.

The purpose of the Declaration, by contrast, is to address the "devastating impact" of explosive weapons use. The Declaration does not specify that this impact has to be caused by intentional targeting. Instead, the commitment in Paragraph 3.3 to restrict or refrain from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is triggered by the expectation of harm to civilians or civilian objects. As a result, it expands protection for cultural heritage beyond intentional targeting to the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas or the use of other explosive weapons in populated areas if the harm is foreseeable.

3) Narrowing of Military Necessity Exception

The Declaration should also discourage states from waiving the immunity of cultural heritage based on military necessity. While the existing legal regime permits states to invoke military necessity, doing so would be inconsistent with endorsing states' political commitments under the Declaration to prevent civilian harm to the greatest extent possible.

The military necessity exception in the context of cultural property is grounded in the 1954 Hague Convention and remains available to all states as a matter of customary international law. In Article 4(2), the convention permits states to waive their obligations to not intentionally target cultural property "only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver." According to Patty Gerstenblith, professor of cultural heritage law at DePaul University, the scope of the waiver is "undefined" and "countries have used [military necessity] to excuse a lot of" direct and indirect damage to cultural heritage. Subsequent treaties, including Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions and the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, arguably modify and narrow the scope of the military necessity waiver for some states. However, the relevant provisions of Additional Protocols I and II are without prejudice to the 1954 Hague Convention, only a limited number of states are parties to the Second Protocol, and that protocol does not reflect customary international law. The military necessity waiver in the 1954 Hague Convention, therefore, remains operative for most states.

The Declaration's emphasis on advancing protection of civilians during armed conflict suggests that it would be difficult for its endorsing states to uphold their commitment under the Declaration if they invoked a military necessity waiver to target cultural heritage with explosive weapons in populated areas. Although it calls for compliance with international humanitarian law as a general matter, the Declaration does not mention military necessity in its operative provisions, including in Paragraphs 3.3 or 3.4. Thus, the Declaration does not explicitly provide for any exceptions from its restrictions on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. While the existing Hague regime seeks to balance the imperatives of cultural property protection and military necessity, the Declaration clearly adopts a standard more heavily weighted in favor of civilian-and, by extension, cultural heritage-protection. The Declaration should thus be understood to help close the loophole in cultural heritage law created by the military necessity exception.

4) Creation of Comprehensive Protections

Lastly, the Declaration contains a set of operative provisions that commit states to a range of preventive and remedial measures related to addressing the humanitarian consequences of explosive weapons in populated areas. If appropriately interpreted and implemented, they have the potential to provide a more comprehensive approach to the protection of cultural heritage from explosive weapons in populated areas than the existing international law on cultural heritage in armed conflict.

The existing treaties and core principles of customary international law that protect cultural property do not encompass as broad a range of measures related to mitigating the harm to individuals and communities that flows from damage to cultural heritage. Instead, their provisions focus on the conduct of hostilities. While the Second Protocol seeks to improve the monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of core customary principles, its additions are relatively limited and bind only a small set of states parties.

This report was authored and edited by Bonnie Docherty, senior arms advisor in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and director of the Clinic's Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative.

Sandy Alkoutami, Talish Babaian, Ellie Dassow, Apsara Iyer, Sangita Keshavan, Gayane Matevosyan, Elliot Serbin, Laila Ujayli, and Nathan Ye, students in IHRC, made major contributions to the research, analysis, and writing of this report. Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division, and Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Arms Division, edited the report. James Ross, legal and policy director, and Sari Bashi, program director, provided legal and programmatic reviews respectively.

Specialist reviews were provided by Ida Sawyer, director of the Crisis and Conflict Division; Belkis Wille, associate director in the Crisis and Conflict Division; Richard Weir, senior researcher in the Crisis and Conflict Division; Rachel Denber, deputy director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Benjamin Ward, deputy director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Tanya Lokshina, associate director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Yulia Gorbunova, senior researcher in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Kseniya Kvitka, assistant researcher in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa Division director; Omar Shakir, senior researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division; Niku Jafarnia, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division; and Sarah Sanbar, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division.

Production assistance was provided by Susan Aboeid, coordinator with the Arms Division. The report was prepared for publication by Travis Carr, publications officer. Kathleen Rose, senior editor, reviewed the press release accompanying the report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bombing and shelling of populated cities, towns, and villages produces horrific humanitarian consequences. In recent armed conflicts-in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere-this use of explosive weapons has killed and injured thousands of civilians and caused foreseeable long-term harm.

# data[].attributes.body
Taken from times of india

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f83cccc196c271188c598cb9402530e76c396ade2d306ae8f540d06e470b65cfJmltdHM9MTczNTA4NDgwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3ca5b0c8-191c-6004-1c1b-bffc18c761f4&psq=mandir+being+destroyed+in+india&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubXNuLmNvbS9lbi1pbi9zb2NpZXR5LWN1bHR1cmUtYW5kLWhpc3RvcnkvcmVsaWdpb24tYW5kLXNwaXJpdHVhbGl0eS9zYW1iaGFsLWV4Y2F2YXRpb24tc3BhcmtzLWNvbnRyb3ZlcnN5LXJhbS1tYW5kaXItcHJpZXN0LWNsYWltcy1oaW5kdS10ZW1wbGUtdHJhbnNmb3JtZWQtaW50by1pc2xhbWljLXN0cnVjdHVyZS9hci1BQTF3bHg2ND9vY2lkPUJpbmdOZXdzU2VycA&ntb=1

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/world-heritage-sites-that-are-endangered/ss-BB1h3FL9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World Heritage Sites that are endangered

# data[].attributes.body
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/lodhi-tombs-lost-in-urban-maze-how-delhi-is-eating-up-its-heritage/articleshow/116120844.cms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW DELHI: The historical village of Zamrudpur in south Delhi is home to medieval monuments from the Lodhi period. The settlement's origins are traced to Zamrud Khan, a notable Afghan noble. During the Lodhi dynasty's rule, the village witnessed the construction of five tombs, known as Panchburja.

With time, these tombs have significantly deteriorated amid urban development. Residential buildings surround these structures, limiting their visibility.

These historical monuments now serve multiple unintended purposes: as animal shelters, waste disposal sites and residences. National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities records indicate that Zamrudpur village's primary tomb was built by Zamrud Khan during Sikandar Lodhi's reign of AD 1489-1517, after receiving the jagir of Kanchan Sarai, later renamed Zamrudpur.

One particular tomb, distinguished by its grand dome, detailed interior and ornate pillars, currently functions as a waste collection site and clothes-drying space.

The village's largest tomb appears confined by flats and houses with modern doors on either side. As this photojournalist captured the ongoing construction work at the tomb, a local shopkeeper warned him: "This is private property, photography is prohibited inside, how dare you come here!"

Kamta Prasad, who has lived in the village for two decades, said: "Around 10 years ago, one of the tombs was visible from the street. Now, towering buildings and houses have emerged, and accessing the tomb courtyard requires walking through residences, while the tomb itself has become the locality's dumping ground."

