Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents the views of Asst. Prof. Anna Kaiser, Head of the Cultural Heritage Protection Center, in an interview conducted with her. The interview covers a wide range of topics, from the effects of recent regional instability and conflicts to international migration and the protection of cultural heritage.
1. How have recent armed conflicts reshaped the global understanding of cultural property protection? To what extent have concepts such as resilience, preparedness, and international cooperation become central to protecting cultural heritage in war zones?
Recent armed conflicts such as those in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Sudan have profoundly altered the global understanding of cultural property protection. What was once regarded as a legal obligation under the 1954 Hague Convention has increasingly become an operational necessity within broader security doctrines. The deliberate targeting of cultural heritage has demonstrated that safeguarding must move beyond symbolic measures and become embedded in civil protection, military planning, and humanitarian response.
Resilience has emerged as a guiding concept, translated into redundancy strategies such as distributed custody, digital surrogates, and strengthened local capacities. Preparedness, meanwhile, is now treated as a permanent capability, involving prioritized inventories, “no-strike” lists integrated into targeting cycles, and standardized triage and packing protocols.
2. Armed conflicts and regional instabilities often trigger forced migration and displacement. How do these dynamics affect the safeguarding of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible? What strategies are emerging to ensure that cultural identity and heritage are preserved in such contexts?
Forced migration and displacement disrupt both custodianship of tangible heritage and the transmission of intangible practices. Material heritage left behind becomes vulnerable to neglect, opportunistic looting, or irreparable damage, while intangible heritage risks erosion due to interrupted intergenerational transfer, politicization in exile, or commodification. Emerging strategies attempt to counter these losses. Diaspora stewardship mechanisms, including community archives and “heritage host” institutions, provide interim custody while preserving ownership rights.
Portable and digital “first aid” measures—such as rapid documentation kits, cloud-based registries, and authenticity-preserving digitization—help stabilize heritage at risk. In displacement contexts, rights-based programs for intangible cultural heritage, including apprenticeship schemes and community-led transmission projects, maintain continuity. Moreover, evidence-oriented documentation protocols ensure that displaced communities retain legal, cultural, and historical claims over their heritage, supporting both eventual restitution and accountability for crimes.
3. Military alliances and defence strategies increasingly include aspects of non-military security. In light of cultural property being deliberately targeted or endangered in war, how should cultural property protection be positioned within broader security doctrines?
The deliberate weaponization of cultural property has reinforced its relevance within comprehensive security frameworks. Cultural property protection (CPP) should no longer be perceived as a niche concern of cultural ministries, but rather as a component of operational planning and human security. This entails embedding CPP officers or cells within command structures, ensuring that cultural sites are represented in intelligence preparation, targeting assessments, and stabilization measures. Interoperable doctrine within alliances such as NATO or the EU must harmonize rules of engagement, civil–military cooperation, and emergency logistics. At the same time, accountability mechanisms need to clearly link violations to international humanitarian and criminal law, deterring the misuse of heritage in psychological warfare and reinforcing its status as a protected category under international security law.
4. International frameworks such as the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols aim to protect cultural property in armed conflicts. To what degree do national policies and military practices align with these principles, and what challenges remain in bridging the gap between international law and practice on the ground?
The 1954 Hague Convention and its 1999 Second Protocol provide a robust legal framework, yet national transposition and implementation remain uneven. In many states, protected site lists, enhanced protection designations, and enforcement mechanisms are incomplete or outdated. Military practice often lacks systematic integration of cultural data into training, doctrine, and targeting procedures, resulting in protection measures being implemented too late to influence operational planning.
Moreover, resource deficits, fragmented data standards, and the absence of interoperable emergency units hamper effective action. A further gap lies in evidence collection: battlefield conditions complicate the documentation of cultural war crimes, weakening subsequent legal accountability. Bridging these divides requires compulsory pre-deployment training, establishment of specialized cultural protection units, standardized information exchange, and improved collaboration between cultural authorities, prosecutors, and customs agencies.
Anna Maria Kaiser
Anna Maria Kaiser (born 1986) is an Austrian ancient historian and expert in cultural heritage protection. She studied Ancient History and Mycenaean Studies at the University of Salzburg, completing her master’s thesis on Roman military daily life with honors, and earned her doctorate with distinction (sub auspiciis praesidentis) from the University of Vienna with a dissertation on Roman military organisation. Her research interests include Roman military structure, bureaucracy and state systems in Late Antiquity, utilising sources like papyri and ostraca.
Since 2015 she has been a research associate and course director for protection of cultural property at the University for Continuing Education Krems, where she has played a key role in establishing the Center for Cultural Property Protection, which she has headed since 2023. She leads several EU projects on cultural heritage protection, climate change and sustainable conservation, and teaches nationally and internationally, especially on how civilian stakeholders and armed forces cooperate in cultural heritage protection. She is fluent in English and Icelandic, and also knows French and Italian.
