A UNSECO heritage site of an old white building with 5 large windows situated in a forest with greenery surrounding it

The protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict: Ethics, gender, and coloniality

This article was written by Annika Bergman Rosamond
This article was published on

In this short video abstract, Annika Bergman Rosamond discusses the key points from her new Review of International Studies article - The protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict: Ethics, gender, and coloniality

 

Want to know more? You can read the full article at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021052510140X

This is an open access article, however BISA members receive access to RIS (and to our other journal European Journal of International Security) as a benefit of membership. To gain access, log in to your BISA account and scroll down to the 'Membership benefits' section. If you're not yet a member join today.

Abstract 

Cultural heritage rests on imaginings of a shared humanity transcending national dividing lines. However, cultural heritage sites are frequently targeted in war. In this article I show that the politics of cultural protection is marked by tensions and contestations. A key argument is that the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict is a militarised practice that informed by notions of protection that are broadly western-centred, masculinised. Therefore, I suggest they are insensitive to the gendered and colonial power relations that undergird the protection of cultural property. Informed by critical heritage studies, cosmopolitanism, and feminist IR scholarship, I elucidate the claims of this article through a feminist narrative analysis of the protection. I identify what is said and what is silenced in heritage protection narratives. First, I focus on the wider storytelling that surrounds heritage protection, unpacking the ethical, gendered, and colonial assumptions employed. Second, I turn to the narration of military protection in the UNESCO military manual. attending to its ethical underpinnings, protection logics, and privileging of distinctively western military knowledge. I conclude by calling for a more nuanced approach to cultural protection.