These historical structures in the modest urban village of Zamrudpur, near upscale Greater Kailash I, risk disappearing beneath expanding multi-storey constructions. Neither the residents nor property owners seem to support the preservation of these unprotected heritage sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lodhi tombs lost in urban maze: How Delhi is eating up its heritage | Delhi News - Times of India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zamrudpur, a south Delhi village steeped in Lodhi-era history, witnesses its five medieval tombs, known as Panchburja, crumbling under urban encroachm

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/12/06/lebanon-heritage-sites-destroyed-israel/

Very short

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
War on culture: Lebanon's heritage sites destroyed in Israeli strikes | The National

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historical sites and places of worship, protected under international law, have come under bombardment during the war

# data[].attributes.headline
Preserving Cultural Heritage in War-Torn Iraq: Challenges and Imperatives

# data[].attributes.subject
Preserving Cultural Heritage in War-Torn Iraq: Challenges and Imperatives

# data[].attributes.body
https://trendsresearch.org/insight/preserving-cultural-heritage-in-war-torn-iraq-challenges-and-imperatives/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preserving Cultural Heritage in War-Torn Iraq: Challenges and Imperatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TRENDS Research & Advisory strives to present an insightful and informed view of global issues and challenges from a strategic perspective. Established in 2014 as an independent research center, TRENDS conducts specialized studies in the fields of international relations and political, economic and social sciences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who will preserve India’s heritage sites?

# data[].attributes.subject
Who will preserve India’s heritage sites?

# data[].attributes.body
Taken from the probe

https://theprobe.in/stories/struggling-to-preserve-history-indias-heritage-sites-in-crisis

# data[].attributes.headline
The problems and the place where urbanisation happens mostly

# data[].attributes.subject
The problems and the place where urbanisation happens mostly

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/04/18/destroying-cultural-heritage/explosive-weapons-effects-armed-conflict-and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The bombing and shelling of populated cities, towns, and villages produces horrific humanitarian consequences. In recent armed conflicts-in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere-this use of explosive weapons has killed and injured thousands of civilians and caused foreseeable long-term harm. In November 2022, 83 countries endorsed the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas(the Declaration). The Declaration sets standards for preventing and remediating the effects generated by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

There has been growing awareness and concern about the damage and destruction that armed conflict inflicts on cultural heritage. Such heritage ranges from ancient archaeological sites to modern exemplars of architecture, world-renowned monuments to regional museums, places of religious worship to centers for artistic performance. Cultural heritage passes from one generation to another and is of global and local significance. Harm to cultural heritage is, therefore, inseparable from harm to the civilian population.

This report examines the connections between the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and damage to and destruction of cultural heritage. It aims to increase awareness of the specific impacts of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and, by extension, civilians. It also offers recommendations for using the recently endorsed Declaration to better protect cultural heritage. While this report focuses on the Declaration as a tool to enhance safeguards within populated areas, cultural heritage should receive comparable protection from explosive weapons wherever it is found.

When used in populated areas, explosive weapons, such as aerial bombs, artillery and mortar projectiles, rockets, and missiles, kill and injure civilians and destroy civilian objects at the time of attack. These weapons also have long-term indirect, or "reverberating," effects. They disrupt civilian infrastructure, which interferes with basic services, infringing on human rights to standard of living, health, and education, among others. In addition, they inflict psychological harm, displace communities, and cause damage to the environment and the subject of this report: cultural heritage.

Chapter I of this report provides an overview of the 2022 Declaration and the concept of cultural heritage. The Declaration is dedicated to protecting civilians from the effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It explicitly enumerates among its list of effects the "damage and destruction of ... cultural heritage sites" and associated "civilian suffering." While this report draws on the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, it adopts a more current definition of "cultural heritage," which takes into account, for example, heritage of local significance as well as universal value. The effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage warrant attention because cultural heritage protection can help communities recover, preserve intergenerational connections, and save sites of existential meaning to civilians.

Chapter II examines how the use of explosive weapons in populated areas endangers cultural heritage. It presents Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine as a case study. The chapter surveys five examples of attacks on and harm to cultural heritage in Ukraine, including to local museums and archives, cultural sites in urban centers, and places of worship. The case study highlights the frequency, diversity, and gravity of the effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and why these effects matter to the civilian population.

Drawing on examples from recent armed conflicts in different parts of the world, Chapter III applies the Declaration's framework of effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas to the cultural heritage context. The chapter describes the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage. It also shows how such damage and destruction aggravate civilian suffering by directly causing civilian casualties and indirectly inflicting psychosocial, economic, and other types of harm.

Chapter IV sets forth how states should interpret and implement the Declaration to enhance protections for cultural heritage. Specifically, it identifies five categories of actions that states should take in this area: preventive steps, data collection and sharing, remedial measures, an inclusive approach, and review and promotion of the Declaration. The chapter analyzes provisions of the Declaration that fall in each of these categories and offers recommendations for applying them in a way that maximizes cultural heritage protection.

Finally, Chapter V discusses how the Declaration can bolster current means for safeguarding cultural heritage from armed conflict. The Declaration commits endorsing states to strengthen compliance with and implementation of existing international humanitarian law, which encompasses treaties addressing cultural heritage. More important, it encourages them to go beyond existing law to protect civilians and civilian objects, including through the protection of cultural heritage. This chapter lays out four areas in which the Declaration, if interpreted and implemented as this report recommends, can strengthen and clarify current law to better prevent and remediate cultural heritage-related harm.

To address the harm to cultural heritage and associated harm to civilians, Human Rights Watch and the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at Harvard Law School call on states to do more to safeguard cultural heritage from the use of explosive weapons.

In particular, states should:

1. Endorse, if they have not done so already, the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas;

2. Interpret and implement the Declaration to enhance protections for cultural heritage; and

3. Raise awareness of and condemn the foreseeable harm to cultural heritage and, by extension, civilians arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

This chapter introduces the humanitarian consequences stemming from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the Declaration that seeks to recognize and respond to this foreseeable and devastating pattern of civilian harm. It also offers a definition of cultural heritage and highlights the importance of its protection, even in the context of other harm to civilians and civilian objects.

Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas and the Political Declaration

The Declaration is the product of close collaboration among states; United Nations agencies, particularly the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); international organizations, notably the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); and civil society organizations coordinated by INEW.

The Declaration aims to advance the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Its preamble recognizes the practice's "devastating impact on civilians and civilian objects." The Declaration's operative paragraphs enumerate commitments to reduce that impact, including through national policies and practices, data collection, victim assistance, and humanitarian access. The introduction, or "chapeau," to the operative section articulates the document's overarching purpose and notes that the Declaration commits states to "strengthening compliance with and improving the implementation of applicable international humanitarian law." It also makes clear that the Declaration, while non-binding, goes beyond existing international law by committing endorsing states to taking additional steps to advance humanitarian ends. Elaborating on the goals expressed in the Declaration's title, the chapeau specifically highlights "strengthening the protection of civilians" and "addressing the humanitarian consequences arising from armed conflict." These commitments thus refer to the prevention and remediation of harm from explosive weapons in populated areas.

What is Cultural Heritage?

There are different legal definitions of "cultural heritage," and experts in art history, archaeology, and other related fields have elaborated on the concept. The Declaration does not define what it refers to as "cultural heritage sites," but states can look to these sources when interpreting and implementing the Declaration in a way that maximizes cultural heritage protection.

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people...;

(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a)...;

(c) centers containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a)and (b), to be known as "centers containing monuments."

The definition, which also gives examples of each category, encompasses a broad range of cultural property, including immovable structures (e.g., "monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular"); movable objects (e.g., paintings and other works of art, books, manuscripts, etc.); and buildings that house the latter (e.g., museums, archives, and libraries). The definition also establishes a threshold of significance for something to amount to cultural property by stipulating that it must be "of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people."

