The Classical Approach: International Treaties—Part I

Taşdelen, Alper

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_2

Alper Taşdelen²

776 Accesses

Abstract

International treaties are not only a source of international law; they are also a classical means to regulate matters of concern to the international community. Hence, it is not surprising that the international community’s first approach to resolve the issue concerning the return of cultural objects was to rely on an international treaty. This approach was further encouraged by the fact that issues surrounding cultural artefacts were generally perceived as national or state affairs. This chapter focuses on the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, the first international agreement for times of peace on an international scale exclusively devoted to the regulation of the return of cultural objects. After an overview of the first endeavours of the international community to enact such an agreement and the historical developments leading to the adoption of the treaty along with the challenges that had to be overcome in the course of the negotiation, the convention is analysed in depth. Its purpose, scope and regulations are broken down in the light of the convention’s genesis and the different actors’ positions with an emphasis on the rules concerning the return of cultural objects. Finally, the relevance as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the treaty are more closely scrutinised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land: “A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.”.
2.
Cf. Baufeld (2005), p. 87.
3.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 31; Siehr (2011), p. 94.
4.
Vogel (2010), p. 1149.
5.
Raschèr (2000), p. 50.
6.
OIM (1939a), pp. 51f.
7.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 3.
8.
Vrdoljak (2008), pp. 112f.
9.
OIM (1939b), pp. 69ff.
10.
OIM (1939c), pp. 78ff.
11.
Cf. Vrdoljak (2008), p. 115.
12.
Cf. Weidner (2001), p. 230; Odendahl (2005), pp. 173f.
13.
Cf. Odendahl (2005), p. 174.
14.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 11.
15.
Cf. Weidner (2001), p. 229.
16.
Cf. Odendahl (2005), p. 174.
17.
Cf. UNESCO Doc CUA/115, 14.04.1962, p. 3.
18.
Printed in Hudson (1941), pp. 51ff.
19.
von Schorlemer (1992), p. 270.
20.
The Pan-American Union is the predecessor form of the Organization of American States, a regional organisation that can be traced back to 1889. For further details on the Organization of American States and its history see http://www.oas.org/en/about/our_history.asp.
21.
Cf. Pabst (2008), p. 60; Hönes (2006), p. 166.
22.
Nonetheless, Article 8 of the Treaty also contains a war-related regulation prohibiting the treatment of cultural property as spoils of war.
23.
Printed in Hudson (1941), pp. 56ff.
24.
Cf. von Schorlemer (1992), p. 270.
25.
Cf. Odendahl (2005), p. 174.
26.
Cf. Article 1 lit. a) of the Washington Treaty.
27.
Article 1 lit. d) 2) of the Washington Treaty.
28.
Article 1 of the Washington Treaty only requires books (lit. b) and species (lit. d) 2)) to be rare and collections of manuscripts to have a high historic significance in order to be subject to the treaty. For all other listed objects there is no further requirement of particular value.
29.
Articles 2, 5 of the Washington Treaty.
30.
Article 3 of the Washington Treaty.
31.
Cf. Odendahl (2005), p. 175.
32.
Cf. Weidner (2001), p. 232.
33.
Weidner (2001), pp. 234f; Boos (2006), p. 48; Hönes (2010), p. 86.
34.
Odendahl (2005), p. 134.
35.
Cf. Ochoa Jiménez (2011), p. 40.
36.
Hüfner (2005), p. 32.
37.
Printed in Yusuf (2007), pp. 345ff.
38.
Article 27 of the Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.
39.
Cf. Article 29 of the Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.
40.
Cf. Article 30 (1) and (2) of the Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.
41.
Cf. Article 31 (1) and (2) of the Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.
42.
See Ochoa Jiménez (2011), p. 41.
43.
Article IV (4) (3) of the UNESCO Constitution.
44.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 12.
45.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 5.
46.
Cf. Thorn (2005), p. 58; Streinz (1998), p. 82.
47.
Cf. Raschèr (2000), p. 51.
48.
UNESCO GC 12 C/Resolution 4.413, 28.06.1963; cf. also O’Keefe (2007), p. 5.
49.
Printed in Yusuf (2007), pp. 377ff.
50.
Schaffrath (2007), pp. 12f.
51.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 7.
52.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/3 Annex, 08.08.1969.
53.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5, 27.02.1970, p. 2.
54.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 13.
55.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Add. 1, 10.04.1970, pp. 3ff; an argument still encountered in context of the eventual 1970 UNESCO Convention: cf. Boos (2006), pp. 50f; Weidner (2001), p. 238.
56.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 7.
57.
Steinbrück (2012), p. 58; von Schorlemer (1992), p. 429.
58.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Annex I, 27.02.1970, p. 21.
59.
Thorn (2005), p. 59.
60.
Vrdoljak (2008), p. 242.
61.
Cf. for the Revised Draft Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Annex III, 27.02.1970.
62.
Cf. Ochoa Jiménez (2011), p. 43; cf. also Rietschel (2009), p. 22.
63.
Raschèr (2000), p. 51.
64.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
65.
http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13039&language=E.
66.
Similar O’Keefe (2007), p. 32. However, Bator (1982), p. 377 seems to have another opinion on the legal value in particular of this Preamble.
67.
Gordon (1971), p. 541.
68.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 16; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 33.
69.
Boos (2006), p. 55.
70.
For an elaborated distinction between source and market states and their interests involved when it comes to cultural property see Slattery (2012), pp. 835ff; see also Herzog (2001), p. 145; cf. also Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 290.
71.
Cf. Forrest (2010), p. 166; Steinbrück (2012), p. 79; cf. also Abramson and Huttler (1973), p. 949.
72.
Bator (1982), p. 377 and Hönes (2010), p. 89 seem to have another view. However, see O’Keefe (2007), pp. 39f with further references.
73.
Cf. Steinbrück (2012), pp. 67f.
74.
Bator (1982), p. 377.
75.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 34f seems to share this understanding.
76.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 41.
77.
Standrock (1985), pp. 460, 464 and 478.
78.
Raschèr (2000), p. 50 seems to share this view. However, he uses the term “particularly” regarding the provisions specified by Fraoua, which could be interpreted as him agreeing in general with the idea of tying “illicit” to particular provisions of the convention, but not with regard to the list of norms specified by Fraoua.
79.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 41; Stamatoudi (2011), p. 35.
80.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 34f also rejects this view, but with a different reasoning. She particularly argues that in “both circumstances, whether the object is outside its country of origin or is due to leave its country of origin, an illicit export will either have taken place or will be about to take place. The underlying reasons for considering such an act as illicit are in both cases the same”.
81.
Vrdoljak (2008), p. 208.
82.
Similar O’Keefe (2007), p. 78. He brings up the sale price. While an under value sale price can be seen as a strong indicator for forced selling, the contrary cannot be automatically assumed for a sale at value. A person who has to flee the occupied territory might not be able to take his belongings, but might be lucky enough to find someone who pays him the appropriate value. However, this does not mean that the seller parted willingly.
83.
For the various views on the explicit legal meaning of the provision see O’Keefe (2007), p. 78. Cf. also O’Keefe (2013), pp. 454f on the issue.
