Return Of Cultural Property Research Articles

Cultural Property Protection in Private International Law

The armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has brought the issue of protecting cultural property to the forefront. Numerous documented cases of illegal exports of cultural property from Ukrainian museums located in territories occupied by the aggressor country have emerged. In addition, little is known about the number of stolen objects from private collections, which are considered cultural artifacts. There are no statistics available on this matter. This paper aims to explore the problem of applicable law during the consideration of disputes regarding the protection of cultural property. The author examines the concept of cultural property restitution in private international law and different approaches and concepts for defining "restitution" and "return" of cultural values. It has been argued that the term “return of cultural property” should encompass a wider scope, including both the restitution of illegally exported cultural property and the return of cultural property that was legally in the possession of another state but was later repatriated to the original state as a gesture of goodwill. The author offers his definitions of these terms based on theoretical research, as well as an analysis of the domestic legislation of Ukraine and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Property of June 24, 1995. The paper also delves into the issues of conflict regulation of disputes involving cultural values. Both the issues of determining the right of ownership to and the problems associated with the protection of the right of ownership of cultural property in private international law are considered. The point of view that the conflict of laws rule lex originis (the law of the country from whose territory the cultural property was exported) should be applied in disputes regarding the return of cultural property from someone else's illegal possession is supported. The author concludes, based on a comparative analysis of laws on private international law, about the most appropriate mechanism for protecting the property rights of a bona fide purchaser in disputes over cultural property.

The Protection, Ownership, and Return of Cultural Property: A Surinamese Law Perspective

This article explores the ownership of cultural objects within national and traditional customary law in Suriname, with the aim to provide a legal context to the issue of claims for the return of some of these cultural objects from the Netherlands. The discussion of the legal regime for exporting cultural objects examines the National Ordinance of 1952 on Provisions for the Preservation of Objects with Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Value; the Movement of Goods Act of 2003; and the Monuments Act of 2002, which protects immovable objects, objects of archaeological excavations, and discoveries. This is followed by a short overview of the legal regime relating to the ownership of cultural property under the Surinamese Civil Code. Next this article outlines the property law of cultural objects under customary laws of Indigenous and Tribal communities in Suriname and how these may be included in the Draft Civil Code and the Draft Legislation on Rules Concerning the Collective Land Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The article concludes that neither the existing legal framework nor the draft legislation provide answers on dealing with cultural objects acquired in a colonial context and the possible repatriation of such objects.

Restitution and return of cultural property between negotiation and restorative justice: time to bridge the river

Restitution and return of cultural property between negotiation and restorative justice: time to bridge the river

Colonial Booty and Its Restitution – Current Developments and New Perspectives for French Legislation in This Field

Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, the President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President’s wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law’s passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return – from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy.

RESTITUTION AND RETURN OF CULTURAL PROPERTY TO INDIA: A MYTH OR REALITY

India has rich cultural heritage since past. During colonial time the same was subjected to misappropriation by Colonial rulers. Many movable Cultural property is lying in Britain for decades. This paper attempts to find out the current trend in the process of restitution and Return of Cultural property to India. Whether the restitution/ return of Cultural Property is a myth or reality in Indian Context? Who will return and who will receive the property is the main question to ask. Whether national and international law are helpful to this regard. A short study is also presented based on news paper coverage, where instances of return is shown and at the same time instances where the cultural property is yet to be returned is indicated in the study. Based on that a conclusion is drawn as to where we stand today.

The past, present: The Parthenon Sculptures dispute as an example of the ICPRCP’s role on claims barred by the non-retroactivity of the 1970 UNESCO Convention

AbstractThis article analyzes the role played by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) in promoting the settlement of disputes barred by the non-retroactivity of the 1970 UNESCO Convention through an assessment of its impact on the dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom over the Parthenon Sculptures. The analysis first focuses on the ICPRCP’s regular mandate, followed by an evaluation of some “collateral effects” that it might have had on the dispute. Through the examination of all reports, recommendations, and decisions issued by the ICPRCP and the performance of a wider interdisciplinary case study, it is argued that the ICPRCP has had an impact on the dispute, both directly and indirectly. The value of these conclusions is to shed light on the complex factors in interplay in voluntary and non-binding dispute settlement mechanisms such as the ones performed by the ICPRCP and to represent a framework for further studies on the ICPRCP’s work and alternative dispute resolution methods in general.

