International heritage law as resistance to occupation

International law posits that occupation is a temporary state that does not transfer an atom of sovereignty to the occupying power. Nevertheless, in situations of prolonged occupation driven by the political goal of (unlawful) annexation, the occupying power might try to enforce its presence by claiming historic title to territory and denying the ties of the present population to their homeland. Controlling archaeological sites and narratives about cultural heritage becomes part of the battle for territorial conquest: if the occupier manages to manipulate the heritage record to showcase a ‘better’ claim to the land in question, then they may be able to turn prolonged occupation into permanent colonization. In this article, we engage with this puzzle, and show that, despite this danger, international cultural heritage law can provide a useful platform for resistance alongside other areas of international law. In fact, where the aims of cultural heritage law and the law of occupation converge, occupied populations may harness both to demand their fundamental right to self-determination. This article uses the prolonged occupation of Palestine as a case study for resistance organized around the identity claims that heritage law can help leverage in situations of prolonged occupation.