84.
On the matter of occupation see, for instance, Article 5 of the 1954 Hague Convention.
85.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 78.
86.
Consequently, the provision does not address several important issues. It does not deal with the transfer of cultural property to the “motherland”, nor does it deal with the question of what has to be done with such objects once the dependent territories become independent or incorporated into the motherland. See for these and further issues O’Keefe (2007), pp. 80f.
87.
For more detailed information on the particular categories see Ochoa Jiménez (2011), pp. 86–90; Hönes (2006), pp. 167f.
88.
Article 1 of the Convention: “the following categories:
1. (a)
  Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest;
2. (b)
  property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;
3. (c)
  products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries;
4. (d)
  elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;
5. (e)
  antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;
6. (f)
  objects of ethnological interest;
7. (g)
  property of artistic interest, such as:
  1. (i)
    pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand);
  2. (ii)
    original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;
  3. (iii)
    original engravings, prints and lithographs ;
  4. (iv)
    original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;
8. (h)
  rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections;
9. (i)
  postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;
10. (j)
  archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;
11. (k)
  articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.”
89.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 36; Pallas (2004), p. 53.
90.
Cf. Schnelle (2016), p. 47.
91.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 35; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 37f.
92.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 37f.
93.
However, in practice it seems unlikely that an object falling under one of the categories of Article 1 of the Convention does not satisfy the general definition.
94.
Hönes (2010), pp. 87f; Steinbrück (2012), p. 60.
95.
Cf. Kurpiers (2005), p. 155.
96.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 37 assigns the wording a excluding character. According to her interpretation the wording could be understood “to exclude objects which cannot be considered cultural in the common sense of the word”.
97.
Neither the original draft nor the revised draft required a special designation. Cf. Article 1 of the Original and Revised Draft (Chapter 2, n 49 and 61).
98.
Ochoa Jiménez (2011), p. 85.
99.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 17; cf. also Raschèr (2000), p. 54; O’Keefe (2007), p. 36; Stamatoudi (2011), p. 37; Steinbrück (2012), pp. 61f; Rietschel (2009), p. 27.
100.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 36.
101.
Cf. Raschèr (2000), p. 54; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 37.
102.
Cf. Bator (1982), p. 381.
103.
Cf. for instance O’Keefe (2007), p. 37.
104.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 37.
105.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 40; cf. also O’Keefe (2007), p. 85.
106.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 85.
107.
For the concept of res extra commercium see Weidner (2001), p. 242. According to Forrest (2010), p. 173 Article 13 (d) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention is inspired by the civil law jurisdictions’ concept of inalienability.
108.
Cf. Raschèr (2000), p. 54; Pallas (2004), p. 53 interprets the attribution according to Article 4 of the Convention as a prerequisite for the applicability of the treaty.
109.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 45.
110.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 45.
111.
Cf. Kau (2013), pp. 180f.
112.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 39.
113.
For further details, including lit. f of the Draft Convention, cf. O’Keefe (2007), pp. 45ff.
114.
Cf. also Kurpiers (2005), p. 156 who, in this context, points out that Article 4 lit. c–e might be considered to be lex specialis to Article 4 lit. a and b of the Convention.
115.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 47.
116.
Schuschke-Nehen (2008), p. 33.
117.
A remarkable exception to the fundamental concept of the convention to solely address state parties is Paragraph 7 of the Preamble: “The General Council […] Considering that, as cultural institutions, museums, libraries and archives should ensure that their collections are built up in accordance with universally recognized moral principles […] adopts this Convention.” Even though the provision does not directly impose “legal” obligations on cultural institutions, it calls upon them and seems to impose some sort of “moral” obligation on them.
118.
Fishman (2010), p. 357.
119.
Boos (2006), p. 48; Gornig (2007), p. 52; Chechi (2013), p. 182.
120.
Steinbrück (2012), p. 59.
121.
Raschèr (2000), p. 53; Stamatoudi (2011), p. 34; Thorn (2005), pp. 62f.
122.
Article 23 (1) of the Convention: “Each State Party to this Convention may denounce the Convention […] on behalf of any territory for whose international relations it is responsible.”.
123.
On compulsion arising indirectly from occupation cf. p. 23.
124.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 9.
125.
Prott (2009), p. 12; Vrdoljak (2008), p. 206; Brodie (2015), p. 318.
126.
Gruber (2013), p. 350; Tucker (2011), pp. 631f; see also Carleton (2007), p. 26.
127.
Article 7 of the Convention is the only provision addressing the issue of the temporal applicability of the convention, but it is limited to its own scope.
128.
The late 1960s, when the convention was drafted, were a time during which former colonies intensely brought forth claims for return of cultural material transferred from their territories by their colonial powers during the colonial period. Consequently, a number of states requested in their comments on the original draft the convention to have a retroactive effect. The former colonial powers, however, objected due to the cultural objects already in their territory and prevailed. Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 9.
129.
Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties: “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.”.
130.
Cf. for example Stumpf (2003), p. 215 and Blake (2015), p. 39; cf. also Planche (2010), p. 146.
131.
A highly important issue in this regard is the timing of the export and import. Problems can arise in cases in which at the time of unlawful import both countries were party to the convention, but at the time of illicit export only the country of origin was party. Cf. O’Keefe (2007), pp. 9f.
132.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 27.
133.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 63.
134.
The United Kingdom, however, stated in its acceptance of the convention as the only state party so far that it “interprets Article 7 (b) (ii) to the effect that it may continue to apply its existing rules on limitation to claims made under this Article for the recovery and return of cultural objects”. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#RESERVES.
135.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 17.
136.
On the relation between Article 8 and Article 7 (b) of the Convention cf. pp. 45f.
137.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 60.
138.
Dicke (1984), p. 25.
139.
Boos (2006), p. 212, for example, argues that in the case of cultural objects on loan, only the lender is entitled to return.
140.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 21.
141.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 22.
142.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 62.
143.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 50.
144.
Gerstenblith (2013), p. 11.
145.
Schaffrath (2007), pp. 18f; cf. Thorn (2005), pp. 61f.
146.
Cf. Siehr (2005), p. 37.
147.
Friehe (2013), pp. 115f; cf. also Kurpiers (2005), p. 154, n 634.
148.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 19.
149.
Similar Schaffrath (2007), p. 19.
150.
Boos (2006), p. 49 emphasises that non-stolen cultural objects and the cultural property of private collections do not fall within the scope of the provision.
151.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 61; Siehr (2011), p. 103; Renold (2009), p. 309; Fincham (2008–2009), p. 121.
152.
UNIDROIT Secretariat (2001), p. 479; see for an exemplary list of national legislations Schmeinck (1994), pp. 128ff; see further for the tension between cultural heritage protection and private ownership rights and approaches to reconcile both interests using the example of Belgium de Clippele and Lambrecht (2015), pp. 259–278.
153.
Cf. Renold (2009), pp. 309f; see also Schnabel and Tatzkow (2007), Chapter I for more specific regulations of various countries concerning this matter with a focus on cultural objects looted during World War II.
154.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 20.
155.
Prowda (2014), p. 147 therefore argues questionably that the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention have adopted the civil law position in protecting the good faith purchaser.
