The issues of cultural heritage protection on the occupied territories of Ukraine came to agenda immediately after the annexation of Crimea and at the beginning of the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The Law of Ukraine ‘On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine’, adopted in April 2014, was the first act dealing with this issue. Since 2014, no systematic approach to the relevant state policy has been introduced. The current situation, with the freezing of the conflict, may contribute to the strengthening of nonmilitary forms of confrontation with the aggressor. Hence, the protection of the cultural heritage of Ukraine, remaining under occupation, is gradually becoming one of the main fronts of the hybrid war. That is why the urgency of legal analysis of cultural heritage protection in the occupied territories is becoming more called-for.

The outlined legal issue is discussed primarily in the monument protection area, rather than in the academic legal community. In that way, the purpose of this article is to bring this issue to the attention of lawyers, to highlight the author’s experience in this field and to make suggestions for improving legal mechanisms for national protection, which came under temporary control and in the area of interest of Russia as an aggressor state.

The analysis of the available data shows that Ukraine is taking specific steps to defend its position on the protection of cultural heritage in the occupied territories and to respond to the relevant encroachments by the aggressor. At the same time, even in the seventh year of the war, these steps still lack coherence and political coordination. It is crucial to create legal preconditions to solve these challenges. The legislative definition of the legal regime of temporary occupation of the territories of the Crimea and Donbas region (as well as the responsibilities of the occupier for the protection of the cultural heritage of Ukraine) needs joint legal regulation.

In addition to strengthening work at the international level with the use of newmechanisms and the proper use of the potential of ratified documents, the continuation and improvement of sanctions policy, Ukraine needs to coordinate the monitoring of cultural heritage sites in the occupied territories, utilizing modern remote sensing technologies. These steps will allow a radical increment in the penal proceeding numbers for the crimes of the occupiers, which will be the basis for the development of the Ukrainian offensive on this front. The issue of regulating the monitoring functions of the cultural heritage protection bodies needs to be resolved at the legislative level.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Ablialimova E ta inshi, Metodychni rekomendatsii z monitorynhu kulturnoi spadshchyny, yaka zalyshylas na terytorii tymchasovo okupovanoho Krymu (Krymskyi instytut stratehichnykh doslidzhen 2019) (in Ukrainian).

2. Ablialimova E ta inshi, Stan obiektiv kulturnoi spadshchyny v okupovanomu Krymu (2014–2019) (Krymskyi instytut stratehichnykh doslidzhen 2019) (in Ukrainian).

3. Akulenko V, Mizhnarodne pravo okhorony kulturnykh tsinnostei ta yoho implementatsiia u vnutrishnomu pravi Ukrainy (Iustynian 2013) (in Ukrainian).

4. Andreiuk Ye ta inshi, Mizhnarodni mekhanizmy zakhystu kulturnykh tsinnostei na okupovanykh terytoriiakh (Krymskyi instytut stratehichnykh doslidzhen 2019) (in Ukrainian).

5. Koval D, V imia mystetstva: mizhnarodno-pravovyi kontekstualnyi analiz zakhystu kulturnykh tsinnostei u zviazku zi zbroinym konfliktom (Feniks 2016) (in Ukrainian).

6. Marusiak O, Aneksiia Krymu Rosiiskoiu Federatsiieiu yak zlochyn ahresii proty Ukrainy: mizhnarodno-pravovi aspekty (Misto 2016) (in Ukrainian).

7. Zadorozhnii O, Aneksiia Krymu – mizhnarodnyi zlochyn (Ukr asots mizhnar Prava, In-t mizhnar Vidnosyn Kyiv nats un-tu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

8. Triffterer O and Ambos K (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary (C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos 2016) (in English).

9. Kresin O (nauk red), Polityko-pravovi zasady myrotvorchoi operatsii v Donbasi: svitovyi dosvid dlia Ukrainy (Helvetyka 2018) (in Ukrainian).

10. Telizhenko S (uporiad), Arkheolohichni pamiatky i viina. Pam’iatka z okhorony kulturnykh tsinnostei dlia viiskovosluzhbovtsiv Zbroinykh syl Ukrainy, yaki vykonuiut operatyvni zavdannia z protydii rosiiskii ahresii na Skhodi Ukrainy (Spilka Arkheolohiv Ukrainy 2020) (in Ukrainian).

11. Busol K ta Koval D, ‘Zakhyst kulturnykh tsinnostei pid chas zbroinoho konfliktu na Skhodi Ukrainy’ in Zadorozhnii O (uporiad), Ukrainska Revoliutsiia hidnosti, aresiia RF i mizhnarodne pravo (Dorado-druk 2014) (in Ukrainian).

12. Zdioruk S, ‘Shliakhy podolannia humanitarnoi katastrofy’ v Horbulin V (red), Donbas i Krym: tsina povernennia (NISD 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

13. ‘Monitorynh porushennia Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho prava shchodo zberezhennia kulturnoi spadshchyny na tymchasovo okupovanii terytorii AR Krym ta m. Sevastopolia’ (2019) 4–6 Pamiatky Ukrainy 8–12 (in Ukrainian).

14. Ablialimova E, ‘Bakhchysaraiskyi khanskyi palats: restavratsiia chy rekonstruktsiia’ (2019) 4–6 Pamiatky Ukrainy 79 (in Ukrainian).

15. Babin B, ‘Sanktsiina polityka Ukrainy i kulturna spadshchyna Krymu’ (2019) 4–6 Pam’iatky Ukrainy 17 (in Ukrainian).

16. Ivanets A, ‘Vykorystannia Rosiieiu ukrainskoi kulturnoi spadshchyny u viini proty Ukrainy: krymskyi keis’ (2019) 4–6 Pamiatky Ukrainy 23–7 (in Ukrainian).

17. Malyshev O, ‘Kulturna spadshchyna v yurydychnomu sviti rechei’ (2020) 31 Pravova derzhava 169 (in Ukrainian).

18. Yakovyna M, ‘Konventsiia pro okhoronu Vsesvitnoi kulturnoi ta pryrodnoi spadshchyny yak instrument zakhystu pamiatok v okupovanomu Krymu’ (2019) 4–6 Pamiatky Ukrainy 13–6 (in Ukrainian).

19. Yakovyna M, ‘Kulturna spadshchyna Ukrainy v okupovanomu Krymu: polozhennia Haazkoi konventsii pro zakhyst kulturnykh tsinnostei na vypadok zbroinoho konfliktu 1954 r.’ (2019) 4–6 Pamiatky Ukrainy 3–7 (in Ukrainian).

20. Yakovyna M, ‘Suchasnyi stan systemy okhorony natsionalnoi kulturnoi spadshchyny’ (2019) 4–6 Pam’iatky Ukrainy 19–22 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

21. Busol K, ‘Stanovlennia ta tendentsii rozvytku mizhnarodno-pravovoho zakhystu kulturnykh tsinnostei’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

22. ‘U Kyievi vidbuvsia kruhlyi stil “Okupovanyi Krym i arkheolohichna spadshchyna” (rezoliutsiia)’ (Holos Krymu, 13.10.2020) <https://voicecrimea.com.ua/main/articles/ukiyevividbuvsya-kruglij-stil-okupovanij-krim-i-arxeologichna-spadshhina-rezolyuciya. html> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian). 23. ‘U Minreintehratsii poiasnyly, chomu Krym “okupovanyi”, a ne “aneksovanyi”’ (Suspilne Media, 21.10.2020) <https://suspilne.media/72704-u-minreintegracii-poasnilicomukrim-okupovanij-a-ne-aneksovanij/> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

24. ‘U MinTOT poiasnyly riznytsiu mizh okupovanym Krymom i Donbasom’ (Ukrainska pravda, 26.01.2017) https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/01/26/7133553/> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

25. Kikkas M, ‘Poshkodzhennia kompleksu nekropolia Khersonesu Tavriiskoho ta monastyria Bohomateri Vlakhernskoi: analiz ukrainskoho zakonodavstva ta mizhnarodnoho prava’ (Holos Krymu, 26.10.2020) <https://voicecrimea.com.ua/main/ articles/poshkodzhennya-kompleksu-nekropolya-xersonesu-tavrijskogo-ta-monastiryabogomaterivlaxernsko%d1%97-analiz-ukra%d1%97nskogo-zakonodavstva-ta-mizhnarodnogoprava.html> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

26. Makeiev O, ‘Krym: aneksovanyi chy okupovanyi?’ (Ukrainska pravda, 22.08.2019). <https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2019/08/22/7224230/> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

27. Yashnyi D, ‘Monitorynh ob’iektiv arkheolohichnoi spadshchyny na terytorii AR Krym ta m. Sevastopolia (2014–2020 rr.)’ (Holos Krymu, 23.10.2020) <https://voicecrimea. com.ua/main/articles/monitoring-obyektiv-arxeologichno%d1%97-spadshhini-nateritori% d1%97-ar-krim-ta-m-sevastopol-2014-2020-rr.html> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

28. Telizhenko S, ‘Monitoring Archaeological Sites & Monuments in a War Zone’ <https://rmchapple.blogspot.com/2016/07/monitoring-archaeological-sites.html> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in English).

29. ‘Komentar MZS Ukrainy shchodo provedennia arkheolohichnykh rozkopok na tymchasovo okupovanii terytorii Ukrainy’ (MZS, 22.10.2020). <https://mfa.gov.ua/news/komentar-mzs-ukrayini-shchodo-provedennya-arheologichnih-rozkopok-natimchasovookupovanij-teritoriyi-ukrayini> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

30. ‘Prezentatsiia zvitu “Arkheolohiia pid vohnem. Rezultaty monitorynhovoi misii”’ (Spilka arkheolohiv Ukrainy) <http://www.vgosau.kiev.ua/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=823:-q-q&catid=41:2013-02-06-17-44-54&Itemid=68> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian). 31. ‘Skifske zoloto. Materialy po temi’ <https://lb.ua/tag/14492_skifske_zoloto> (accessed: 17.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).