01836nas a2200241   4500000000100000000000100001000000100002008004100003260000800044653001100052653002800063653002200091653002200113653002500135100002000160700002200180245010800202856015100310300001200461490000700473520109400480022002001574       2021                            d  csep10aUighur10acrimes against humanity10acultural genocide10acultural heritage10alegal accountability1 aJuliette Paauwe1 aJahaan Pittalwala00aCultural Destruction and Mass Atrocity Crimes: Strengthening Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85113412394&doi=10.1163%2f1875-984X-13020015&partnerID=40&md5=1b191bfbc6c4a898319e41bd92034fb3  a395-4020 v133 aAttacks against or affecting cultural heritage have been prosecuted exclusively as war crimes at both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court. However, this jurisprudence has limited the very concept of cultural heritage to solely tangible or physical manifestations of culture, excluding the numerous intangible cultural expressions of a given collective. This has precluded a constitutive link between attacks on cultural elements and crimes against humanity and genocide, and ignored the myriad ways in which the destruction of cultural heritage can adversely affect protected groups, including the disintegration of their collective identity. The rights of minority and indigenous populations such as the Uighurs in China can be better protected if acts damaging culture, including intangible cultural heritage, are inherently linked to crimes against humanity and genocide as this will compel states to better acknowledge, address, and prevent these crimes, in line with their obligations under the Responsibility to Protect.  a18759858 (ISSN)