The Hague Convention's approach offers the benefits of breadth of coverage with specificity of examples, but it also has some limitations. It employs the term "cultural property," rather than "cultural heritage," while more recent international law favors the latter term. Cultural property "emphasize[s] the idea of property as something you own and the right to do what you want with it." Cultural heritage, by contrast, focuses on human achievements that belong to groups collectively and can be passed from one generation to another.

The Declaration does not explicitly define the term cultural heritage, but it refers to "cultural heritage sites." Its inclusion of the word "sites" implies that it generally focuses on tangible cultural heritage. Nevertheless, "sites" should be understood broadly to include not only museums, archives, libraries, and the like, but the movable cultural heritage they contain. It is also worth noting that the legal definition of intangible cultural heritage does include "instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces," all of which could be damaged by explosive weapons, and protecting that list of civilian objects can help protect other elements of intangible heritage. Because the Declaration uses the more current term cultural heritage rather that cultural property, it should be interpreted to protect heritage that is of local significance as well universal value. This report uses "cultural heritage" as a shorthand term to cover the concept discussed in our testimonial and desk research as well as the Declaration.

The Significance of Cultural Heritage

The significance of cultural heritage, globally and locally, makes its destruction in armed conflict a matter of serious concern. As noted above, the Declaration references damage and destruction of cultural heritage sites and the associated civilian suffering. While the use of explosive weapons in populated areas inflicts harm ranging from death and injury to psychological trauma to destruction of infrastructure, the devastating impacts on cultural heritage also warrant close attention. Protection of cultural heritage can help communities recover, preserve intergenerational connections, and save sites of existential meaning to civilians.

Because cultural heritage makes individuals part of a community, damaging it has psychosocial effects that can interfere with post-conflict recovery. Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a nongovernmental organization that monitors explosive weapons use around the world, found that "[e]xplosive violence does more than just harm in a physical way-it has the ability to transform landscapes and cause deep cultural trauma." According to a Syrian architect, people in Homs felt like "strangers in their own city" after it was heavily shelled: "They feel disorientated and have lost their sense of belonging, where they have lost not only the faces they used to see, but also the buildings, shops, and streets they used and visited." According to the director of the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative, Corine Wegener, cultural heritage should be protected because people need it for recovery, resilience, and economic reasons. She recalled discussing the significance of loss of cultural heritage with a survivor of a major earthquake in Haiti, which she analogized to a conflict situation. While the man mourned the deaths of his fellow citizens, he told her: "The dead are dead, but without our heritage the rest of us can't keep going." Ukrainian studies professor Olenka Pevny described cultural heritage as a "lifeline ... something to live for."Destroying cultural heritage deprives people of the healing function of heritage.

Cultural heritage is passed from one generation to another, and its loss breaks that chain. Responding to the 1993 destruction of the Stari Most ("Old Bridge") in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian author Slavenka Drakulić wrote:

We expect people to die. We count on our own lives to end. The destruction of a monument to civilization is something else. The bridge, in all its beauty and grace, was built to outlive us; it was an attempt to grasp eternity. Because it was the product of both individual creativity and collective experience, it transcended our individual destiny. A dead woman is one of us-but the bridge is all of us, forever.

More recently, people in Ukraine and Yemen who documented cultural heritage destruction in their countries expressed similar sentiments. Volodymyr Yermolenko, president of PEN Ukraine, said, "Heritage is something that ensures a connection between the dead, the alive, and the not yet born." It goes "beyond individuals' lives" and, if preserved, allows them to connect to people of previous centuries. Karina Nguyen grew up in Kharkiv, Ukraine, which has suffered significant damage to its cultural heritage since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Noting that cultural heritage cannot always be restored or rebuilt, she said, "[F]or future generations, [cultural heritage] is really important." Arwa Othman, a Yemeni author and former minister of culture, said that "people are destroyed when their collective memory is destroyed."

States should recognize that the protection of cultural heritage and the protection of civilians during armed conflict, including from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, are both essential and not mutually exclusive.

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas in contemporary armed conflicts endangers cultural heritage around the world. The ongoing war in Ukraine provides a compelling case study of this problem. Russian and Ukrainian forces have used explosive weapons extensively; the effects of Russian forces' use on different types of cultural heritage in Ukraine is well documented; and culture is central to Ukrainian identity and to Russia's stated war aims. The damage and destruction discussed below exemplify the frequency, diversity, and gravity of the effects of explosive weapons on cultural heritage and why these effects matter to the civilian population.

This chapter seeks to illuminate the risks that cultural heritage faces from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas in Ukraine. It documents five examples of attacks on and impacts to cultural heritage, examining the details of the damage or destruction and the significance of the loss. The study of specific Ukrainian museums, urban cultural centers, and places of worship is indicative of a larger humanitarian problem in this armed conflict and others across different times and places. A similar story is unfolding in Gaza; the extent of damage to its cultural heritage should be fully documented and analyzed as soon as conditions on the ground allow.

Context

Local Museums and Archives

From the very beginning of the conflict, cultural heritage in Ukraine has been at risk. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas of Ukraine destroyed multiple small but significant local museums, such as the Ivankiv Local History Museum and the National Literary and Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda. Both contained works from individuals at the heart of Ukrainian artistic and literary identity. Both were left in ruins due to a combination of the weapons' blast effects and ensuing fires.

Ivankiv Local History Museum

Fires resulting from the Russian shelling of Ivankiv, a town north of Kyiv, burned and destroyed the local history and art museum on the second and third day of Russia's full-scale invasion. The Ivankiv Local History Museum housed art and artifacts of local and national heritage. In particular, it held the works of the well-known 20-century Ukrainian folk artist Maria Prymachenko, who had been a resident of Ivankiv. The destruction of the museum and some of its collections demonstrates the vulnerability of movable cultural heritage to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

After the initial shelling ended, Kharitonova noticed that a munition had hit the roof of the museum. At that point, the museum remained largely intact, although the roof sustained some damage. More shelling occurred later, however, and a fire started, igniting quickly because of the strong wind. Despite initial reports to the contrary, thanks to rescue efforts led by Anatoliy Kharitonov, all 14 works by Prymachenko were saved. Natalia Kharitonova, who went to the museum after the attack, noted, however, that fire had burned exhibits detailing the district's history, "pre-revolutionary materials, various certificates, towels by Hanna Veres (a famous folk weaver), paintings by Savchenko, Ignatiuk, Skopych, and works of the 19 century." The fire was so intense that stone axes from the Medieval period cracked. Dmytro Koval, the legal director for Truth Hounds who has expertise in cultural heritage law, visited the site at a later date and reported finding that the museum still had no roof or inside walls. He told Human Rights Watch and IHRC, "It was completely destroyed" and only a "shell of the building is left."

National Literary Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda

Attacks on local museums continued as the war continued. On May 6, 2022, at 11:30 p.m., a Russian explosive weapon hit the roof of the National Literary and Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda in Skovorodynivka in the Kharkivska region, sparking a fire. The fire, which was not fully extinguished until 8 a.m. the following day, caused significant damage to the site. The museum was important because it was the last home of Hryhorii Skovoroda, a major Ukrainian philosopher, theologian, poet, and academic from the 18 century and because it served as the repository of collections dedicated to him. This attack exemplifies the impact that explosive weapons can have on historic homes and archives, which contain information crucial to preserving intellectual identity.