Exposing the Predator, Recognising the Prey: New institutional strategies for a reflexive museology

Since the late 80s ethnographic and world culture(s) museums have been criticized for their predatory and cannibalistic nature. This has led to “a new post-colonial museology” or a “post-ethnographic” era. Consequently, new institutional strategies have been adopted across Europe and Western countries in order to go beyond the ethnographic approach. These structural transformations aim at eliminating or, on the contrary, critically exposing the predatory history of collections. European institutions and international organisations such as UNESCO and ICOM, through the development of international norms on cultural diversity and on the return of cultural property, have played a fundamental role in influencing museum policies. Following an interdisciplinary approach and through case studies in Europe, this article analyses different institutional strategies for a reflexive museology and suggests a new museological category for ethnographic museums.

Renewing the ‘Special Relationship’ and Rethinking the Return of Cultural Property: The Netherlands and Indonesia, 1949–79

This article questions how the return of cultural property from metropolitan centers of former colonial powers to the successor states of former colonies have been considered positive – if rare – examples of post-colonial redress. Highlighting UNESCO-driven publicity about the transfer of materials from the Netherlands to Indonesia, and tracing nearly 30 years of diplomacy between these countries, demonstrates that the return of cultural property depended on the ability of Dutch officials to vindicate the Netherlands’ historical and contemporary cultural roles in the former East Indies. More than anything, returns were influenced by the determination of Dutch officials to find and maintain a secure cultural role in Indonesia in the future. This article also considers how Dutch policies were initially independent from, but later coincided with, the anti-colonial activism that emerged within the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) around the issue of cultural property return to former colonies. Yet, rather than reveal a mediating role for UNESCO, this article re-positions the return debate within a broader framework of shifting post-colonial cultural relations negotiated bilaterally between the Netherlands – as a former colonial power – and the leaders of the newly independent state of Indonesia.

Analysis on the Process of Return of Cultural Property with Multiple Stream Model: Focus on Bukgwan Victory Monument

Analysis on the Process of Return of Cultural Property with Multiple Stream Model: Focus on Bukgwan Victory Monument

The impact of the Unidroit Convention on international case law and practice: an appraisal

This article aims at highlighting the role played by the 1995 U nidroit Convention in orienting the development of principle applicable in the international practice of restitution and return of cultural property. In order to appreciate the real impact of this Convention, the investigation takes into account the international practice beyond its subjective scope of application, including the influence on the 2014 EU Directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, as well as on the case law of third States jurisdictions.

Archeology in Conflict and UNESCO: Legal Aspects

This article analyzes the obligations under the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols related to the protection of cultural property in occupied territory. It goes on to provide practical examples of the return of cultural property from Iraq to Kuwait following the entry of Iraqi military forces into Kuwait in August 1990 and the legal framework of the return of Iraqi cultural property under operative paragraph 7 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1483, adopted on 22 May 2003.

The 16th Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, 21–23 September 2010

The 16th Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation was held in Paris at the UNESCO headquarters, 21–23 September 2010.

VILNIAUS SENIENŲ MUZIEJAUS VERTYBIŲ SUSIGRĄŽINIMO IŠ RUSIJOS PROBLEMOS

Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutasSaltoniškių g. 58, LT-08105 Vilnius, LietuvaVilniaus universiteto Bibliotekininkystės irinformacijos mokslų institutasUniversiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius, LietuvaEl. paštas: nastazija.kersyte@kf.vu.ltStraipsnyje analizuojamos apie 10 000 vertybių,1855–1865 m. buvusių Vilniaus senienų muziejuje ir 1868 m. (tikėtina, ir 1914 m.) carinės Rusijos išvežtų į Rumiancevo muziejų Maskvoje. Tiriant ir vertinant šių vertybių atgavimo pastangas nuo XX a. pradžios iki šių dienų, aptariamos aplinkybės ir pateikiami argumentai, kodėl iš tų vertybių šiandien Lietuvoje yra tik 286. Iš jų 1956, 1966, 1968 metais Lietuvai grąžinta 285 vertybės ir 1928 m. Lenkijai – viena. Šioji 1931 m. sugrąžinta į Vilnių. Straipsnyje keliamos šios pagrindinės problemos: nepakankamas teisinis Lietuvos kultūros turtų restitucijos iš Rusijos pagrindimas, blogai organizuotos Lietuvos derybos su Rusija dėl kultūros vertybių susigrąžinimo, Rusijos nenoras šias vertybes atiduoti.

New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution

AbstractAlternative methods of dispute resolution are an important resource in matters of cultural heritage in addressing the return, restitution, and repatriation of cultural property. The purpose of this article is to analyze the situations in which such methods might be preferred to the classical judicial means and to examine the problems that might arise.The article is in two parts. The first part describes the actors as well as the current methods used for the restitution and return of cultural property. The second part explores the types of property that lend themselves to alternative dispute resolution techniques and lists the—often original—substantive solutions that have been used in practice.Alternative methods of dispute resolution enable consideration of nonlegal factors, which might be emotional considerations or a sense of “moral obligation,” and this can help the parties find a path to consensus.

A Sudy on the Return of Cultural Property between Korea and Japan in Terms of International law

A Sudy on the Return of Cultural Property between Korea and Japan in Terms of International law

New Swiss Law on Cultural Property

On June 1, 2005, the Swiss Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property (Cultural Property Transfer Act [CPTA]) and the regulations thereof became effective. The CPTA implements the minimal standards of the UNESCO Convention of 1970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The CPTA fills a gap, because Switzerland is not a member state of the Convention of June 24, 1995, on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (Unidroit Convention 1995). In addition, as a nonmember state of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Community (EEC), the Council Directive 93/7/EEC of March 15, 1993, on the Return of Cultural Objects Unlawfully Removed from the Territory of a Member State is not applicable. The CPTA enforces foreign export bans in Switzerland. However, claims in Switzerland for return of foreign, illegally exported cultural property are only successful when there is an agreement on the import and return of cultural property between Switzerland and the claiming foreign state. Like Switzerland, the claiming state must be a member state of the UNESCO Convention of 1970.

The Trade in Looted Antiquities and the Return of Cultural Property: A British Parliamentary Inquiry

The British parliamentary report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade was published in 2000. Three key areas were addressed: the illicit excavation and looting of antiquities, the identification of works of art looted by Nazis, and the return of cultural property now residing in British collections. The evidence presented by interested parties—including law enforcement agencies and dealers in antiquities—to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is assessed against the analysis of collecting patterns for antiquities. The lack of self regulation by those involved in the antiquities market supports the view that the British Government needs to adopt more stringent legislation to combat the destruction of archaeological sites by looting.

Thinking in terms of law and mortality

The author lays a blueprint for distinctions between legal and moral rules and socially accepted behavior, situations in which these distinctions set different standards of conduct, and the relationship among them. Several of the more common paradigms of cultural property disputes are then fit into the patterns of legal and moral rules and obligations, thus establishing a framework for the discussion of how to evaluate ethical or moral behaviors in varying circumstances. The author also considers the relevance of deontological and consequentialist arguments for the return of cultural property, as well as avoidance strategies by which a country of origin can make a claim for restitution while ignoring the long-term questions of the legitimacy, power, and responsibilities of national governments. The author concludes by emphasizing the difficulties in basing arguments concerning cultural property on moral evaluations and conclusions.

Contemporary Legal Problems of Return of Cultural Property to its Country of Origin in Russia and the Confederation of Independent States

Contemporary Legal Problems of Return of Cultural Property to its Country of Origin in Russia and the Confederation of Independent States

Museums and national cultural property II. The Parthenon marbles

Choosing the Parthenon Marbles as a case study was dictated by two main considerations: first, they are one of the best-known examples; second, and more important by far, they constitute a case with regard to which all the basic issues concerning return of cultural property can be raised. Not only do they carry a fundamental symbolism for both the cultural and national identity of the Greeks, but also the question of their repatriation fulfils all the principles set up by the relevant international organizations.