Export of Arts and Cultural Objects: Cultural Heritage or Cultural Property? - London (United Kingdom), 1 December 2000. Symposium organised by the Academy of European Law Trier.

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-303
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
European Law ◽  
Cultural Objects

Protecting Taonga: the cultural heritage of the New Zealand Maori

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
RK Paterson
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Found Objects ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Major Development ◽  
Unesco Convention ◽  
Waitangi Tribunal

New Zealand concerns regarding cultural heritage focus almost exclusively on the indigenous Maori of that country. This article includes discussion of the way in which New Zealand regulates the local sale and export of Maori material cultural objects. It examines recent proposals to reform this system, including allowing Maori custom to determine ownership of newly found objects.A major development in New Zealand law concerns the role of a quasi-judicial body, the Waitangi Tribunal. Many tribunal decisions have contained lengthy discussions of Maori taonga (cultural treasures) and of alleged past misconduct by former governments and their agents in relation to such objects and Maori cultural heritage in general.As is the case with legal systems elsewhere, New Zealand seeks to reconcile the claims of its indigenous peoples with other priorities, such as economic development and environmental protection. Maori concerns have led to major changes in New Zealand heritage conservation law. A Maori Heritage Council now acts to ensure that places and sites of Maori interest will be protected. The council also plays a role in mediating conflicting interests of Maori and others, such as scientists, in relation to the scientific investigation of various sites.Despite these developments, New Zealand has yet to sign the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The changes proposed to New Zealand cultural property law have yet to be implemented, and there is evidence of uncertainty about the extent to which protecting indigenous Maori rights can be reconciled with the development of a national cultural identity and the pursuit of universal concerns, such as sustainable development.

scholarly journals Trafficking Cultural Objects and Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Yates
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Art Market ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Western Model ◽  
Cultural Self ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Since the end of the second world war, international cultural heritage protection law and its domestic legal components have proceeded in their development in tandem with the development of international human rights laws and norms. A core tension in human rights thinking is evident also in debates about the right to cultural property: the potential for conflict between the right to cultural self–determination by one group and attempts to develop and promulgate human rights standards with universalising ambitions. This is reflected in cultural property ownership debates, where cultural heritage may be considered by some people as the common heritage of humankind and thus to some extent owned by us all, while others would see it as more properly owned by members of a more restricted group, or perhaps communally as tangible items of a certain culture.So there is a universalism vs particularism debate about the right to own, possess or otherwise enjoy, worship or value cultural objects just as there is the same debate on a much wider scale about universalism vs particularism in human rights in general. As with that wider debate, where universalism has been criticised for being a veil for the global transfer of western liberal capitalist values (e.g. Woodiwiss 2005), so too in the cultural property debate the construction of the idea of ‘the world’s cultural heritage’ has tended to represent in practice a view that favours the idea of the ‘encyclopaedic’ Western model of the museum, thus suggesting an ideal where material cultural heritage is stored in cultural repositories around the world rather than leaving (or reinstating) it to its country of origin or to a community thought to have the closest historical, cultural or religious connection to it.This view is fiercely opposed by those who consider this to be, in effect, an attempted justification of the forcible extraction of this particular resource from the developing world. They prefer to define and delineate cultural property rights in terms of ‘the property of a culture’ rather than as ‘property which is cultural’ insofar as the latter might represent a contemporary reflection of the values and views of the global art market rather than the communities and cultures whose heritage is at stake. In international legislation aimed at cultural property protection there is some ambivalence around these views, with the preambles of the governing conventions tending to strike a diplomatic balance between recognising important cultural artefacts as the particular interests of cultural groups, states or ‘all peoples’, while also approving of some of the effects of the worldwide diffusion of cultural heritage, most of which is due to the mechanics of the art market.

