Blue Shield

May 27, 2026 ICOMOS Lebanon Armed Conflict, Blue Shield, Enhanced Protection, Hague Convention 1954 Preamble ICOMOS Lebanon, in its capacity as the National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, issues this urgent statement in response to events unfolding today, 27 May 2026, in the Tyre (Sour) District of South Lebanon, and in light of a sustained pattern of attacks on Lebanon’s cultural heritage that constitutes, in our considered assessment, a series of grave violations of international humanitarian law. This statement is issued as an emergency alert to ICOMOS International, UNESCO, and all concerned international bodies. ICOMOS Lebanon requests that it be transmitted without delay to the relevant UNESCO Committees, the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict established under the 1954 Hague Convention, the United Nations Security Council, and the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Forced Displacement of the Tyre District: A Violation of International Humanitarian Law On 27 May 2026, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) issued a mass evacuation order to all residents of the city of Tyre and its surrounding districts, ordering them to move north of the Zahrani River. This is the latest in a series of such orders — nine evacuation notices were issued in the preceding 24 hours alone — covering an area that includes the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Tyre, and numerous sites under Enhanced Protection under the Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention. ICOMOS Lebanon categorically rejects the characterization of such orders as mere “warnings.” Under international humanitarian law, the issuance of a mass, district-wide order to a civilian population to abandon their homes and territories, under the threat of military strikes, constitutes forced displacement. The applicable legal framework is unambiguous: Article 49(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not.” The prohibition is absolute in nature and recognized as a jus cogens norm of international law. Article 17 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (1977) explicitly states that “the displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” The blanket evacuation of an entire district — including the UNESCO World Heritage city of Tyre, its resident population, and the thousands of internally displaced persons already sheltering there — cannot be justified on these grounds. Forced displacement is classified as a war crime under Article 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.   The mass displacement of the Tyre district is not an isolated military measure. It is part of a sustained campaign that has, since September 2024, displaced over one million persons across South Lebanon, emptied 90–100% of residents from border villages such as Kafr Kila, Houla, Aytroun, and Deir Mimas, etc., and destroyed the conditions for voluntary return. Ordering a civilian population that has not yet been displaced — or that has already returned — to abandon their homes for the second or third time within two years is not a protective measure. It is the deliberate severance of communities from their land, their memory, and their identity. ICOMOS Lebanon underscores that forced displacement is not only a violation of physical security. It is a direct attack on the living heritage of the affected communities: their relationship to their landscapes of memory, their agricultural and craft traditions, their oral heritage, and the intergenerational transmission chains that constitute the life of intangible cultural heritage as defined by the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The communities of Tyre, of Bint Jbeil, of Nabatieh, of the border villages, lived for millennia in intimate relationship with their heritage. That relationship, once severed by forced displacement, cannot be administratively restored. The cultural loss is irreversible. Strikes in the Immediate Vicinity of the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Tyre The ancient city of Tyre — inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1984 (Property No. 299) — is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, with significant Phoenician, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval remains, including the Al-Bass archaeological site, the triumphal arch and colonnade, the hippodrome, the necropolis, and the aqueduct. It is of outstanding universal value to all humanity. The applicable legal obligations are explicit. Under Article 6 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: “States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate” (Art. 6.1), and “each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 situated on the territory of other States Parties” (Art. 6.3). Furthermore, Article 11(4) of the same Convention empowers the World Heritage Committee to inscribe threatened properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger, a mechanism explicitly foreseen for sites threatened by “the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict.” The current situation clearly and urgently meets this threshold. The World Heritage Committee’s most recent decisions on the Lebanese World Heritage properties — Decisions 47 COM 7B.173, 7B.174, and 7B.175 (2025), noting the provisional Enhanced Protection inscriptions for Anjar, Baalbek, and Tyre respectively — acknowledge the gravity of the threat. Based on the above, ICOMOS Lebanon, and for the sake of their security and protection, urges the relevant authorities and concerned parties to work on the inscription of these sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS Lebanon confirms that today’s IDF strikes in the Tyre district have targeted areas in Al-Bass Palestinian refugee camp, an area which lies in the buffer zone, within