156.
Cf. Abramson and Huttler (1973), p. 953.
157.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/3 Annex, 08.08.1969, Article 10 (d).
158.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 63.
159.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 64.
160.
Same Thorn (2005), p. 151 with regard to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.
161.
See O’Keefe (2007), pp. 63f for an overview of different regulations regarding the amount of compensation in different countries and the development within the various drafts.
162.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 65; cf. also Rietschel (2009), p. 37.
163.
Cf. Article 7 (g) of the Draft (Chapter 2, n 52).
164.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), pp. 65f.
165.
With another view Steinbrück (2012), p. 70.
166.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 50f.
167.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 66.
168.
Cf. Weidner (2001), pp. 239f; Schaffrath (2007), p. 20.
169.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 20.
170.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 66; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 50.
171.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Annex III, 27.02.1970, Article 10 (c).
172.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 17.
173.
Same O’Keefe (2007), p. 60.
174.
Similar O’Keefe (2007), p. 82 who requires a state party to “at least use its best efforts”. Bator (1982), p. 378, however, denies the provision—due to the limitation—any significance. Gordon (1971), p. 554, on the other hand, regards Article 13 of the Convention as “one of the most difficult and contradictory articles of the Convention”.
175.
Steinbrück (2012), p. 77; Bator (1982), p. 378.
176.
On the controversies in the context of the rightful owner cf. p. 43.
177.
Cf. Schaffrath (2007), p. 24.
178.
Siehr (2011), p. 93; Walter (1988), p. 54.
179.
However, the German law implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention only allows states party to the convention, but not individuals, to reclaim cultural material. Cf. § 7 Kulturgüterrückgabegesetz.
180.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 84.
181.
This seems to be the case in Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
182.
These actions are also seen as covered by the provision by O’Keefe (2007), p. 84.
183.
Cf., for example, Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
184.
Cf., for example, O’Keefe (2007), p. 83.
185.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 29 e contrario.
186.
The question of which law has to be applied to define the rightful owner is a question raised by some authors. Cf. for example Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
187.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
188.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 83.
189.
Article 5 of the Convention reads: “the States Parties to this Convention undertake, as appropriate for each country, to set up within their territories one or more national services[…].” Article 14 of the Convention: “each State Party to the Convention should, as far as it is able, provide the national services […] with an adequate budget.”.
190.
The same interpretation is also favoured by O’Keefe (2007), pp. 52f and Fraoua (1986).
191.
Cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 41.
192.
Abramson and Huttler (1973), p. 962, however, deny Article 5 of the Convention any legally binding effect at all and advocate the view that this wording “converted legal obligations into moral ones”.
193.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 44 seems to indicate that both provisions essentially have the same scope.
194.
See O’Keefe (2007), p. 87 for a list of possible deficiencies concerning an adequate budget.
195.
Australia, for example, established a fund to enable museums to buy cultural material that has not been granted an export permit. Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 87.
196.
At the international level, a similar fund has been established in the context of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP). For further information on the fund cf. pp. 140ff.
197.
Due to the phrase “as appropriate for each country” appearing in the wording of the provision, Abramson and Huttler (1973), p. 962 deny Article 5 of the Convention any legally binding effect at all.
198.
Cf. Gordon (1971), p. 547.
199.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 48; Gerstenblith (2013), p. 11.
200.
On Article 17 of the Convention cf. pp. 53ff.
201.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 48.
202.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Annex II, 27.02.1970, p. 5.
203.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 41.
204.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/5 Annex II, 27.02.1970, p. 5.
205.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 41.
206.
On the dispute cf. pp. 18f.
207.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 49; cf. also Brodie et al. (2000), p. 38.
208.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 43 for a list of international treaties recognising this principle.
209.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 51.
210.
On the addressees of the 1970 UNESCO Convention cf. p. 29; however, also see the exception to this rule provided in Chapter 2, n 117.
211.
According to Stamatoudi (2011), p. 42 the provision “does not necessarily provide for the establishment of laws but rather for soft laws, such as codes of ethics, best practices, guidelines, and so on”.
212.
Most authors are however primarily concerned with imbalances that might occur. They emphasise that rules should be binding for all parties and not make, for example, museums subject to rules private collectors are not bound by. Cf. for example O’Keefe (2007), p. 51.
213.
The idea of cultural material being the common heritage of mankind is a general approach encountered in practically all cultural heritage related international conventions. Cf., for example, Paragraph 2 of the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention; cf. also O’Keefe (2007), p. 53 for a list of further international treaties embodying this idea.
214.
UNESCO Doc SHC/MD/3, 08.08.1969, p. 7 Paragraphs 53 and 54: “The disappearance of any cultural object should, at the request of the State claiming that object, be brought to the knowledge of the public by means of appropriate publicity, particularly through the latest media of mass communication. If such publicity should not lead to the immediate recovery of the cultural object, it would have the merit of drawing the attention of the public, specialist circles in particular, to the object in question. The latter would then be unmarketable, with the result that the holder, to avoid serious trouble, might be induced to restore it to its owner.
It might further be said that such national publicity could be supplemented by an international campaign (Article 14) organised in special publications. The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law highly approves such advertising for lost cultural property, and attaches important legal consequences to it; being of the opinion that, if it were possible to organises a wide international publicity campaign every time a cultural object disappeared, it might be possible in a civil lawsuit to cast doubt on the good faith on the acquirer of any such property, in such a way that he would cease to be protected, and an action for recovery would be possible. Publicity might prove an effective means of justifying such an action, even where it is held that ‘possession is title’.”.
215.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 43.
216.
Cf., for example, Stamatoudi (2011), p. 46, n 40 for an exemplary list of EU Regulations on this matter. However, cf. also Vigneron (2014), p. 128; cf. also Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 299.
217.
UNESCO has jointly with the World Customs Organization prepared a Model Export Certificate for Cultural Property. For further information on the issue and in particular the Mode Export Certificate see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-wco-model-export-certificate/; cf. on the matter also Roca-Hachem (2005), p. 542.
218.
For an overview of the current national systems for controlling the export of cultural material cf. ILA 2010.
219.
Cf., for example, Bator (1982), p. 377. For a broader perspective on the topic of border controls concerning cultural property see Paterson (2011), pp. 287ff.
220.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 55.
221.
As in the case of the export certificates, the dimension of the obligation imposed by Article 7 (b) (i) of the Convention is controversial. Some authors understand the provision as imposing strict border control obligations. Considering that even in cases of illegal trafficking of arms and narcotics states generally rely on selective controls at the border and other methods like international exchange of information, such a far-reaching requirement seems inappropriate in the case of illicitly transferred cultural material. State parties have a free hand concerning the selection of their methods to implement the import prohibition. Cf. O’Keefe (2007), pp. 57ff; cf. also Steinbrück (2012), pp. 65ff.
222.
von Schorlemer (1992), p. 433; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 45 which implies this argumentation.
223.
Raschèr (2000), p. 58; Kurpiers (2005), p. 156 requires that the collection is meant for and accessible by the general public.
224.
This is why other authors relate Article 6 closely to Article 3 of the Convention. Cf., for example, Weidner (2001), p. 235.