Part II Substantive Aspects, Ch.10 Grasping the Nettle of Illicit Export, Import, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Objects

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shyllon Folarin
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Codes Of Ethics ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Illegal Trade ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
African Countries ◽  
International Effort ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Illicit Trafficking

This chapter studies the illegal import, export, and transfer of ownership of movable cultural objects. Illicit trafficking in cultural property has been going on for decades. The exponential increase in the 1960s raised concern, and this coincided with the wave of independence being granted to several African countries and Asian countries. Codes of ethics and international treaties are two important elements of the current, major international effort to prevent the damage caused by the illegal trade in cultural objects that continue to blossom. Another key element is increased globalization of cultural heritage law. Finally, the creation of national cultural heritage police units by all countries is very important.

International Aspects of Cultural Property

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Papademetriou
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Basic Element ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Cultural Life ◽  
Cultural Exchanges ◽  
Unesco Convention ◽  
International Aspects

The significance of cultural property as “a basic element of civilization and national culture” and its interchange among countries for scientific, cultural and educational purposes has been acknowledged in a number of legal instruments prepared under the aegis of UNESCO, an intergovernmental organization dedicated to the preservation of the world's cultural heritage. As the Preamble of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on theMeans of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Propertyasserts: “… [the interchange] increases the knowledge of the civilization of man, enriches the cultural life of all peoples and inspires mutual respect and appreciation among nations.” Moreover, the 1995 adopted UNIDROITConvention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objectsfurther attests to the: “…fundamental importance of the protection of cultural heritage and of cultural exchanges for promoting understanding between peoples, and the dissemination of culture for the well-being of humanity and the progress of civilization.”

Kulturgüter als Quasi-Subjekte. Herausforderung des Kulturgüterschutzes durch Terrorismus

2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-384
Author(s):  
Leva J. Wenzel
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
The Past ◽  
Material Substance ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractOver the past decades, cultural heritage has increasingly become a primary target of terrorist destruction. As such attacks not only hit the cultural objects themselves, but also people and societies inherently associated with them, this article calls for a shift of emphasis in protection of cultural property from mere material substance protection to the relationship between humans and cultural objects. To this end, the present work rethinks cultural heritage as a hybrid entity between legal object and legal person, i. e., as material agency. The article takes a critical view of the traditional juridical distinction between legal object (res) and legal person (persona), and of material and immaterial cultural heritage. By taking full advantage of the legal potential of these four aspects, and reflecting on the recent ruling of the International Criminal Court in The Hague regarding the terrorist destruction of Timbuktu, the article provides a springboard toward an anthropological transformation of the protection of cultural property.

The Protected Objects Act in New Zealand: Too Little, Too Late?

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piers Davies ◽  
Paul Myburgh
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Significant Delay ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Unesco Convention

AbstractThe Protected Objects Amendment Act (POA) was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, so New Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995. This represents a significant delay after the drafting of these two conventions. This article explores why New Zealand has taken so long to give domestic effect to these conventions and examines the manner in which they have been given domestic legal effect in the POA. The article also focuses on issues of Māori cultural property, the practical implementation of the POA, and the cultural heritage climate in New Zealand.

The fundamental aims of cultural property law

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
FG Fechner
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Property Law ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Cultural Object ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Conventions

The law of cultural property is primarily based on the interests of the states concerned. If a cultural object is of high monetary or identificatory value, states will contest the ownership, and many of these cases are resolved by compromise. If a cultural object is of less monetary or identificatory value, states often neglect its preservation. Yet the law for protection of cultural property should not only be a method for the arbitration of national interests but should also take into account the interests of humankind in general, including preservation of the object in its original context, public accessibility, and the scientific, historic and aesthetic interests that can be associated with an object. While some states are unable to protect their cultural heritage, especially in times of war, public international law does not prevent a state from destroying its cultural heritage. Cultural heritage law is developing rapidly, and national laws and international conventions are in the process of creation. At this time, the author posits, it is therefore necessary to consider the reasons for the protection of cultural objects.

scholarly journals Stolen Heritage Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Heritage in the EU and the MENA Region