The explosive weapon attack and resulting fire severely damaged the exhibition spaces and a memorial room to Hryhorii Skovoroda (1722-1794) in the 18-century main building. Although many of the collections had been previously removed because staff had recognized they were vulnerable to the conflict, the incident destroyed almost all of the furnishings and interior decor as well as the museum in which to house and display the saved exhibits in the future. Architect and restorer Viktor Dvornikov who visited the site after the attack said that blast and fire also destroyed two other buildings on the grounds: a wooden storehouse and a nearby guest house where it is believed Skovoroda spent his last years. A charred statue of Skovoroda, left intact, has become a symbol of defiance in the face of what many Ukrainians perceive as a war on Ukrainian cultural identity.

Skovoroda was born into a Cossack family. His work explored questions around self-knowledge, identity, happiness, and the meaning of being. Through fable and allegory, he examined the ideas of rights and equality. His simple way of life inspired many. Volodymyr Lopatko, an assistant professor of civil engineering and architecture at Kharkiv National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, said in an interview with PEN America and PEN Ukraine that Skovoroda "had a mystical and religious belief in the equality of people ... and his idea that all unequal people should be equal became the basis of his religious and mystical idea of humanity."

The use of explosive weapons in this case destroyed what Dvornikov referred to as a "significant historic object." The heritage site was a place that people could go to learn about and remember a person who was crucial to the development of religion and philosophy in Ukraine. Ukrainian studies professor Pevny told Human Rights Watch and IHRC that the destruction of the Skovoroda museum "strikes at the intellectual core of Ukrainian identity." Pevny described him as "Ukraine's leading philosopher of the late 18 century" and as "a national figure, like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln" might be to Americans. PEN Ukraine's Volodymyr Yermolenko said that Skovoroda was "one of the pillars of Ukrainian culture" who stressed "the importance of balance, equilibrium, and education." Skovoroda's philosophy and way of life left a lasting impact on Ukraine's culture. Several Ukrainian universities now bear his name, and his image appears on the 500 hryvnia note.

Urban Cultural Heritage

Kharkiv's Freedom Square and Environs

In Freedom Square itself, an office building called Derzhprom, or the State Industry Building, which is on the Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, suffered "some minor damage" from early shelling, and on January 2, 2024, an explosive weapon shattered clear and stained glass on its northwestern façade. Architect Viktor Dvornikov told a Ukrainian news source, Suspilne Kharkiv, after the most recent attack, "The scope of the [repair] work is very large-scale. Today's damage affects the condition of the building, because temperature fluctuations can lead to damage to the interior decoration, which is a serious problem. There are a large number of wooden structures inside Derzhprom, (and temperature fluctuations) will be very harmful." A 1928 constructivist skyscraper, the Derzhprom spans the avant-garde and art-deco eras. In the Soviet era, it gained international recognition and inspired modernism around the world.

Derzhprom is part of a larger culturally significant neighborhood that Dvornikov described as a monument of constructivism and "one united piece of cultural heritage." The January 2 attack caused serious damage to a residential building located in that area and immediately behind Dzerzhprom. Dvornikov, who has observed the damage, reported finding significant cracks across four floors of the structure, which forced all the residents to evacuate.

Explosive weapons also damaged several architectural and historic landmarks near Freedom Square in March 2022 and at later points in the conflict. Due to an explosive weapons attack on March 2, 2022, the Palace of Labor suffered the "heaviest damage" to one such object in that area, according to Dvornikov, who saw the building later that year. "I haven't seen any one place with such a high level of ruin.... Everywhere was totally damaged," he said. He found fallen slabs of roof, five stories of collapsing walls, crumbling interior plaster walls and ceilings. Some of the exterior walls survived because they were made of sturdier masonry, but the interior wooden structure could not survive the detonation of explosive weapons. An apartment building constructed in the early 20 century, the Palace of Labor combined the art nouveau and neoclassical styles and has been described as an "architectur[al] and urban development monument of local significance."

The reactions of the people of Kharkiv reflect the significance of the city's cultural heritage to the local population. Karina Nguyen, a former Kharkiv resident, told Human Rights Watch and IHRC that she grew up having great pride in the architecture of the city and regularly attending the theater and ballet around Freedom Square. By the time the war started, she was living in the United States and working as a student researcher at the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley. Through open-source data, Nguyen has systematically documented damage to cultural sites in Ukraine, including Kharkiv, and published her analysis with Bloomberg. Highlighting the esteem with which the community held Kharkiv's cultural heritage, she noted that some residents "put in a lot of effort to protect sites." "They were using sandbags, for example, around statues.... They are risking their lives to protect culture." When asked how she felt about the loss of heritage in her hometown, Nguyen expressed sorrow at the damage in Kharkiv and concern that important sites "will not be rebuilt in the way they were originally." According to Nguyen, the damage in and around Freedom Square risks overshadowing the cultural identity of Kharkiv and those who live there in the eyes of the global community: "I don't want my city to be remembered by our collective memory as the city of destruction. I want it to be remembered for its cultural artifacts and identity."

Donetsk Academic Regional Drama Theater, Mariupol

A Russian airstrike all but destroyed the theater on the morning of March 16. A man who lived about 300 meters from the theater said he saw a plane approaching the city center. The plane descended and dropped two bombs. He heard a loud explosion and, not long after, a neighbor told him the theater had been hit. The attack was most likely carried out by Russian aircraft that dropped two 500-kilogram bombs onto the theater's roof, which penetrated the building and detonated in the main auditorium at about stage level, possibly with the aid of delayed-action fuzes. Human Rights Watch, Truth Hounds, and Amnesty International interviews documented that at least 15 people were killed during the attack. The New York Times reported claims that between 60 and 200 were killed. Because many people were able to leave the theater in convoys between March 14 and early on March 16, it appears that the several hundred people still present at the time of the attack were able to move to parts of the theater that were considered more secure. Human Rights Watch's research found that Russia's attack on the theater was unlawful, and those who ordered it and carried it out should be investigated for a war crime.

Places of Worship

Transfiguration Cathedral, Odesa

A Russian attack using an explosive weapon severely damaged Odesa's Transfiguration Cathedral (also known as the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral) on July 23, 2023. Although the current cathedral is a rebuilt version of the original 19-century structure, it is a site of spiritual and historical significance to the Ukrainian people and Odesa residents. The attack and its aftermath highlight the consequences of using explosive weapons on a place of worship for the site and the community.

The explosive weapon struck the cathedral by entering through the roof and leaving a gaping hole in one corner of the building. According to the cathedral's chief priest, Myroslav Vdodovych, in an interview with the Guardian, the attack "was a direct hit, right in the altar area." The blast also blew off other parts of the roof, exposing supporting beams and raining debris into the inside of the structure. An ensuing fire inflicted further damage, endangering wall paintings, icons, and other interior decorations. Members of a neighboring congregation assisted with clean-up efforts, donning hard hats and carrying out pieces of the cathedral and munition fragments.

Harm to Cultural Heritage

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas both directly and indirectly harms cultural heritage at the time of attack and in the aftermath.