225.
Odendahl (2005), p. 134 argues that state parties are obliged to acknowledge the export restrictions per se.
226.
Hönes (2010), p. 92.
227.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 46 also reasons that Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires such an interpretation.
228.
With the same interpretation Stamatoudi (2011), p. 46; Xi (2012), p. 858 does not seem to make any distinction between the different kinds of cultural material.
229.
China and the USA, for example, adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in January 2009. The MOU aims at establishing means of cooperation to reduce the incentives for archaeological pillage and illicit trafficking in cultural objects that threaten China’s ancient heritage by imposing restrictions on the importation of certain categories of archaeological materials from China, namely all undocumented artefacts from the Palaeolithic Era through the end of the Tang Dynasty as well as elements of monumental sculpture and other wall art that are at least 250 years old. The agreement provides a detailed list of categories of archaeological materials which may enter the US only if they are accompanied by an export permit issued by the appropriate authority in the Government of China. China, on the other hand, agreed to promote long-term loans of archaeological objects to museums. See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122226.pdf; for further MOUs between governments and museums see Lyons (2014), pp. 251–265.
230.
The other one is the second part of Article 10 (a) of the Convention.
231.
The USA, for example, has no law specifically for import, but rather one for the receipt and transportation of illegally transferred cultural material. O’Keefe (2007), p. 67.
232.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 54.
233.
The original draft, however, only spoke of penalties, which is why von Schorlemer (1992), p. 433 deems the version of the final treaty as weakened.
234.
On the addressees of the 1970 UNESCO Convention cf. pp. 21; however, also see the exception to this rule provided in Chapter 2, n 117.
235.
Cf. Raschèr (2000), p. 57.
236.
Cf., for instance, Article 5 (e) of the 1970 UNESCSO Convention: “To ensure the protection of their cultural property against illicit import, export and transfer of ownership, the States Parties to this Convention undertake, as appropriate for each country, to set up within their territories one or more national services, where such services do not already exist, for the protection of the cultural heritage, with a qualified staff sufficient in number for the effective carrying out of the following functions: (e) establishing, for the benefit of those concerned (curators, collectors, antique dealers, etc.) rules in conformity with the ethical principles set forth in this Convention; and taking steps to ensure the observance of those rules”.
237.
Article 7 (a) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake: (a) To take the necessary measures, consistent with national legislation, to prevent museums and similar institutions within their territories from acquiring cultural property originating in another State Party which has been illegally exported after entry into force of this Convention, in the States concerned. Whenever possible, to inform a State of origin Party to this Convention of an offer of such cultural property illegally removed from that State after the entry into force of this Convention in both States;”.
238.
Steinbrück (2012), p. 72.
239.
On the issue of retroactivity in context of the 1970 UNESCO Convention cf. pp. 22f.
240.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 47.
241.
Weidner (2001), p. 237.
242.
Nafziger (1975), pp. 388–389.
243.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 56; cf. also Streinz (1998), p. 86.
244.
Bator (1982), p. 380.
245.
This idea is also reflected in O’Keefe (2007), p. 51 in context of the commentary on Article 5 (e) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
246.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 47f with similar arguments.
247.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 48.
248.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 48 argues that no particular method of fulfilment is required, but rather an effective result.
249.
The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums adopted by the 15^th General Assembly of ICOM on 4 November 1986 is perhaps the most important such soft law instrument in this context. Cf. also Raschèr (2000), p. 57.
250.
Nafziger (1975), pp. 391–392.
251.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 54.
252.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 54.
253.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 69.
254.
Sentence 3 of Article 9 of the Convention: “Pending agreement each State concerned shall take provisional measures to the extent feasible to prevent irremediable injury to the cultural heritage of the requesting State.”.
255.
According to Article 18 of the Convention, authentic languages are English, French, Russian, and Spanish.
256.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 69.
257.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 54f.
258.
Bator (1982), p. 379 claims that the provision is “a direct descendant of the ‘crisis’ provision contained in the United States alternative draft”.
259.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 69.
260.
The USA attempted to restrict those even further. O’Keefe (2007), p. 69.
261.
Kaplan (1986), p. 146 implies that the provision’s purpose is “the deterrence of a situation of pillage threatening the cultural heritage, not just of a single State, but of all mankind”. Even though national heritages form part of the common heritage of mankind and thus, a threat to the heritage of a single nation is at least a partial threat to the common heritage of mankind, such an interpretation is not supported by the wording of the provision. The provision explicitly refers to state parties “whose cultural patrimony is in jeopardy”. See also O’Keefe (2007), p. 69.
262.
Williams (1978), p. 186; Gordon (1971), p. 552; Abramson and Huttler (1973), p. 962.
263.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 55; cf. also Gerstenblith (2012), p. 650.
264.
DuBoff et al. (1976), pp. 124f.
265.
So also Raschèr (2000), p. 59 and O’Keefe (2007), p. 71.
266.
Fraoua (1986), p. 80.
267.
Switzerland and the USA are two such countries. DuBoff et al. (1976), p. 105; Schönenberger (2009), pp. 86ff; Kouroupas (2010), p. 156 for the specific requirements set up by the USA. See also Lanciotti (2012), p. 318; see also Prott (2011a), p. 455 for a number of countries having no such requirement; see Gerstenblith (2011), p. 396 for an overview of countries with which Switzerland and the USA have concluded bilateral agreements.
268.
Similar Stamatoudi (2011), p. 56.
269.
The MOU signed under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention between China and the United States in January 2009 is a good example of what such cooperation may look like and what source nations can achieve with bilateral agreements. For further information on the MOU see Chapter 2, n 229; cf. also for further MOUs entered into by the USA Nafziger et al. (2014), pp. 379ff.
270.
Australia and Canada are two quite progressive states in this regard. Canada imposed controls on cultural materials that have been illegally exported from other states party to an international agreement relating to the prevention of illicit international traffic in cultural heritage. Australia does not even require the other state to be a party to an international convention. O’Keefe (2007), p. 72.
271.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 55.
272.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 72.
273.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 55.
274.
O’Keefe (2007), pp. 72f.
275.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 56.
276.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 56.
277.
Sentence 3 of Article 9 of the Convention reads “each State concerned” in contrast to sentence 2 which speaks of a “concerted international effort”.
278.
Schaffrath (2007), p. 30.
279.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 89.
280.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 56.
281.
On the issue of retroactivity in the context of the 1970 UNESCO Convention cf. pp. 22f.
282.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 89; Stamatoudi (2011), p. 56.
283.
The exemplary character is owed to the phrase “particularly as regards” used in the provision.
284.
Cf. the “red leaflet” series: UNESCO Docs CLT-85/WS.
285.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/.
286.
Prott and O’Keefe (1983).
287.
Prott and O’Keefe (1988).
288.
Fraoua (1986), p. 53.
289.
Askerud and Clément (1997).
290.
O’Keefe (1997).
291.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 57.
292.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 92.
293.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 57.
294.
On the ICPRCP cf. pp. 127ff.
295.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 60.
296.
Similar O’Keefe (2007), p. 93.
297.