Statement by ICOMOS Lebanon – 18 April 2026 April 18, 2026 ICOMOS Lebanon Armed Conflict, Blue Shield, Enhanced Protection, Hague Convention 1954 International Day for Monuments and Sites – 18 April 2026 Theme: Emergency Response for Living Heritage in Contexts of Conflicts and Disasters On the occasion of the International Day for Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS Lebanon joins the international community in reflecting on the 2026 theme: Emergency Response for Living Heritage in Contexts of Conflicts and Disasters. In Lebanon, this theme is not conceptual. It reflects an ongoing and urgent reality. Over recent years, and most acutely during the latest March 2026 Israeli War, Lebanon’s cultural heritage has been exposed to repeated damage, escalating threats, and, in certain instances, direct destruction. These impacts extend beyond individual monuments to affect historic urban fabrics, archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes that collectively embody centuries of cultural continuity. The destruction of the Chamaa Citadel on 13 April 2026 stands as a stark illustration. A site of layered historical significance, closely associated with local communities and embedded in long-standing cultural and religious narratives, it had previously undergone restoration following earlier conflicts. Its renewed damage underscores the fragility of heritage in contexts where protection frameworks struggle to translate into effective safeguards on the ground. In 2024, in response to escalating risks from the Israeli war, Lebanon sought international protection for a number of its most vulnerable cultural properties. This led to the inscription of 34 sites on the Enhanced Protection List under the framework of UNESCO and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. In 2026, this effort was further extended, with 39 additional cultural properties granted Enhanced Protection status, reaffirming their recognition as heritage of the highest importance to humanity. States Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention have undertaken a solemn obligation: to respect cultural property by refraining from any use or action that could expose it to destruction or damage in times of armed conflict. The Second Protocol of 1999 reinforces this commitment. Article 10 establishes the regime of Enhanced Protection for cultural property of the highest importance to humanity, contingent on strict conditions such as adequate domestic safeguards and the absence of military use. Once granted, this protection is absolute. Article 12 prohibits making such property the object of attack. Article 7 requires all feasible precautions to prevent incidental damage. Article 15 defines serious violations, including the deliberate targeting of cultural property under Enhanced Protection or its use in support of military action. Together, these provisions form a clear framework: cultural heritage is not a permissible casualty of war. Its protection is a binding legal duty, and its violation constitutes a grave breach of international law. While not all States are party to the Second Protocol (1999), the protection of cultural property does not depend solely on its ratification. The obligation to respect cultural property, as established under Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, remains binding on its States Parties. Furthermore, core principles of cultural property protection are widely recognized as part of customary international humanitarian law, as reflected in the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and are therefore applicable to all parties to armed conflict. In this context, the designation of sites under Enhanced Protection carries significant legal and normative weight, reflecting their exceptional value to humanity and reinforcing a heightened expectation that they be safeguarded, and that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid damage, under all circumstances. The continued damage to sites benefiting from such protection raises serious concerns regarding the effective implementation of these obligations. Beyond individual incidents, repeated harm to protected heritage risks undermining the normative strength of the international legal framework itself, potentially setting precedents that weaken the protection of cultural heritage in conflict situations globally. The 2026 theme rightly emphasizes living heritage; heritage sustained through the knowledge, practices, and presence of communities. In Lebanon, the impact of conflict extends beyond built structures. Damage to agricultural landscapes and natural environments, through fire, land degradation, artillery-fired white phosphorus, and the disruption of traditional land use, directly affects the ecological foundations of living heritage. These landscapes sustain seasonal practices, local knowledge systems, and long-standing relationships between communities and their environment. At the same time, the displacement of communities represents a critical threat to the continuity of living heritage. When populations are forced to leave their ancestral environments, the transmission of knowledge, practices, and cultural expressions is interrupted, placing both tangible and intangible heritage at risk. Heritage, in this sense, cannot be reduced to physical remains; it depends on the continued presence of those who sustain it. This reality calls for a comprehensive understanding of emergency response, one that integrates legal protection, technical intervention, environmental considerations, and the safeguarding of communities as essential stewards of heritage. ICOMOS Lebanon therefore calls for: strengthened mechanisms for monitoring and documentation in conflict-affected areas; sustained support to national institutions, including the Directorate General of Antiquities, to enable timely and informed responses; enhanced international cooperation to ensure the effective implementation of the Hague Convention and its Protocols; and the reaffirmation, by all parties to armed conflict, of their obligation to respect cultural property in accordance with international law, with due regard to the heightened protection afforded to sites of the highest universal value. The persistence of such damage calls for greater accountability and more effective mechanisms to ensure compliance with international legal obligations. Expressions of concern, while important, must be accompanied by concrete measures capable of preventing further harm. Lebanon’s experience is not isolated. It reflects broader challenges faced in many regions where cultural heritage is increasingly exposed to conflict and disaster. The credibility of the international system designed to protect such heritage depends on its consistent application. Where protection fails, the consequences extend far beyond national borders. On this International Day for Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS Lebanon reaffirms its commitment to working with national and international

5th extraordinary meeting of the Committee : Enhanced Protection for Cultural Heritage in Lebanon H.E. Hind Ghrayeb, Permanent Delegate of Lebanon to UNESCO April 1, 2026 ICOMOS Lebanon Source Armed Conflict, Blue Shield, Enhanced Protection, Hague Convention 1954 In 2024, following escalating hostilities and direct threats to cultural heritage, Lebanon formally requested international protection for its most vulnerable sites. Responding to this urgent appeal, UNESCO granted Enhanced Protection to 34 cultural properties under the 1954 Hague Convention, placing them under the highest level of legal protection against attack and military use. This unprecedented decision reflected both the severity of the risks faced by Lebanon’s heritage and its recognition as a shared heritage of humanity requiring immediate safeguarding. Building on this milestone, the Fifth Extraordinary Meeting of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict has now extended Enhanced Protection to 39 cultural properties in Lebanon. This expansion underscores the international community’s strong commitment to safeguarding the country’s cultural heritage amid ongoing threats and instability. The inscription of these properties on the International List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection highlights their outstanding significance for humanity and the urgent need for coordinated protective measures. Enhanced Protection, established under the Second Protocol (1999) to the 1954 Hague Convention, provides the highest level of legal immunity. It ensures that protected sites cannot be targeted by military attack or used for military purposes. Any violation constitutes a serious breach of international law and may lead to criminal responsibility. The Blue Shield emblem symbolizes the collective efforts of Lebanese national institutions, international and local organizations, and dedicated experts working together to protect these sites and strengthen cultural resilience in times of armed conflict. This achievement is the result of a sustained collective effort. At its core stands the dedicated work of the Directorate General of Antiquities (DGA) team in Lebanon, whose commitment, technical preparation, and continuous follow-up were instrumental in bringing this process to completion. This was carried forward in close coordination with the UNESCO Beirut Office, whose support and facilitation played a key role throughout. The process was further strengthened by the engagement of the UNESCO Secretariat, the support of the States Parties that endorsed Lebanon’s request, and the valuable financial and technical contributions of observers. Together, these combined efforts demonstrate the strength of collaborative action in protecting cultural heritage. They ensure that Lebanon’s cultural properties now benefit from the highest level of international protection, reaffirming their value not only at the national level, but for humanity as a whole. Consult the full list of protected sites: here 5th extraordinary meeting of the Committee