Leiden Journal of International Law
2026
Shared — curated by The Gufo editorial team
International heritage law as resistance to occupation
Lucas Lixinski*, Alice Panepinto
UNSW Sydney · Queen’s University Belfast
Received: 2026-10-24 · Published: 2026-10-22
© 2026 The Author(s) and the original publisher.
Abstract
Abstract International law posits that occupation is a temporary state that does not transfer an atom of sovereignty to the occupying power. Nevertheless, in situations of prolonged occupation driven by the political goal of (unlawful) annexation, the occupying power might try to enforce its presence by claiming historic title to territory and denying the ties of the present population to their homeland. Controlling archaeological sites and narratives about cultural heritage becomes part of the battle for territorial conquest: if the occupier manages to manipulate the heritage record to showcase a ‘better’ claim to the land in question, then they may be able to turn prolonged occupation into permanent colonization. In this article, we engage with this puzzle, and show that, despite this danger, international cultural heritage law can provide a useful platform for resistance alongside other areas of international law. In fact, where the aims of cultural heritage law and the law of occupation converge, occupied populations may harness both to demand their fundamental right to self-determination. This article uses the prolonged occupation of Palestine as a case study for resistance organized around the identity claims that heritage law can help leverage in situations of prolonged occupation.
Summary
This article examines how international cultural heritage law can function as a tool of resistance for populations living under prolonged military occupation. International law maintains that occupation is temporary and does not transfer sovereignty to the occupying power, yet the authors argue that occupiers pursuing unlawful annexation sometimes attempt to entrench their presence by asserting historic claims to territory through archaeology and heritage narratives, while denying the occupied population's own ties to the land. Control over archaeological sites and cultural heritage narratives thus becomes part of a broader struggle over territorial control, with the risk that manipulation of heritage records could help transform prolonged occupation into permanent colonization.
Despite this danger, the authors contend that international cultural heritage law, when read alongside the law of occupation, can instead serve as a platform for resistance. Where the goals of these two areas of law align, occupied populations can draw on both to assert their fundamental right to self-determination and to counter attempts to erase or overwrite their identity claims. The article develops this argument through a case study of the prolonged occupation of Palestine, using it to illustrate how heritage law can be mobilized around identity claims in contexts of extended occupation.
Plain-language summary by The Gufo; the paper is the authors’ own text.
Key findings
- Occupying powers pursuing unlawful annexation may use control over archaeological sites and heritage narratives to assert historic title to occupied territory.
- Manipulating the heritage record in this way risks turning prolonged occupation into permanent colonization by undermining the occupied population's recognized ties to their homeland.
- International cultural heritage law, in convergence with the law of occupation, can instead be harnessed by occupied populations to defend their right to self-determination.
- The prolonged occupation of Palestine serves as a case study showing how heritage law can support resistance organized around identity claims.
