Skip to content
POL-71

This is a proposal for discussion, not an enacted law.

Ali Zuweid’s Political Programme

Proposed draft law · Education, Scientific Research, Culture, Youth and Sport

Antiquities, Heritage and Cultural Property Protection Law

Document numberPOL-71
Version1.0
Publication and update date
ScopeRepublic of Iraq — Federal

Executive Summary

This file proposes repealing Antiquities and Heritage Law No. (55) of 2002 and replacing it with a modern, integrated federal law, rather than creating a parallel law. The existing Law provided an important foundation for protection, registration, excavation and criminalisation, but predates the 2005 Constitution and contains structures, language, procedures and financial penalties no longer adequate for a modern protection system. Nor does it fully reflect obligations that subsequently entered into force for Iraq, notably the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, effective for Iraq on 6 July 2022, and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, effective for Iraq on 10 February 2024.

The proposal follows Article (113) of the Constitution, which regards antiquities, archaeological sites, heritage structures, manuscripts and coins as national treasures within federal competence, requiring their management in cooperation with regions and governorates. It also draws on Article (35) concerning support for cultural activities and institutions. It therefore creates no new authority, instead building on the existing State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, expanding its instruments and imposing clearer duties in digital inventory, transparency, coordination and preventive planning.

The proposed law shifts protection from a model heavily reliant on designation and punishment after damage to a preventive model: a national digital register, archaeological sensitivity maps, buffer zones adapted to each site, early project surveys, a chance-find system, conservation and restoration standards, adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, provenance checks before acquisition or transactions, and links between customs, police and museums. It adds separate regulation of underwater heritage and protects intangible heritage in a manner that respects its bearer communities without turning it into state property.

For armed conflict, the proposal integrates international obligations into general antiquities and heritage legislation rather than proliferating parallel legislation. This is consistent with the Judicial Supervision Commission’s published 2023 opinion recommending review of the draft cultural property protection law and integration of its provisions into the Antiquities and Heritage Law wherever possible. It also transfers criminal investigation and trial entirely to the judiciary, rather than granting cultural administrators criminal adjudication powers.

Legislative Gaps Addressed by the Proposal

Principal Gaps Between the 2002 Framework and Present Needs
AreaProblemProposed response
Constitutional foundationThe Law predates the 2005 Constitution and is not structured around Article 113.Establish federal competence and institutional cooperation with regions and governorates.
RegistrationHeavy reliance on paper registers and fragmented procedures.A national digital and geographical register linked to planning and property registration.
Buffer zonesRigid restrictions, such as uniform distances, unsuitable for every site.Protection zones based on assessment of risk, significance and cultural landscape.
Heritage buildingsProtection may conflict with usability, maintenance and the owner’s financial capacity.Adaptive reuse, financial support, intervention standards and graduated restrictions.
ExcavationA need for updated rules on data, samples and capacity-building.Data management plans, Iraqi training, publication deadlines and sample controls.
Illicit traffickingAbsence of a detailed due-diligence and provenance-record system.Duties for dealers, museums and auction houses, and interconnected databases.
Underwater heritageThe old framework does not reflect the 2001 Convention, in force since 2024.A dedicated chapter on in situ protection, prohibition of commercial exploitation and licensed excavation.
Armed conflictInternational protections are dispersed and insufficiently translated into national measures.Peacetime plans, enhanced protection and criminalisation of serious violations.
Criminal procedureThe old Law gave the head of the antiquities authority the powers of a misdemeanour judge for certain offences.Reserve investigation and trial to the judiciary, with limited administrative enforcement.
Financial penaltiesFixed nominal amounts from 2002 have lost their deterrent effect.Fines linked to value and damage within proportionate limits.

Proposed Legislative Policy

The most suitable legislative option is a comprehensive repeal-and-replacement law. A partial amendment would not address the accumulated effects of outdated drafting, institutional change, new international obligations and technological change in documentation, e-commerce and smuggling, nor the gap in preventive protection. Conversely, no new national authority is needed, since the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage already performs the core function; its powers, procedures and oversight need modernisation.

The proposal divides protection into connected layers: identifying and registering an asset; preventing risk before it materialises; regulating conservation and restoration; regulating the market, possession and excavation; international cooperation and restitution; preparedness for emergencies and armed conflict; and criminalisation and punishment as a last resort. This structure addresses a common problem in heritage laws: strong penalties on paper alongside weak maps, registers, planning and early warning.

The proposal also distinguishes tangible heritage, which may be subject to ownership, registration, possession and restitution, from intangible heritage as a living practice carried by communities and individuals. It therefore does not declare intangible heritage ‘state property’, but regulates inventory, safeguarding, participation and benefit-sharing in public investment.

Draft Law

Statement of Reasons

To modernise the legislative framework protecting Iraq’s antiquities, heritage and cultural property in accordance with the 2005 Constitution and applicable international conventions; unify protection rules in peacetime and armed conflict; protect underwater cultural heritage; develop digital inventories, preventive planning and prevention of illicit trafficking; establish clearer safeguards for ownership, judicial procedures, restoration, excavation and museums; and replace unsuitable penalties and procedures, this Law is enacted.