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arianna Traviglia ◽  
Lucio Milano ◽  
Cristina Tonghini ◽  
Riccardo Giovanelli
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Mena Region ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
Archaeological Areas ◽  
Artistic Assets ◽  
Illicit Trafficking

It is a well-known fact that organized crime has developed into an international network that, spanning from the simple ‘grave diggers’ up to powerful and wealthy white-collar professionals, makes use of money laundering, fraud and forgery. This criminal chain, ultimately, damages and dissipates our cultural identity and, in some cases, even fosters terrorism or civil unrest through the illicit trafficking of cultural property.The forms of ‘possession’ of Cultural Heritage are often blurred; depending on the national legislation of reference, the ownership and trade of historical and artistic assets of value may be legitimate or not. Criminals have always exploited these ambiguities and managed to place on the Art and Antiquities market items resulting from destruction or looting of museums, monuments and archaeological areas. Thus, over the years, even the most renowned museum institutions have - more or less consciously - hosted in their showcases cultural objects of illicit origin. Looting, thefts, illicit trade, and clandestine exports are phenomena that affect especially those countries rich in historical and artistic assets. That includes Italy, which has seen its cultural heritage plundered over the centuries ending up in public and private collections worldwide.This edited volume features ten papers authored by international experts and professionals actively involved in Cultural Heritage protection. Drawing from the experience of the Conference Stolen Heritage (Venice, December 2019), held in the framework of the NETCHER project, the book focuses on illicit trafficking in Cultural Property under a multidisciplinary perspective.The articles look at this serious issue and at connected crimes delving into a variety of fields. The essays especially expand on European legislation regulating import, export, trade and restitution of cultural objects; conflict antiquities and cultural heritage at risk in the Near and Middle East; looting activities and illicit excavations in Italy; the use of technologies to counter looting practices.The volume closes with two papers specifically dedicated to the thorny ethical issues arising from the publication of unprovenanced archaeological objects, and the relevance of accurate communication and openness about such topics.

Trafficking in Cultural PropertyWhere Cultural Heritage Law and the International Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime Coincide

2020 ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Janet Blake
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
Unesco Convention ◽  
Source Countries

The loss of their cultural treasures through illicit excavation, illegal export, and trafficking and the associated harm to national identity and the rights of their citizens presents a major challenge to many countries around the world. The source countries tend, on the whole, to be poorer developing States while the importing market countries are rich States such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. This chapter first provides a critical analysis of the international cultural heritage law governing this question, in particular the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Illicit Trade in Cultural Property and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on the Return of Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. Following this discussion, and as a contrast to the purely cultural heritage-based approach, it focuses on two complementary efforts to combat cultural property trafficking as an international or transnational crime: the 2000 ‘Palermo’ UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the 2017 ‘Nicosia’ Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property.

Comparing Interpretations of States’ and Non-State Actors’ Obligations Toward Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict and OccupationMilitary Manuals and the Law of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-81
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Varner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954 Hague Convention) remains the leading treaty on the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. After several decades of relative dormancy, eleven States have joined the 1954 Hague Convention in the last decade, including two major military powers: the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the 1954 Hague Convention, a host of laws touch on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as those under customary international law. Nonetheless, there are disagreements in interpretations of States’ obligations toward cultural property during armed conflict stemming from a variety of factors. These factors can include: whether States are Parties to the instrument that conveys the obligation or if the obligation is one of customary international law, which itself is often contested; the individual State’s interpretation; interpretation by tribunals; and a plethora of other factors. Given these discrepancies in interpretation, a review of States’ military manuals is useful to see if they shed any light on the State’s interpretation of their obligations toward cultural property under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and international obligations in LOAC more generally. This chapter will analyze and compare the military manuals of the United States and the United Kingdom to determine how they elucidate several key issues in the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, such as the definition of ‘cultural property’, requirements for ‘respect’, the doctrine of military necessity, and laws applicable in non-international armed conflicts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document