Within the World Trade Organization system there is even a highly detailed separate agreement regarding the dispute settlement. Cf. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/dsu_01_e.htm.
298.
According to O’Keefe (2007), p. 93 this might reflect a hostility of the states of Marxist ideology concerning the International Court of Justice at the time of drafting.
299.
The International Court of Justice has so far ruled only once on a dispute involving cultural heritage (Cambodia v. Thailand), I.C.J. Reports 1962, pp. 6ff.
300.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 61.
301.
Article V (12) of the UNESCO Constitution: “Between sessions of the General Conference, the Executive Board may request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the field of the Organization’s activities.”.
302.
Cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), p. 61.
303.
O’Keefe (2007), pp. 74f.
304.
Fraoua (1986), p. 83.
305.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 75.
306.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 75.
307.
The same view is also advocated by O’Keefe (2007), p. 77 and Stamatoudi (2011), p. 61. Bator (1982), p. 378, however, sees the obligation as an “unenforceable undertaking”.
308.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 61.
309.
See O’Keefe (2007), p. 77 for an exemplary list of measures.
310.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 77.
311.
Cf. p. 49 on the obligation to introduce educational measures imposed by Article 5 (f) of the Convention.
312.
Raschèr (2000), p. 60.
313.
Article 10 (a) (2^nd Part) of the Convention: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake: […], as appropriate for each country, oblige antique dealers, subject to penal or administrative sanctions, to maintain a register recording the origin of each item of cultural property, names and addresses of the supplier, description and price of each item sold and to inform the purchaser of the cultural property of the export prohibition to which such property may be subject;”.
314.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 76.
315.
von Schorlemer (1992), p. 434.
316.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 62.
317.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 75.
318.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 75.
319.
However, many dealers are still quite reluctant when it comes to keeping registers bringing forth various arguments, such as confidentiality, data protection, and security from theft. Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 62.
320.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 82.
321.
Similar O’Keefe (2007), p. 82 and Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 51f; Bator (1982), p. 378, however, interprets the wording as requiring no further action from states beyond what is already provided for in their laws.
322.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 83 e contrario.
323.
Weidner (2001), p. 241.
324.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
325.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 83.
326.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 52.
327.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 82.
328.
An important example of such a reporting and monitoring system is the Universal Periodic Review undertaken by the United Nations Human Rights Council in accordance with UNGA Res 60/251, 15.03.2006, Article 5 (e).
329.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 91.
330.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 91.
331.
On the subsidiary committee cf. pp. 62ff.
332.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114038e.pdf.
333.
The latest reports are available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/1970-convention/periodic-reporting/. They are generally also incorporated into and evaluated in numerous documents. Annex to Part III of UNESCO Doc 187 EX/20, 19.09.2011, for instances, comprises a summary of the implementary measures. Until 2003, however, UNESCO published the reports itself. Cf. for example UNESCO GC 32 C/Resolution 38, 16.10.2003.
334.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/meeting-of-states-parties/.
335.
Shyllon (2012), p. 586.
336.
Cf. Shyllon (2014), p. 38.
337.
On the different methods of implementation undertaken by market states see Gerstenblith (2013), pp. 11–20.
338.
UNESCO Doc C70/12/2.MSP/5, 20.06.2012.
339.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/meeting-of-states-parties/.
340.
UNESCO Doc C70/12/2.MSP/6, 20.06.2012.
341.
UNESCO Doc C70/13/Extra.MSP/Resolutions, 01.07.2013.
342.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/subsidiary-committee/1st-sc-session-2013/.
343.
UNESCO Doc C70/15/3.MSP/Resolutions, May 2015, pp. 5f; cf. also for an overview of UNESCO safeguarding measures concerning Mali Manhart (2016), pp. 289f.
344.
UNESCO Doc C70/15/3.MSP/Resolutions, May 2015, p. 6.
345.
Article 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
346.
Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
347.
According to Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties these entities are member states of UNESCO not parties to the 1970 Convention, associated members of UNESCO, permanent observer missions to UNESCO, the United Nations and its organisations, other intergovernmental organisations that have concluded mutual agreements with UNESCO, observers of intergovernmental and international non-governmental organisations, as well as representatives of observers invited by the Director-General.
348.
Articles 1, 2.1–2.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
349.
Article 12.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
350.
Article 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
351.
Article 12.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
352.
Voting is normally carried out by show of hands. When the result of a vote by show of hands is in doubt, the chairman may take a second vote by roll-call. A vote by roll-call is also taken if it is requested by no less than two delegations before voting takes place. (Article 12.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties).
Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties contains further detailed regulations on voting, like the order in which proposals have to be voted upon.
353.
Article 6.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
354.
In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties the vice-chairpersons have the same powers and duties as the chairperson when replacing him due to his absence.
355.
Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
356.
Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties; Article 7.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties allows also observers to address the meeting.
357.
Article 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
358.
Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
359.
Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
360.
Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
361.
Article 13.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
362.
Article 13.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
363.
The electoral groups being Western European and North American States, Eastern European States, Latin-American and Caribbean States, Asian and Pacific States, African States, and Arab States; cf. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/executive-board/members/.
364.
Article 14.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
365.
Article 14.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
366.
Rule 5.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
367.
Rule 11.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
368.
Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
369.
Rules 11.3 and 11.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
370.
Regulations on the right to speak and its administration can be found in Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
371.
Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
372.
Rule 12.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee speaks of “every second ordinary session”. However, according to Article 14.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties the Committee is convened every year and thus every second ordinary session is every other year.
373.
Rule 12.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
374.
Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
375.
Rule 12.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
376.
Rules 13.2, 13.3, 14, and 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee contain a number of regulations in case any member of the bureau is unable to attend (parts of) the sessions or may not be able to complete the term of his office.
377.
Rule 39.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
378.
Rule 39.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
379.
Rule 39.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee regulates that documents relating to the items on the provisional agenda of each session of the committee have to be distributed to members of the committee not later than four weeks before the beginning of the session. They must be provided for in electronic form to state parties not members of the committee and to public or private organisations, individuals, and observers.
380.
Rules 39.5 and 39.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
381.
This is, for instance, different in the case of the ad hoc subcommittees of UNESCO’s ICPRCP. Membership to ad hoc subcommittees is explicitly also open to member states of UNESCO which are not represented in the ICPRCP. Cf. Article 6 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
382.
Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
383.
Rule 16.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
384.
On the ICPRCP cf. pp. 127ff.
385.
Article 14.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
386.
Article 14.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
387.
Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee reads: “The Committee shall determine at each session, in consultation with the Director-General, the date and place of the next session. The date and/or place may be changed, if necessary, by the Bureau, in consultation with the Director-General.”.
388.
Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
389.
Rule 4.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
390.
Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
391.
Rule 2.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
392.
Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
393.
Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
394.
Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
395.
Rules 8–10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee deal with the agenda. Rule 8 contains a quite detailed list of topics which have to be included into the provisional agenda of an ordinary session. In addition, it exercises restraint on the agenda of an extraordinary session by dictating that only those items for the consideration of which the session has been convened may be included in its agenda. Nevertheless, in accordance with Rule 9, in both cases the agenda has to be adopted at the beginning of the session and can in compliance with Rule 10 be amended or changed by a two-thirds majority of the state members present and voting.
