Recent conflicts have led to severe damage and destruction of cultural property. The proclamations of the international heritage community, championed by UNESCO, have been ineffective in either deterring it or mitigating its impact. This has resulted in the violation of peoples’ human right to access their cultural heritage and has posed a threat to the safety of those who have attempted to safeguard it, and prevent looting (Mulder & Trein 2018; Amos & Meuse 2015). In addition, the impact of armed conflict on people's intangible heritage, meaning their values, traditions, and beliefs, should not be forgotten despite it being more difficult to visualise or quantify. However, damage to, and destruction of, cultural property can be prevented even when conflicts develop rapidly. In accordance with the tenets of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (‘the Convention’) and its protocols (collectively the Hague Convention) – the cornerstone international treaty protecting cultural property of importance to all the peoples of a state party – the key is to establish effective safeguarding measures for cultural property in advance – in peacetime – and to activate the risk management plan they represent by resolute leadership at state party level. High Contracting Parties (HCPs) are to protect such cultural property from a foundation of ‘national and international measures’ to be organised ‘in time of peace’ (Convention, Preamble).

Working out of what is essentially a risk management approach, Article 3 of the Convention urges High Contracting Parties (HCPs) to take all the necessary steps to protect their cultural property ‘as considered appropriate’ in light of the ‘foreseeable effects of an armed conflict’. The same principle is expanded in Article 5 of the 1999 Second Protocol and the Guidelines for its implementation, by listing some examples of good practice states may wish to adopt. The broad thrust of safeguarding activity proposed by the Convention is the prior preparation of protective measures that enhance the security of cultural property, understood as measures that enhance the protection of cultural property, since those responsible for delivering security must be prepared to ‘respond to the worst case when it occurs’ (Linston et al 1993).