General Explanatory Memorandum

1. Why repeal and replace rather than make a limited amendment?

Law No. 55 of 2002 is not devoid of substance. Many core instruments are sound in principle: registration, preventing harmful disposal, regulating excavation, protecting heritage buildings and recovering antiquities. Scattered amendments, however, would leave a pre-2005 constitutional structure, outdated definitions, procedures inconsistent with modern separation of administration and judiciary, nominal financial penalties and international protection gaps. The proposal therefore preserves useful functions and redrafts them in a unified law.

2. Why is no new authority created?

A parallel body would duplicate costs and create jurisdictional disputes with the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, its inspectorates, museums and heritage departments. The main problem is not the absence of an institution’s name but the need for a unified national register, modern controls, integration with planning, customs, the judiciary and police, and measurable procedures. The proposal therefore retains the Board and makes the advisory council non-executive.

3. Protecting private ownership without sacrificing heritage

Experience with heritage buildings shows that designation alone is insufficient. If an owner is prohibited from demolition or alteration, classification must be documented, published and open to objection and appeal, with support instruments, adaptive reuse and controlled technical exceptions. Fair protection is more sustainable than protection that turns a building into an abandoned financial burden.

4. Why remove rigid distances around sites?

The current Law imposes fixed-distance restrictions in some cases. Yet an open desert site, an archaeological mound within a city and a heritage house on a historic street do not all need the same perimeter. The proposal therefore adopts assessment-based buffer zones, offering greater legal and planning precision and reducing unnecessary conflict with properties and projects.

5. Prevention before punishment

A bulldozer destroys archaeological context in minutes, and punishment cannot restore the order of the strata. The proposal therefore prioritises sensitivity maps, integration of heritage into planning, preventive surveys, chance-find procedures and assigning rescue-excavation costs to the project necessitating them where fair and proportionate.

6. The market and provenance records

Preventing smuggling goes beyond borders. If an object of unknown provenance can enter an auction, museum or collection without questions, demand for looted objects persists. The proposal therefore requires reasonable provenance due diligence, record retention and checks against stolen-object databases, without presuming that every old object is unlawful.

7. Underwater heritage

Since the 2001 Convention entered into force for Iraq on 10 February 2024, domestic law needs to translate its core principles into practice: priority for in situ conservation, prohibition of commercial exploitation based on selling and dispersing objects, scientific licensing, international cooperation, and regulation of finds in rivers, territorial waters, dredging and port projects.

8. Armed conflict is not separate from heritage law

Wartime protection begins in peacetime: inventories, evacuation plans, data backups, training, identification of property eligible for enhanced protection, and coordination with armed forces and civil defence. The proposal therefore incorporates these obligations into the same Law, consistent with the judicial opinion published in 2023 to avoid parallel legislation protecting the same interest.

9. The judiciary, not the administration, imposes punishment

The proposal transfers all criminal investigation and adjudication powers to competent judicial bodies. Antiquities inspectors may exercise legally defined enforcement powers, but the administrative body suffering harm or implementing the law should not itself issue criminal judgments. This provides greater constitutional clarity and stronger trial safeguards.

10. Intangible heritage

The 2003 international Convention, to which Iraq acceded, treats living heritage as practices, knowledge and skills transmitted within communities. The proposal therefore avoids ‘appropriating’ cultural elements and prioritises participation, intergenerational transmission, respect for secret knowledge and benefit-sharing when a public body uses an element commercially.

Alignment with Existing Legislation

Legislation and Frameworks Required for Implementation
Instrument or areaEffect of the proposal
Antiquities and Heritage Law No. 55 of 2002Full repeal and replacement, with valid decisions and registrations continuing transitionally.
Expropriation Law No. 12 of 1981, as amendedRemains the reference for expropriation and compensation, with recourse limited to necessity.
Penal Code No. 111 of 1969, as amendedIts general rules apply unless specifically provided otherwise; the proposal grants no judicial powers to administrators.
Urban planning, municipal and property registration lawsRegulations and instructions must link maps, buffer zones and protection annotations to permits and property registers.
Customs Law and border legislationRequire implementing procedures for provenance information, provisional seizure and cooperation with the Board.
Legislation governing the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Antiquities and the State Board of Antiquities and HeritageTerminology and subsidiary structures shall be amended where conflicting, without creating a parallel body.
Cultural Property Protection During Conflict Law — if its draft remains pendingIts substantive provisions shall be incorporated into this proposal, avoiding duplication unless a specific need for separate legislation exists.

Transitional Provisions and Implementation Requirements

The priority in the first two years is to turn existing protection into an implementable system, rather than construct new administrative buildings. The Law proposes a transition programme specified in its text and regulations, maintaining previous protection and preventing any site from losing it through delayed digitalisation.

  1. Within 6 months: form register-alignment teams, identify sensitive data and issue a protocol for chance finds and urgent projects.
  2. Within 12 months: issue regulations on classification, buffer zones, private museums, trade, loans, excavation and underwater heritage.
  3. Within 18 months: launch the public national-register portal and pilot links to property registration and municipalities in priority governorates.
  4. Within 24 months: digitise core records and complete physical reconciliation of the highest-risk stores and museums.
  5. Continuously: maintain emergency plans, conflict and disaster protection training, restitution lists and updated stolen-object data.

Financial and Implementation Impact

The proposal creates no new authority or ministry, so costs are concentrated in digitalisation, inventory, conservation, security, training and interoperability more than salaries and organisational structures. Insufficient recent published data exist for a reliable total national cost, so the proposal avoids a falsely precise figure.

Before the first implementation financial year, the Ministry of Culture, with the Ministries of Finance and Planning, must prepare establishment and operating costs, broken down into the national-register platform and cybersecurity; digitisation of records and images; survey and documentation equipment; improvements to stores and museums; restoration and rescue teams; customs and police links; training; and emergency plans. Connectivity can be phased, beginning with the Iraq Museum, central stores and highest-risk sites.

Some conservation may be financed from revenues, fees, international grants and accepted gifts. Fundamentally, however, protecting national wealth is a public budget obligation, and sites must not be pushed into excessive tourism exploitation to finance their protection.

Safeguards and Compliance Indicators

  • Proportion of designated sites and buildings with digital boundaries and documented buffer zones.
  • Proportion of museum and store holdings physically inventoried and linked to a number, photograph and provenance record.
  • Average time to determine restoration applications and work permits within protected areas.
  • Number of chance finds addressed within prescribed deadlines without unjustified disruption.
  • Proportion of missions depositing records, data and reports on time.
  • Number of restitution files opened and objects recovered annually, with non-sensitive data published.
  • Proportion of priority museums and sites with a tested emergency plan.
  • Number of violations and offences referred to courts and their outcomes, without treating case counts alone as a measure of success.
  • Time taken to update property and municipal records after a site or building is designated for protection.
  • Public bodies’ compliance with preventive surveys before major projects.

Useful International Comparisons

The proposal does not copy any single country’s law, but draws on international principles established by conventions Iraq has joined. From the 1970 Convention it takes prevention of illicit trafficking and cooperation in restitution; from the 1972 Convention, protection and sustainable management of sites of outstanding universal value; from the 2003 Convention, community participation in safeguarding intangible heritage; from the 2001 Convention, priority for in situ preservation of underwater heritage and prohibition of its commercial exploitation; and from the 1954 Hague Convention and Second Protocol, peacetime obligations, enhanced protection and criminalisation of serious violations.

As a comparative reference not binding on Iraq, the proposal also draws on provenance due diligence developed in international practice and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, without treating Iraq as a party unless it accedes through a separate procedure.

Sources and References

  1. Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, 2005 — Iraqi Council of Representatives. In particular Articles (35) and (113).
    Iraqi Constitution — official source
  2. Antiquities and Heritage Law No. (55) of 2002 — Ministry of Justice / Iraqi Gazette. Official translated version published by the Ministry of Justice.
    Antiquities and Heritage Law — Ministry of Justice PDF
  3. Antiquities and Heritage Law No. (55) of 2002 — WIPO Lex.
    https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ar/legislation/details/10998
  4. Judicial Supervision Commission — Study of the Draft Cultural Property Protection Law, 70/Studies/2023.
    https://www.sjc.iq/view.71789/
  5. Iraqi Council of Representatives — Research Materials and Human Rights Legislative Plans Addressing Antiquities and Heritage.
    https://iq.parliament.iq/
  6. UNESCO — Iraq: Conventions ratified. Iraq’s status under cultural conventions, including 1970, 1954, the Second Protocol, 2003 and 2001.
    https://www.unesco.org/en/countries/iq/conventions
  7. UNESCO World Heritage Centre — Iraq. Status under the 1972 Convention and listed Iraqi sites.
    https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/iq
  8. UNESCO — Iraq and the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention. Deposit of the instrument of accession on 6 April 2022 and entry into force on 6 July 2022.
    https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/iraq-accedes-1999-second-protocol-hague-convention-1954-protection-cultural-property-event-armed
  9. UNESCO — Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Entry into force for Iraq on 10 February 2024, following deposit of its instrument of ratification on 10 November 2023.
    https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-protection-underwater-cultural-heritage
  10. UNESCO — Iraq, Intangible Cultural Heritage. Iraq’s ratification of the 2003 Convention on 6 January 2010.
    https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/iraq-IQ
  11. UNESCO — 1970 Convention on illicit trafficking in cultural property.
    https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-means-prohibiting-and-preventing-illicit-import-export-and-transfer-ownership-cultural
  12. UNIDROIT — 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. A comparative reference for due diligence and restitution, without treating Iraq as a party.
    https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/cultural-property/1995-convention/

All references to existing legislation and international conventions were rechecked through this document’s update date. The draft law’s articles do not contain inline source references, to preserve proper legislative drafting.

What are you looking for?

Search content published on the website.