396.
Rules 3.2 and 3.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee. Rule 3.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee also provides for specific deadlines in this regard: “The Director-General shall inform the States Members of the Committee of the date, place and provisional agenda of each session not less than sixty days in advance in the case of an ordinary session and, so far as possible, not less than thirty days in advance in the case of an extraordinary session.”.
397.
Rules 39.5 and 39.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
398.
Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
399.
Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
400.
Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
401.
Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
402.
Voting is normally by a show of hands unless a secret ballot is requested by one state member of the committee and seconded by two others. If there is any doubt concerning the result of a vote by a show of hands, the chairperson may take a second vote by roll-call. A vote by roll-call shall also be taken if it is requested by not less than two state members of the committee before the vote is taken (Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee). Rule 38 the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee then contains a clause regulating the conduct of voting by secret ballot.
403.
Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
404.
Article 14.8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties; Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee. Unlike in the case of Article 14.8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties, observers are furthermore categorised by Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee into three groups: (1) States parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention which are not members of the committee which may participate in its sessions, and in those of its subsidiary bodies, (2) states not party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention that are member states of UNESCO, associate members or permanent observer missions to UNESCO as well as representatives of the UN and other organisations of the UN system and intergovernmental organisations with which UNESCO concluded mutual representation agreements which may participate in the work of the committee and (3) other intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, public and private organisations as well as individuals which need an authorisation of the committee in order to participate in the sessions of the committee.
405.
Article 14.9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
406.
Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
407.
Rule 18.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
408.
Rule 18.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
409.
Cf. Rule 18.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
410.
Regulations on the right to speak and its administration can be found in Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
411.
Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
412.
Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
413.
Rules 27–31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee provide detailed regulations on the matter of procedures motions, including their consequences and the order in which they have to be voted.
414.
Rule 32.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
415.
Rules 21–25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee contain a number of regulations regarding proposals, including rules on (order of) voting and withdrawal.
416.
Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
417.
Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
418.
Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
419.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
420.
Rule 39.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee.
421.
UNESCO Doc C70/13/1.SC/Decisions, 24.07.2013, p. 2.
422.
The legal basis enabling it to do so is to be found in Article 14.7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of the State Parties.
423.
UNESCO Doc C70/13/1.SC/Decisions, 24.07.2013, p. 3.
424.
UNESCO Doc C70/15/3.MSP/Resolutions, May 2015, p. 7. For the actual text of the Operational Guidelines see UNESCO Doc C70/14/2.SC/5, June 2014, pp. 5ff.
425.
Cf. UNESCO Doc C70/15/Extra.SC/Decisions, May 2015, p. 2.
426.
Cf. UNESCO Doc C70/15/3.SC/6, July 2015.
427.
Cf. UNESCO Doc C70/15/3.SC/Decisions, October 2015, p. 4.
428.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/subsidiary-committee/joint-bureaus-meeting/.
429.
von Schorlemer (1992), p. 443 even sees the convention as an inept instrument. For further points of general criticism cf. Posner (2007–2008), pp. 218ff.
430.
Taylor (2005), pp. 240f; Carleton (2007), pp. 23f.
431.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 64; Forrest (2010), p. 168; cf. also Meena (2009), p. 597.
432.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 64.
433.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 64f.
434.
von Schorlemer (1992), p. 427.
435.
See Boos (2006), p. 51 for examples of the external effect of the convention; cf. also Prott (1997), p. 15 and Roodt (2015), p. 160.
436.
Cf. Raschèr (2000), p. 65.
437.
Cf. Fincham (2013), pp. 214ff.
438.
In this context the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums adopted by the 15^th General Assembly of ICOM on 4 November 1986 has to be mentioned as one of the most important soft law instruments in this regard. It explicitly references, for example, in its Article 7.2 to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. For further details on the ICOM Code of Ethics cf. pp. 146ff.
439.
For the specific effects of the treaty in the USA see Kouroupas (2010), p. 158; cf. also Prott (2011b).
440.
Vigneron (2014), p. 127.
441.
Weidner (2001), pp. 244f; Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 63f; cf. also Nafziger and Paterson (2014), pp. 26f; cf. further Prott (1996), p. 63; Prott (2011c), p. 441.
442.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 166; Carleton (2007), p. 25.
443.
With the same view Raschèr (2000), p. 65.
444.
Cf. Gerstenblith (2013), p. 9.
445.
Palmer (2013), p. 109 points out that local, or at times even regional legal principles which are effective in the territory in which the disputed object is located can block international measures.
446.
Another deficiency in this context is the missing financial resource. There is, for instance, a great disparity between the resources allocated to the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Cf. Prott (2011c), p. 438.
447.
Dromgoole (2013), p. 336.
448.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 166.

References

Abramson RD, Huttler SB (1973) The legal response to the illicit movement of cultural property. Law Policy Int Bus 5:932–970
Google Scholar
Askerud P, Clément E (1997) Preventing the illicit traffic in cultural property: a resource handbook for the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
Google Scholar
Bator PM (1982) An essay on the international trade in art. Stanford Law Rev 34:275–384
Article Google Scholar
Baufeld S (2005) Kulturgutbeschlagnahmen in bewaffneten Konflikten, ihre Rückabwicklung und der deutsch-russische Streit um die so genannte Beutekunst. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Blake J (2015) International cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Boos S (2006) Kulturgut als Gegenstand des grenzüberschreitenden Leihverkehrs. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Brodie N (2015) Syria and its regional neighbors: a case of cultural property protection policy failure? Int J Cult Prop 22:317–335
Article Google Scholar
Brodie N, Doole J, Watson P (2000) Stealing history: the illicit trade in cultural material. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Carleton A (2007) Piracy in the modern age: reviewing the mechanisms which combat pillage. Macquarie J Int Comp Environ Law 4:21–42
Google Scholar
Chechi A (2013) Plurality and coordination of dispute settlement methods in the field of cultural heritage. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–205
Chapter Google Scholar
de Clippele MS, Lambrecht L (2015) Art law & balances: increased protection of cultural heritage law vs. private ownership: towards clash or balance? Int J Cult Prop 22:259–278
Article Google Scholar