Direct Effects of Explosive Weapons on Cultural Heritage

Explosive weapons' blast, fragmentation, and secondary fires inflict direct effects on the full range of cultural heritage sites at the time of attack. The blast produced by detonations on or near cultural heritage can bend and break the structural elements of a building, even concrete and steel, leading to the collapse of part or all of an entire edifice. In December 2023, the use of explosive weapons by Israeli forces "largely destroyed" the Great Omari Mosque, Gaza's oldest mosque, first constructed in the 7 century and rebuilt multiple times since. Images show the mosque's courtyard full of rubble surrounded by crumbling walls. Explosive weapons use is particularly harmful to cultural heritage because sites are often old or made of more vulnerable materials, such as "unreinforced masonry," clay, stone, or wood. For example, an analyst reported that because the buildings of Yemen's Old City of Sanaa, constructed before the 11 century, "are made from clay, the bombing has affected them very heavily." Furthermore, attempts to preemptively protect heritage can be very difficult, expensive, or unachievable. Even reinforcement frameworks may not withstand explosive weapons, actions to temporarily relocate portable cultural heritage are much more difficult during wartime, and efforts to protect cultural heritage can sometimes damage it.

Fragments of an explosive weapon and the debris dispersed by its detonation also directly affect cultural heritage. They can scar building facades and surface decorations and shatter stained glass windows. If they penetrate the windows of a place of worship, museum, or archives, they can damage interior walls or objects within, such as paintings, sculptures, tapestries, or books. Human Rights Watch field researchers documented an October 8, 2020 attack during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in which Azerbaijani forces attacked Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, an important 19-century Armenian church in the town of Shusha (Shushi, in Armenian). The explosive weapons' blast left two gaping holes in the cathedral's roof and piles of debris on the floor. Fragmentation marks from the second weapon, likely with a time-delayed fuze, covered the interior walls. Fragmentation from explosive weapons that detonate outside of a building has the potential to extend the weapons' effects beyond the immediate blast radius.

Indirect Effects of Explosive Weapons on Cultural Heritage

Harm to Civilians

The direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas extend beyond damage to cultural heritage. Civilians are killed or injured at the time of attack and local communities suffer a range of psychosocial and practical consequences in the aftermath.

Direct Effects of Explosive Weapons on Civilians

Other civilians suffer harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas because they are drawn to cultural heritage as a result of armed conflict. In some cases, people seek refuge in a site they believe to be safe due to its cultural status or to its structural elements; instead, they find themselves at risk. In October 2023, hundreds of Palestinians were sheltering in the 12-century Greek Orthodox Church of St. Porphyrius, the oldest active church in Gaza, when Israeli forces launched an airstrike, which they said was targeting Hamas forces. "We left our homes and came to stay at the church because we thought we would be protected here," Ramez al-Sury, who lost three children in the attack, told Amnesty International. According to Airwars, a nongovernmental organization that investigates civilian harm in conflict zones, the attack killed between 23 to 27 people and damaged multiple buildings within the church compound.

Indirect Effects of Explosive Weapons on Civilians

Preventive Measures

Policies and Practices (Paragraph 3.1)

States should ensure they address cultural heritage when adopting, strengthening, and operationalizing policies and practices under the Declaration. Paragraph 3.1 commits states to "implement, and where necessary, review, develop or improve national policy and practicewith regard to the protection of civilians during armed conflict involving use of explosive weapons in populated areas." This provision calls on states to establish a domestic framework for civilian protection, and thus should cover all the threats to civilians and civilian objects referenced in the Declaration's preamble.

Paragraph 3.1 takes a broad approach to national implementation measures. It covers both policies (including statutes and regulations, military doctrine, rules of engagement, military handbooks, etc.) and practices (steps taken to operationalize these written standards). If relevant policies and practices exist, a state should implement or, where necessary, strengthen them. If they do not exist, the state should develop new ones. Regardless, the paragraph demands vigilance: a state should review and amend its policies and practices as needed to respond to emerging information or lessons learned. Because policies and practices are produced at the national level, the Declaration allows for flexibility across different states.

Action on this provision in the cultural heritage sphere can take different forms. States can incorporate cultural heritage into existing policies and practices dealing with civilian protection in armed conflict. Alternatively, they can adopt or adapt policies and practices related to cultural heritage protection to address the use of explosive weapons in populated areas in particular. Either way, states should ensure their policies and practices not only uphold existing international humanitarian law but also live up to the Declaration's goals of reducing the humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

Training (Paragraph 3.2)

The Declaration's training provision applies to both existing international humanitarian law and armed conflict-related policies and policies, including those related to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The breadth of training is consistent with the Declaration's goals of not only improving compliance with existing international humanitarian law but also strengthening the protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. If properly trained on these topics, armed forces will have notice about their obligations and commitments and be more prepared to implement them in the course of their duties. When an armed conflict arises, well-trained troops should be more likely to uphold the law and to take steps to prevent the harm explosive weapons cause to civilians and civilian objects.

Refraining from or Restricting Use (Paragraph 3.3)

Foreseeability (Paragraph 3.4)

Paragraph 3.4 constitutes a broad commitment with regard to the problem it defines and the response it calls for. First, it covers "the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects." The Declaration's preamble lays out that such effects extend far beyond deaths and injuries to encompass various reverberating effects on people and objects. Second, states should understand and implement the commitment to "take into account" as extending beyond a mere consideration of these impacts and entailing concrete steps to enhance civilian protection, the central goal of the Declaration.

In the cultural heritage context, states should take steps designed to enhance protection for the sites and civilians threatened by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. This commitment bolsters the argument for states to refrain, under Paragraph 3.3, from the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas. In addition, the duty to account for foreseeable effects can inform when and how states should restrict the use of other explosive weapons in populated areas with cultural heritage. When asked how to avoid the inevitable damage to cultural heritage caused by explosive weapons in such densely populated areas as the Old City of Sanaa, Lamya Khalidi, the archeologist specializing in Yemen, responded simply, "Don't hit them."

Role of Information

Data Collection and Sharing (Paragraphs 1.8, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)

To achieve these goals, the gathering and dissemination of information should encompass data on both civilian harm and military operations. As specified in Paragraph 4.2, states should "collect, share, and make publicly available" data on the full range of humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, including direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects. Fulfilling the Declaration's commitments further entails collecting operational data, such as the types and numbers of weapons used, the locations hit and intended targets, and circumstances of the weapons' use. Such comprehensive information is essential not only to determining the humanitarian impacts of explosive weapons but also to assessing the effectiveness of civilian protection policies and practices and informing reforms where appropriate. To help ensure thorough data collection and avoid bias, Paragraph 4.3 calls on states to facilitate the research of other experts, including from the UN, the ICRC, and civil society organizations.

The data collection and sharing provisions are equally important tools for the protection of cultural heritage from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Documenting and publicizing the gravity and breadth of harm can generate international outrage and stigmatize a method of war that endangers cultural heritage, thus helping to prevent further destruction. In-depth records of a cultural heritage site or object before and after it is damaged can aid the preservation and restoration process. Understanding the cause as well as the nature of the harm can inform the development and evolution of policies and practices under the Declaration. Data gathering and sharing related to cultural heritage, as with regard to civilian harm more broadly, can also facilitate monitoring and promote accountability.

Based on his experience in Ukraine and with cultural heritage law, Dmytro Koval of Truth Hounds outlined the key elements and challenges of a cultural heritage damage assessment. Like Sullivan, he stressed the importance of baseline information. "We don't have a well-developed and well-structured database of cultural heritage in Ukraine," he said. While there are national and regional heritage lists, there is no such municipal list. The lack of standardized information across the country has impeded "identification and assessment of damage." Effective assessment also requires coordination across government agencies, UNESCO, international and nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders. According to Koval, such coordination is also lacking in Ukraine: "If there is some intention to make another intervention and help with documentation, they should at least try to understand what others are already covering." Other elements essential to cultural heritage assessments include funding and making up for the loss of experts during an ongoing armed conflict.

The Declaration's two potential limits to the collection and sharing of data, referenced in Paragraph 4.2, should not be interpreted as providing loopholes in the cultural heritage context. States can ensure data collection is "feasible" by facilitating the collection of data by individuals and groups outside the government, in line with the commitments under Paragraph 4.3. While military investigators may best be able to provide operational data, they will likely need to consult with outside experts, such as art historians, archaeologists, and historians, to gather information on the heritage. In addition, they should involve local community members who can speak with authority to how they have experienced the harm. Granting humanitarian access, as discussed below, is one means of ensuring feasibility on a time-sensitive basis.

Remedial Measures

Humanitarian Access (Paragraph 4.4)

Cultural heritage organizations should be allowed access to affected sites to aid with documentation, preservation, and recovery efforts. Paragraph 4.4 commits states to "facilitate rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need in situations of armed conflict in accordance with applicable international law, including International Humanitarian Law." Given the importance of cultural heritage to local populations and the urgency of action, safe passage should be granted to relevant cultural heritage specialists.

Damaged cultural heritage is at risk of ongoing decay, loss of evidence, and looting, which makes timely access to sites, even during ongoing conflicts, critical. According to Dmytro Koval of Truth Hounds, relevant agencies have to respond quickly to prevent additional harm to damaged cultural heritage. A site compromised by explosive weapons is vulnerable to collapse due to a weakened foundation, cracked walls, or exposure to the elements. Municipalities' desire to clear rubble to repair roads and other structures as soon as possible after an attack can interfere with the imperative for cultural heritage experts to collect evidence. Therefore, "the reaction of investigators and prosecutors needs to be very quick to collect all the needed data and photo and 3-D drone footage, and then leave the space for the municipal agencies dealing with repairs." Timeliness of access is also essential for the accuracy of data collection. According to Patty Gerstenblith, who has worked in multiple capacities to advance the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict, "It's not enough to come back later and say cultural heritage was destroyed.... One of the most important things has to be data collection contemporary with destruction."

Victim Assistance (Paragraph 4.5)

Assistance to victims in the wake of armed conflict could include measures to address the civilian harm associated with the damage and destruction of cultural heritage. Paragraph 4.5 calls on states to:

Provide, facilitate, or support assistance to victims-people injured, survivors, families of people killed or injured-as well as communities affected by armed conflict. Adopt a holistic, integrated, gender-sensitive, and non-discriminatory approach to such assistance, taking into account the rights of persons with disabilities, and supporting post-conflict recovery and durable solutions.

A commitment to provide assistance in the cultural heritage context should complement not compete with traditional victim assistance.

Victim assistance seeks to ensure the humanitarian consequences of conflict are remediated as well as prevented. States should construe victim assistance broadly to allow victims to realize their human rights and participate fully in society. Assistance encompasses not only medical care but also psychological support and measures to promote social and economic inclusion. It should advance post-conflict recovery, including through the rebuilding of civilian infrastructure.

States can take several concrete steps to ensure victim assistance applies to cultural heritage. First, they can recognize the relevance of the Declaration's commitment to assist victims to the cultural heritage context. In other words, they can make clear that the "holistic" approach to assistance and recovery should incorporate steps to address cultural heritage destruction and its associated impacts on civilians.

Third, victim assistance programs could facilitate access of affected communities to cultural heritage sites. Such efforts would further social inclusion, a goal of victim assistance, and further promote recovery.

Principle of Inclusion

Inclusion is particularly relevant in the cultural heritage context because militaries rarely have the requisite expertise in this area. The Declaration calls for the involvement of the UN, the ICRC, and civil society organizations with regard to actions where an understanding of cultural heritage and its significance is especially valuable. For example, data collection would benefit from in-depth knowledge of the culture of an area of operation, and measures to assist civilians harmed by cultural heritage destruction or to respond to the damage to specific sites are more successful if grounded in an understanding of the affected people and places.

Review and Promotion of Declaration

Regular Meetings (Paragraph 4.7)

The follow-up meetings states committed to in Paragraph 4.7 provide an opportunity for the Declaration to evolve. The paragraph makes clear that the Declaration's protections remain open to improvement. It specifically mentions that "additional relevant measures ... may need to be taken." It suggests basing any revisions on an exchange of policies and practices and thinking about the topic. Following the principle of inclusion, states should follow a collaborative process that involves many stakeholders.

Active Promotion of the Declaration (Paragraph 4.8)

Under Paragraph 4.8, endorsing states should discuss and disseminate the Declaration not only among themselves but also with non-endorsing states and non-state armed groups who are parties to an armed conflict. As part of that commitment, states should work to persuade those actors to follow the Declaration's standards. They should also press other states to endorse the declaration so that they are politically, although not legally, bound by its provisions.

Actively promoting the Declaration is relevant to this report because cultural heritage is one of the humanitarian consequences endorsing states have committed to address. States should highlight that the Declaration explicitly includes cultural heritage destruction and resulting civilian suffering on its long list of foreseeable harm caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Examples of such harm could resonate with certain states or individuals, and provide an added motivation for joining the Declaration. States should also encourage actors to take into account cultural heritage when implementing the Declaration's standards as endorsers or on a voluntary basis. This chapter has provided guidelines for how to do so.

Existing Cultural Heritage Law

Enhancing the Existing Legal Regime with the Declaration

While the exiting legal regime provides some protections for cultural heritage in armed conflict, it has limits. If implemented as discussed in Chapter IV, the Declaration provides a tool for clarifying and strengthening existing legal protections of cultural heritage particularly from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

1) Expansion of Substantive Scope

The reference to "cultural heritage" in Paragraph 1.5 of the Declaration should help broaden states' understanding of the range of sites that should receive protection. As discussed in Chapter I, in the context of armed conflict, international law often refers to cultural property, rather than cultural heritage. Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention uses the narrower concept of cultural property, and Additional Protocol I and II, despite some textual differences, do not purport to modify the property-based meaning of this term.

Chapter I of this report explains, however, that more recent international law favors the term cultural heritage, and the Declaration's use of this term is consistent with and helps further this trend. A commitment to the Declaration may influence the range of cultural heritage that states should protect from the impact of explosive weapons in populated areas.

2) Use of Effects-Based Protections

The Declaration has the potential to advance the protection of cultural heritage because it focuses on addressing the consequences of an attack regardless of the intent behind it.

While the existing legal regime includes a variety of rules that can be used to protect cultural heritage, the prohibitions dedicated to the use of force against cultural property in particular apply specifically to intentional attacks on such sites. For example, the Additional Protocols grant cultural heritage the same protection from indiscriminate attacks as other civilian objects, but they only establish an absolute prohibition on "any acts of hostility directed against" cultural heritage. The 1954 Hague Convention similarly obligates states parties to "refrain[] from any act of hostility, directed against such [cultural] property." While valuable, these prohibitions have limitations.

The purpose of the Declaration, by contrast, is to address the "devastating impact" of explosive weapons use. The Declaration does not specify that this impact has to be caused by intentional targeting. Instead, the commitment in Paragraph 3.3 to restrict or refrain from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is triggered by the expectation of harm to civilians or civilian objects. As a result, it expands protection for cultural heritage beyond intentional targeting to the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas or the use of other explosive weapons in populated areas if the harm is foreseeable.

3) Narrowing of Military Necessity Exception

The Declaration should also discourage states from waiving the immunity of cultural heritage based on military necessity. While the existing legal regime permits states to invoke military necessity, doing so would be inconsistent with endorsing states' political commitments under the Declaration to prevent civilian harm to the greatest extent possible.

The military necessity exception in the context of cultural property is grounded in the 1954 Hague Convention and remains available to all states as a matter of customary international law. In Article 4(2), the convention permits states to waive their obligations to not intentionally target cultural property "only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver." According to Patty Gerstenblith, professor of cultural heritage law at DePaul University, the scope of the waiver is "undefined" and "countries have used [military necessity] to excuse a lot of" direct and indirect damage to cultural heritage. Subsequent treaties, including Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions and the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, arguably modify and narrow the scope of the military necessity waiver for some states. However, the relevant provisions of Additional Protocols I and II are without prejudice to the 1954 Hague Convention, only a limited number of states are parties to the Second Protocol, and that protocol does not reflect customary international law. The military necessity waiver in the 1954 Hague Convention, therefore, remains operative for most states.

The Declaration's emphasis on advancing protection of civilians during armed conflict suggests that it would be difficult for its endorsing states to uphold their commitment under the Declaration if they invoked a military necessity waiver to target cultural heritage with explosive weapons in populated areas. Although it calls for compliance with international humanitarian law as a general matter, the Declaration does not mention military necessity in its operative provisions, including in Paragraphs 3.3 or 3.4. Thus, the Declaration does not explicitly provide for any exceptions from its restrictions on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. While the existing Hague regime seeks to balance the imperatives of cultural property protection and military necessity, the Declaration clearly adopts a standard more heavily weighted in favor of civilian-and, by extension, cultural heritage-protection. The Declaration should thus be understood to help close the loophole in cultural heritage law created by the military necessity exception.

4) Creation of Comprehensive Protections

Lastly, the Declaration contains a set of operative provisions that commit states to a range of preventive and remedial measures related to addressing the humanitarian consequences of explosive weapons in populated areas. If appropriately interpreted and implemented, they have the potential to provide a more comprehensive approach to the protection of cultural heritage from explosive weapons in populated areas than the existing international law on cultural heritage in armed conflict.

The existing treaties and core principles of customary international law that protect cultural property do not encompass as broad a range of measures related to mitigating the harm to individuals and communities that flows from damage to cultural heritage. Instead, their provisions focus on the conduct of hostilities. While the Second Protocol seeks to improve the monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of core customary principles, its additions are relatively limited and bind only a small set of states parties.

This report was authored and edited by Bonnie Docherty, senior arms advisor in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School and director of the Clinic's Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative.

Sandy Alkoutami, Talish Babaian, Ellie Dassow, Apsara Iyer, Sangita Keshavan, Gayane Matevosyan, Elliot Serbin, Laila Ujayli, and Nathan Ye, students in IHRC, made major contributions to the research, analysis, and writing of this report. Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division, and Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Arms Division, edited the report. James Ross, legal and policy director, and Sari Bashi, program director, provided legal and programmatic reviews respectively.

Specialist reviews were provided by Ida Sawyer, director of the Crisis and Conflict Division; Belkis Wille, associate director in the Crisis and Conflict Division; Richard Weir, senior researcher in the Crisis and Conflict Division; Rachel Denber, deputy director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Benjamin Ward, deputy director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Tanya Lokshina, associate director in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Yulia Gorbunova, senior researcher in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Kseniya Kvitka, assistant researcher in the Europe and Central Asia Division; Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa Division director; Omar Shakir, senior researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division; Niku Jafarnia, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division; and Sarah Sanbar, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa Division.

Production assistance was provided by Susan Aboeid, coordinator with the Arms Division. The report was prepared for publication by Travis Carr, publications officer. Kathleen Rose, senior editor, reviewed the press release accompanying the report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bombing and shelling of populated cities, towns, and villages produces horrific humanitarian consequences. In recent armed conflicts-in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere-this use of explosive weapons has killed and injured thousands of civilians and caused foreseeable long-term harm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenges Faced by India’s Endangered Heritage Sites

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenges Faced by India’s Endangered Heritage Sites

# data[].attributes.body
https://thelogicalindian.com/h-upload/2023/10/18/protecting-indias-heritage-sites

# data[].attributes.headline
Heritage being destroyed by fictitious plans: Libia Lobo

# data[].attributes.subject
Heritage being destroyed by fictitious plans: Libia Lobo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Panaji:Libia Lobo Sardesai, who fought for Goa's freedom and recently turned 100, expressed concerns about the ongoing destruction of the state's heritage while speaking at the Goa Heritage Action Group's (GHAG) Founders' Day celebration on Monday. As Goa, especially Panaji, grapples with rapid urbanisation and development, Sardesai urged attendees to "use our spine and ability to prevent the neglect of destruction".

With 63 years of experience in liberated Goa, she said she has witnessed a steady decline in Goa's charm, all in the name of "plans" and various "smart" initiatives.
"Today, we can blindly say that our heritage is being destroyed by fictitious plans," Sardesai said.
She described the current state of Goa where vehicles dominate the streets, replacing the once peaceful sounds of chirping birds with the cacophony of honking horns and pothole-ridden roads.

"The crores of rupees spent on the roads seem to be suffocating below the surface," she said.
Sardesai further criticised the current leadership, stating, "Earlier rulers were disciplined, courteous, and dedicated, never failing in their attention or performance." Today, however, she observed a pervasive sense of neglect among officials who lack accountability and responsibility. "We don't even know our representatives any more," she said.

Speaking on historical building regulations, she said that no structure was allowed to surpass the height of a palm tree earlier, ensuring that the natural beauty of the landscape was preserved. "Today, high-rise buildings block the sunlight, overshadowing our heritage," she said.
"Is this heritage?" she asked. "In this state of affairs, the GHAG has a lot to do for Goan heritage to be secure and everlasting," she added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heritage being destroyed by fictitious plans: Libia Lobo | Goa News - Times of India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Panaji: Libia Lobo Sardesai, who fought for Goa's freedom and recently turned 100, expressed concerns about the ongoing destruction of the state's her.