Dicke DC (1984) The instruments and the agencies of the international protection of cultural property. In: Council of Europe (ed) International legal protection of cultural property – proceedings of the thirteenth colloquy on European Law – Delphi, 2-22 September. Council of Europe Publications Section, Strasbourg, pp 17-43
Google Scholar
Dromgoole S (2013) Underwater cultural heritage and international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
DuBoff LD et al (1976) Proceedings of the panel on the U.S. enabling legislation of import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Syracuse J Int Law Commerce 4:97–139
Google Scholar
Fincham D (2008-2009) How adopting the Lex Originis rule can impede the flow of illicit cultural property. Columbia J Law Arts 32:111-150
Google Scholar
Fincham D (2013) Social norms and illicit cultural heritage. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 206–227
Chapter Google Scholar
Fishman J (2010) Locating the international interest in international cultural property disputes. Yale J Int Law 35:347–404
Google Scholar
Forrest C (2010) International law and the protection of cultural heritage. Routledge, London
Google Scholar
Fraoua R (1986) Convention concernant les mesures à prendre pour interdire et empêcher l’importation, l’exportation et le transfert de propriété illicite des biens culturels (Paris, 1970): Commentaire et aperçu de quelques mesures nationales d’exécution. In: UNESCO Doc CC-86/WS/40, p 62
Google Scholar
Friehe M (2013) Völkerrechtliche Haftung im Kulturgüterschutzrecht: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Raub- und Beutekunstproblematik. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Book Google Scholar
Gerstenblith P (2011) International art and cultural heritage. Int Lawyer 45:395–408
Google Scholar
Gerstenblith P (2012) Art, cultural heritage, and the law: cases and materials, 3^rd edn. Carolina Academic Press, Durham
Google Scholar
Gerstenblith P (2013) Models of implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention: can their effectiveness be determined? In: Prott LV, Redmond-Cooper R, Urice S (eds) Realising cultural heritage law: Festschrift for Patrick Joseph O’Keefe. Institute of Art and Law, Builth Wells, pp 9–25
Google Scholar
Gordon JB (1971) The UNESCO Convention on the illicit movement of art treasures. Harv Int Law J 12:537–556
Google Scholar
Gornig GH (2007) Der internationale Kulturgüterschutz. In: Gornig GH, Horn H-D, Murswiek D (eds) Kulturgüterschutz: internationale und nationale Aspekte. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 17–63
Chapter Google Scholar
Gruber S (2013) The fight against the illicit trade in Asian cultural artefacts: connecting international agreements, regional co-operation, and domestic strategies. Asian J Int Law 3:341–363
Article Google Scholar
Herzog R (2001) Kulturgut unter Wasser: Schatzsucher, Das Seevölkerrecht und der Schutz des kulturellen Erbes. Shaker Verlag, Aachen
Google Scholar
Hönes E-R (2006) Die UNESCO-Konvention über Maßnahmen zum Verbot und zur Verhütung der rechtswidrigen Einfuhr, Ausfuhr und Übereignung von Kulturgut vom 14. November 1970. Bayrische Verwaltungsblätter 165–173
Google Scholar
Hönes E-R (2010) Internationaler Denkmal-, Kulturgüter- und Welterbeschutz. Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz, Bonn
Google Scholar
Hudson MO (1941) International legislation, vol VII (1935-1937) Numbers 402–505. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
Google Scholar
Hüfner K (2005) UNESCO im Überblick. In: Hüfner K, Reuther W (eds) UNESCO-Handbuch, 2^nd edn. UNO-Verlag, Bonn, pp 15–43
Google Scholar
International Law Association (2010) Draft report on national controls over the export of cultural material., http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/13. Accessed 25 April 2016
Google Scholar
Kaplan W (1986) Assistance under the 1970 UNESCO Cultural Property Convention: Canada’s request to the United States. Stanford J Int Law 22:123ff
Google Scholar
Kau M (2013) Der Staat und der Einzelne als Völkerrechtssubjekte. In: Graf Vitzthum W, Proelß A (eds) Völkerrecht, 6^th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 131–235
Google Scholar
Kouroupas MP (2010) Die UNESCO-Konvention von 1970: Die Erfahrungen der Vereinigten Staaten. Kunst und Recht 154–159
Google Scholar
Kurpiers OR (2005) Die Lex Originis-Regel im internationalen Sachenrecht: Grenzüberschreitende privatrechtliche Ansprüche auf Herausgabe von abhanden gekommenen und unrechtmäßig ausgeführten Kulturgütern. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Lanciotti A (2012) The dilemma of the right to ownership of underwater cultural heritage: the case of the “Getty Bronze”. In: Borelli S, Francioni F (eds) Cultural heritage, cultural rights, cultural diversity: New developments in international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 301–326
Chapter Google Scholar
Lyons CL (2014) Thinking about antiquities: museums and internationalism. Int J Cult Prop 21:251–265
Article Google Scholar
Manhart C (2016) The intentional destruction of heritage: Bamiyan and Timbuktu. In: Logan W, Craith MN, Kockel U (eds) A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 280–294
Google Scholar
Meena T (2009) Nights at the museum: the value of cultural property and resolving the moral and legal problems of the illicit international art trade. Loyola Los Angel Int Comp Law Rev 31:581–614
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR (1975) Article 7(a) of the UNESCO Convention. In: DuBoff LD (ed) Art law: domestic and international. Fred B. Rothman & Co, South Hackensack, p 387ff
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR, Paterson RK (2014) International trade in cultural material. In: Nafziger JAR, Paterson RK (eds) Handbook on the law of cultural heritage and international trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–43
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR, Paterson RK, Renteln AD (2014) Cultural law: international, comparative, and indigenous. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
O’Keefe PJ (1997) Trade in antiquities: reducing destruction and theft. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
Google Scholar
O’Keefe PJ (2007) Commentary on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, 2^nd edn. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester
Google Scholar
O’Keefe R (2013) Protection of cultural property. In: Fleck D (ed) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 3^rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 420–462
Google Scholar
Ochoa Jiménez MJ (2011) Der Schutz materieller Kulturgüter in Lateinamerika: Universelles, regionales und nationales Recht. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen
Google Scholar
Odendahl K (2005) Kulturgüterschutz: Entwicklung, Struktur und Dogmatik eines ebenenübergreifenden Normensystems. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Office International des Musées (1939a) Projet de convention internationale sur le repatriement des objets d’intérêt artistique, historique ou scientifique, perdus, volés ou ayant donné lieu à une aliénation ou exportation illicite. Art et Archéologie 1:51-52
Google Scholar
Office International des Musées (1939b) Projet de convention internationale pour la protection des patrimoines historiques et artistiques nationaux. Art et Archéologie 1:69ff
Google Scholar
Office International des Musées (1939c) Projet de convention internationale pour la protection des collections nationales d’art et d’histoire. Art et Archéologie 1:78ff
Google Scholar
Pabst F (2008) Kulturgüterschutz in nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Pallas NC (2004) Maritimer Kulturgüterschutz. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Palmer N (2013) Fetters and stumbling blocks: impediments to the recovery and return of unlawfully removed cultural objects: a common law perspective. In: Prott LV, Redmond-Cooper R, Urice S (eds) Realising cultural heritage Law: Festschrift for Patrick Joseph O’Keefe. Institute of Art and Law, Builth Wells, pp 97–110
Google Scholar
Paterson RK (2011) Moving culture: the future of national cultural property export controls. Southwest J Int Law 18:287–294
Google Scholar
Planche E (2010) Die UNESCO-Konvention von 1970: Anwendung auf internationaler Ebene. Kunst und Recht 143–147
Google Scholar