# data[].attributes.headline
Muslim heritage is not foreign, safeguard India’s plural past 

# data[].attributes.subject
Muslim heritage is not foreign, safeguard India’s plural past 

# data[].attributes.body
https://maktoobmedia.com/opinion/muslim-heritage-is-not-foreign-safeguard-indias-plural-past/#google_vignette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Muslim heritage is not foreign, safeguard India’s plural past

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
110-year-old madrasa and library set ablaze by Hindutva mob during Ram Navami rally in Bihar. Photo: Meer Faisal/Maktoob The 46th World Heritage Committee 46th World Heritage Committee meeting, Babri Masjid, Muslim heritage, UNESCO

# data[].attributes.headline
Lebanon’s heritage is disappearing under Israel’s bombardment

# data[].attributes.subject
Lebanon’s heritage is disappearing under Israel’s bombardment

# data[].attributes.body
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/lebanons-heritage-is-disappearing-under-israels-bombardment/

# data[].attributes.headline
How to save our cultural heritage in a war

# data[].attributes.subject
How to save our cultural heritage in a war

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/27/world/wartime-cultural-heritage/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why cultural heritage must be protected in wartime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attacks on cultural sites are acts of cultural erasure, born of the same eliminationist motives that also drive genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wri.org/research/urban-blue-green-conundrum-10-city-study-impacts-urbanization-natural-infrastructure-india?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An increase in paved surfaces such as roads and buildings irreversibly changes natural infrastructure, ecosystems, and hydrological surface and subsurface flows in urban areas. The loss of natural infrastructure has complex interlinked consequences such as reduced groundwater recharge leading to dropping aquifer levels and increased rainwater runoff leading to higher flood risk. In addition, the high pressure of development in and around urban centers leads to new development being sited on high-risk, vulnerable zones such as floodplains, lake beds, and low-lying areas.

In this working paper, we examine the relationship between urbanization (increase in built-up area) and natural infrastructure change (in blue-green cover) across India's 10 most populated cities. We look at all development in the urban region, not distinguishing between formal and informal settlements.

We recommend that state and city authorities adopt an integrated urban blue-green approach to urban planning and development regulation using spatial and on-ground evidence to conserve and restore natural spaces, water bodies, aquifers, and other ecosystems to increase urban resilience.

Key Findings:

Between 2000 and 2015, the built-up area in these 10 cities increased on average by 47 percent and 134 percent within 0-20 km of the city center (core) and 20-50 km (periphery), respectively.

Surface water lost across the 10 cities between 2000 and 2015 is estimated to be 307 sq. km (square kilometers), a 15 percent decrease.

It is estimated that 44 percent (1,177 sq. km) of new development between 2000 and 2015 has come up on areas with high or very high recharge potential (in the 0-50 km urban region of the 10 study cities).

Executive Summary:

Urbanization all over the world is typically associated with increases in the spatial extent of urban built-up areas. India remains an urbanizing nation and is expected to double its urban population from about 400 million in 2018 to about 800 million by 2050. The extent of urban areas is set to increase dramatically to support the growing population, with estimates suggesting that 70 to 80 percent of the infrastructure needed in 2030 is yet to be built. All this new construction will have profound and far-reaching impacts on urban centers and their surroundings. However, there is limited research and forecasting on how these new developments interact with and impact natural infrastructure and ecological and hydrological systems.

About This Working Paper

This working paper seeks to expand our knowledge of urbanization and its impacts on the surrounding natural landscapes in India. We study the urbanized region of India's 10 most populated cities to examine the relationship between urban (built-up) expansion and changes in blue-green infrastructure such as surface waters, green cover, and recharge zones. Improving the interactions between urbanization and natural infrastructure in these 10 cities can significantly impact the well-being of about 30 percent of India's urban population.

Remote sensing data and satellite imagery are used to monitor urbanization and changes in blue-green infrastructure between 2000 and 2015 in the 10 study cities. The cities studied are Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune, and Surat. The correlation between urbanization and natural infrastructure is studied in two spatial intervals of 20 km (0-20 km) and 50 km (20-50 km) from the center of each of the study cities.
Thumbnail image by Mike Prince/ Flickr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urban Blue-Green Conundrum: A 10-City Study on the Impacts of Urbanization on Natural Infrastructure in India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This working paper seeks to expand our knowledge of urbanization and its impacts on the surrounding natural landscapes in India. We study the urbanized region of India's 10 most populated cities to examine the relationship between urban (built-up) expansion and changes in blue-green infrastructure such as surface waters, green cover, and recharge zones.

# data[].attributes.body
https://hyperallergic.com/835308/the-rampant-erasure-of-muslim-heritage-in-india/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rampant Erasure of Muslim Heritage in India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The charred walls of the Azizia library, torched during an extremist riot along with its 4,500 books, are a reminder of the violence of the Hindu nationalist mob.

# data[].attributes.body
Taken from south china morning post

https://www.scmp.com/search/Why%20are%20India’s%20heritage%20sites%20disappearing

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.businessinsider.com/india-silicon-valley-bengaluru-under-pressure-2024-12?

# data[].attributes.body
LOI 1 :-Effects of Urbanization

Q1:-how can the effects of urbanization take a turn on us?

And:-Poor air quality, insufficient water availability, waste disposal problems, and high energy consumption are exacerbated by energy.

Q2:-how can the effects of urbanization lead to sprawl?

Ans:-First, population growth results in the outward expansion of urban areas. (Sometimes population decline also can be a precursor to sprawl). Second, rising incomes allow residents to purchase larger living space.

Q3:-what are the causes of urban sprawl?

Ans:-Urban sprawl has occurred largely because land owners and developers have made choices that promote their own economic and personal interests.

Q4:-how does urbanization lead to environmental degradation?

Ans:-Urbanization not only destroys and fragments habitats but also alters the environment itself. For example, deforestation and fragmentation of forest lands lead to the degradation and loss of forest interior habitat as well as creating forest edge habitat.

Q5:-how does industrialization effect urbanization?

Ans:-Industrialization is the process that takes an agricultural economy and transforms it into a manufacturing one. Mass production and assembly lines replace manual and specialized laborers. The process has historically led to urbanization by creating economic growth and job opportunities that draw people to cities.

LOI 2:-Evolution of Urbanization

Q1:-how has urbanization evolved over the years?

Ans:-By a century later in 1900, 14 percent of the world's population lived in urban areas, and twelve cities had populations over 1 million. Just a half-century later in 1950, the world's urban population had doubled to 30 percent, and the number of cities over 1 million grew six times to eighty-three cities.

Q2:-how does urbanization change in the evolution

Ans:-Populations experiencing urban fragmentation are expected to exhibit greater genetic drift and reduced gene flow, leading to reduced genetic diversity within populations and increased genetic differentiation between populations, potentially leading to population declines.

Q3:-how long has the evolution lasted for urbanization?

Ans:-Urbanization began in ancient Mesopotamia in the Uruk Period (4300-3100 BCE) for reasons scholars have not yet agreed on.Urbanization occurred rapidly in the second half of the nineteenth century in the United States for a number of reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/world-heritage-sites-that-are-endangered/ss-BB1h3FL9

# data[].attributes.body
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/lodhi-tombs-lost-in-urban-maze-how-delhi-is-eating-up-its-heritage/articleshow/116120844.cms

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.businessinsider.com/india-silicon-valley-bengaluru-under-pressure-2024-12

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/04/18/destroying-cultural-heritage/explosive-weapons-effects-armed-conflict-and

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wri.org/research/urban-blue-green-conundrum-10-city-study-impacts-urbanization-natural-infrastructure-india?

# data[].attributes.body
https://maktoobmedia.com/opinion/muslim-heritage-is-not-foreign-safeguard-indias-plural-past/#google_vignette

# data[].attributes.body
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/lebanons-heritage-is-disappearing-under-israels-bombardment/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/world-heritage-sites-that-are-endangered/ss-BB1h3FL9

# data[].attributes.body
https://theprobe.in/stories/struggling-to-preserve-history-indias-heritage-sites-in-crisis

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.scmp.com/search/Why%20are%20India’s%20heritage%20sites%20disappearing