Posner EA (2007-2008) The international protection of cultural property: some skeptical observations. Chicago J Int Law 8:213-231
Google Scholar
Prott LV (1996) UNESCO and UNIDROIT: a partnership against trafficking in cultural objects. Uniform Law Rev 1:59–71
Article Google Scholar
Prott LV (1997) Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester
Google Scholar
Prott LV (2009) The history and development of processes for the recovery of cultural heritage. In: Prott LV (ed) Witness to history: a compendium of documents and writings on the return of cultural objects. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 2–18
Google Scholar
Prott LV (2011a) “Illicit traffic in cultural objects: law ethics and the realities”: workshop co-organized by the Institute of Advanced Studies and the Law School of the University of Western Australia, Perth, 4–5 August 2011. Int J Cult Prop 18:453–457
Google Scholar
Prott LV (2011b) Strengths and weaknesses of the 1970 Convention: an evaluation 40 years after its adoption. In: UNESCO Doc CLT/2011/CONF.207/7, p 3
Google Scholar
Prott LV (2011c) The fight against the illicit traffic of cultural property: the 1970 Convention: past and future, 15-16 March 2011. Int J Cult Prop 18:437-442
Google Scholar
Prott LV, O’Keefe PJ (1983) Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In: UNESCO Doc CLT-83/WS/16
Google Scholar
Prott LV, O’Keefe PJ (1988) Handbook of national regulations concerning the export of cultural property. In: UNESCO Doc CC.SS/WS/27
Google Scholar
Prowda JB (2014) The perils of buying and selling art at the fair: legal issues in title. In: Vadi V, Schneider HEGS (eds) Art, cultural heritage and the market: ethical and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 141–163
Chapter Google Scholar
Raschèr AFG (2000) Kulturgüterschutz und Globalisierung – UNESCO-Konvention 1970 – UNIDROIT-Konvention 1995 – EG-Verordnung 3911/92 – EG-Richtlinie 93/7 – Schweizerisches Recht. Schulthess, Zürich
Google Scholar
Renold M-A (2009) Stolen art: the ubiquitous question of good faith. In: Prott LV (ed) Witness to history: a compendium of documents and writings on the return of cultural objects. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 309–313
Google Scholar
Rietschel S (2009) Internationale Vorgaben zum Kulturgüterschutz und ihre Umsetzung in Deutschland: Das KGÜAG – Meilenstein oder fauler Kompromiss in der Geschichte des deutschen Kulturgüterschutzes? De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Roca-Hachem R (2005) UNESCO and UNIDROIT cooperation in the fight against illicit traffic in cultural property – conference celebrating the 10^th anniversary of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects – UNESCO, Paris (France) – 24 June 2005 – summary report. Uniform Law Rev 10:536–542
Article Google Scholar
Roodt C (2015) Private international law, art and cultural heritage. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Book Google Scholar
Schaffrath C (2007) Die Rückführung unrechtmäßig nach Deutschland verbrachten Kulturguts an den Ursprungsstaat. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Schmeinck S (1994) Internationalprivatrechtliche Aspekte des Kulturgüterschutzes. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Schnabel G, Tatzkow M (2007) Nazi-looted art: Handbuch Kunstrestitution weltweit. Proprietas Verlag, Berlin
Google Scholar
Schnelle MA (2016) Der Abwanderungsschutz von Kulturgütern im Lichte der Freihandelsordnungen von AEUV und GATT. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Book Google Scholar
Schönenberger B (2009) Restitution von Kulturgut: Anspruchsgrundlagen – Restiutionshindernisse – Entwicklung. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern
Google Scholar
Schuschke-Nehen L (2008) Kulturgüterschutz in Deutschland und der Europäischen Union. University of Köln, Dissertation
Google Scholar
UNIDROIT Secretariat (2001) UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects: explanatory report. Uniform Law Rev 6:476–564
Article Google Scholar
Shyllon F (2012) Second meeting of the states parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Int J Cult Prop 19:585–587
Article Google Scholar
Shyllon F (2014) Legislative and administrative implementation of 1970 UNESCO Convention by African states: the failure to grasp the nettle. Int J Cult Prop 21:23–53
Article Google Scholar
Siehr K (2005) Das UNESCO Übereinkommen vom 14.11.1970 über Maßnahmen zum Verbot und zur Verhütung der unzulässigen Einfuhr, Ausfuhr und Übereignung von Kulturgut – Inhalt des Übereinkommens und dessen geplante Umsetzung in Deutschland. Kunst und Recht 33–46
Google Scholar
Siehr K (2011) Mystifizierung und Entmystifizierung von Kulturgütern und das Recht. Kunst und Recht 87–108
Google Scholar
Slattery AJ (2012) To catch an art thief: using international and domestic laws to paint fraudulent art dealers into a corner. Villanova Sports Entertain Law J 19:827–871
Google Scholar
Stamatoudi IA (2011) Cultural property law and restitution: a commentary to international conventions and European Union law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Book Google Scholar
Standrock O (1985) Foreign laws regulating the export of cultural property: the respect due to them by judge of the Lex Fori. In: Lalive P (ed) International sales of works of art. Institute of International Business Law & Practice, Paris, pp 457–478
Google Scholar
Steinbrück C (2012) Die Umsetzung des UNESCO-Kulturgutübereinkommens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Eine vergleichende Betrachtung mit der Umsetzung der Konvention in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und der Schweiz. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln
Google Scholar
Streinz R (1998) Internationaler Schutz von Museumsgut: Handbuch des Museumsrechts 4. Leske + Budrich, Opladen
Book Google Scholar
Stumpf E (2003) Kulturgüterschutz im internationalen Recht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutsch-russischen Beziehungen. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Taylor JM (2005) The rape and return of China’s cultural property: how can bilateral agreements stem the bleeding of China’s cultural heritage in a flawed system? Loyola Univ Chicago Int Law Rev 3:233–255
Google Scholar
Thorn B (2005) Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz nach der UNIDROIT Konvention. De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Tucker RL (2011) Stolen art, looted antiquities, and the insurable interest requirement. Quinnipiac Law Rev 29:611–663
Google Scholar
Vigneron S (2014) Protecting cultural objects: enforcing the illicit export of foreign cultural objects. In: Vadi V, Schneider HEGS (eds) Art, cultural heritage and the market: ethical and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 117–139
Chapter Google Scholar
Vogel J (2010) Kunstraub und Internationales Strafrecht. Juristenzeitung 1143–1150
Google Scholar
von Schorlemer S (1992) Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz: Ansätze zur Prävention im Frieden sowie in bewaffneten Konflikten. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Vrdoljak AF (2008) International law, museums and the return of cultural objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Walter B (1988) Rückführung von Kulturgut im internationalen Recht. Übersee-Museum Bremen, Bremen
Google Scholar
Weidner A (2001) Kulturgüterschutz als res extra commercium im internationalen Sachenrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Williams SA (1978) The international and national protection of movable cultural property: a comparative study. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry
Google Scholar
Xi L (2012) Contemporary observation on international protection of cultural property. Contemp Read Law Soc Justice 4:855–865
Google Scholar
Yusuf A (2007) Standard-setting in UNESCO: conventions, recommendations, declarations and charters adopted by UNESCO (1948 – 2006), vol 2, vol UNESCO Publishing. Paris / Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Hannover, Germany
Alper Taşdelen

Authors

Alper Taşdelen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taşdelen, A. (2016). The Classical Approach: International Treaties—Part I. In: The Return of Cultural Artefacts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_2
Published: 25 September 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44059-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44060-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics