The Two-Pronged Strategy: Transiting to a Cooperative and Procedural Solution

Taşdelen, Alper

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_4

The Two-Pronged Strategy: Transiting to a Cooperative and Procedural Solution

Alper Taşdelen²

Chapter
First Online: 25 September 2016

714 Accesses

Abstract

The international community realised as early as during the negotiations of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property that the establishment of an international treaty regime with binding obligations concerning the return of cultural objects transferred in times of peace appealing to both market and source states was difficult to achieve. Therefore, a search to complement the treaty approach began. At the same time private parties, frustrated by the uncertainty of how to face claims for the return of cultural objects created by the lack of sufficient legislation, became more proactive. These endeavours of the international community and private parties have brought to life a number of new instruments in the years following the adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. This chapter is devoted to an examination of these instruments, namely UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation, the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property and the Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material of the International Law Association. These instruments are classified and analysed in depth, in particular in the light of their respective genesis and the interests of the actors involved in their creation as well as in comparison to one another and both the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. At the same time, the general suitability of fora and soft law to contribute to the solution of controversies concerning claims for the return of cultural objects is likewise addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Prott (2011), p. 2.
2.
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35283&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
3.
Cf. Baufeld (2005), p. 294.
4.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 58; Campfens (2014), p. 81.
5.
von Schorlemer (2007), p. 101.
6.
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35283&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
7.
Cf. Shyllon (2013), p. 135; cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 58, n 82; cf. also Odendahl (2005), p. 182; cf. also van Beurden (2014), p. 177.
8.
For further details on the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation cf. pp. 181ff.
9.
UNGA Res 3187, 18.12.1973.
10.
UNGA Res 3187, 18.12.1973, Paragraph 8 of the Preamble: “Deploring the wholesale removal, virtually without payment, of objets d’art from one country to another, frequently as a result of colonial or foreign occupation”.
11.
UNGA Res 3187, 18.12.1973, Paragraph 2: “Recognizes the special obligation in this connexion of those countries which had access to such valuable objects as a result of colonial or foreign occupation;”.
12.
UNGA Res 3187, 18.12.1973, Paragraph 1: “Affirms that the prompt restitution to a country of its objets d’art, monuments, museum pieces, manuscripts and documents by another country, without charge, is calculated to strengthen international cooperation inasmuch as it constitutes just reparation for damage done;”.
13.
UNESCO GC 18 C/Resolution 3.428, 23.11.1974.
14.
UNESCO GC 18 C/Resolution 3.428, 23.11.1974, Paragraphs 2 and 9 of the Preamble.
15.
UNESCO GC 18 C/Resolution 3.428, 23.11.1974, Paragraph 3.
16.
UNESCO GC 18 C/Resolution 3.428, 23.11.1974, Paragraph 5.
17.
UNESCO Doc SHC-76/CONF.615/5, 21.04.1976.
18.
UNESCO Doc 19 C/109, 30.09.1976.
19.
UNESCO GC 19 C/Resolution 4.128, 30.11.1976.
20.
UNESCO GC 19 C/Resolution 4.128, 30.11.1976, Paragraph 6: “Invites the Director-General of UNESCO:
to take all necessary measures with a view to the establishment, by the General Conference at is twentieth session, of an intergovernmental committee entrusted with the task of seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to the countries having lost them as a result of colonial or foreign occupation, and to convene for this purpose a committee of experts responsible for defining the terms of reference, means of action and working methods of such a committee;”.
21.
UNESCO Doc CC-78/CONF.609/6, 23.03.1978.
22.
Specht (2009), p. 28.
23.
UNESCO GC 20 C/Resolution 4/7.6/5, 28.11.1978.
24.
Cf. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
25.
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=36205&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
26.
Cf., for example, UNESCO GC 19 C/Resolution 4.128, 30.11.1976, Paragraph 6.
27.
Article 4 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
28.
See Vrdoljak (2008), pp. 235f for the shift in the claims brought to the attention of the committee since its establishment.
29.
Article 4 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
30.
Article 4 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
31.
Article 4 (3) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
32.
Article 4 (4) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
33.
Article 4 (5) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
34.
Article 4 (6) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
35.
Cf. Preamble Paragraph 2 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention: “Considering that the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural and educational purposes increases the knowledge of the civilization of Man, enriches the cultural life of all peoples and inspires mutual respect and appreciation among nations,”
36.
Article 4 (7) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
37.
Article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘cultural property’ means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories:”.
38.
Article 2 of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention: “For the purposes of this Convention, cultural objects are those which, on religious or secular grounds, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belong to one of the categories listed in the Annex to this Convention.”.
39.
The categories used in the 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions are as follows:
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.”
40.
On the issue why such a double-requirement constricts the scope of a convention cf. pp. 16f.
41.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/member-states/countries/.
42.
This is also why the committee has to report on its activities to the General Conference of UNESCO at each of its ordinary sessions (Article 4 (8) ICPRCP Statutes).
43.
Cf. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/intergovernmental-committee/historical-background/; cf. also Francioni (2013), p. 17.
44.
Article 2 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
45.
This derives from Article 2 (2) in connection with Article 5 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes. Article 2 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes: “The term of office of members of the Committee shall extend from the end of the ordinary session of the General Conference during which they are elected until the end of its second subsequent ordinary session.”.
Article 5 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes: “The Committee shall meet in regular plenary session at least once and not more than twice every two years.”.
46.
This derives from Article 2 (3) of the ICPRCP Statutes: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, the term of office of half of the members designated at the time of the first election shall cease at the end of the first ordinary session of the General Conference following that at which they were elected. The names of these members shall be chosen by lot by the President of the General Conference after the first election.”.
47.
Article 5 (4) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
48.
Article 5 (5) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
49.
Rule 4.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
50.
Rule 1.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
51.
Article 7 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
52.
Article 7 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
53.
Rule 5.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
54.
Rule 5.7 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
55.
Article 7 (4) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
56.
Rule 5.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
57.
Article 7 (5) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
58.
Rule 5 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure contains additionally 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.
59.
Article 10 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes; Rule 11.1 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
60.
Article 10 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes; Rule 11.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
61.
Article 10 (3) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
62.
Article 6 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
63.
Rule 10.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
64.
Article 6 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes; Rule 10.4 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
65.
Rule 10.5 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
66.
Rule 10.6 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
67.
Article 6 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
68.
The ICPRCP Rules of Procedure were adopted as UNESCO Doc CC-89/CONF-213/COL-3. Amendments to the rules of procedure or the suspension of any provision, except those reproducing provisions of the ICPRCP Statutes, may be done by a two-thirds majority of the members of the committee present and voting (Rule 12 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure).
69.
Article 5 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes. However, there have been exceptions to this pattern. Between the 7^th and 8^th as well as between the 9^th and 10^th sessions a period exceeding 2 years had elapsed. For a list containing all session dates see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/sessions/previous-sessions/.
70.
Rule 2.8 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure reads on this issue: “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 modified, if necessary, by the Bureau, in consultation with the Director-General.”.
71.
Rule 2.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
72.
Rule 2.5 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
73.
Article 5 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
74.
Rule 2.4 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
75.
Rule 3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure deals with the agenda. It contains a quite detailed list of topics which have to be included in the provisional agenda of an ordinary session. In addition, it exercises restraint in 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 to its agenda. Nevertheless, in both cases, the agenda has to be adopted at the beginning of the session.
76.
Cf. Rules 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
77.
Article 7 (3) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
78.
Article 5 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
79.
Rule 8.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
80.
Rule 8.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
81.
Rule 8.4 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
82.
Voting is normally by show of hands. When the result of a vote by show of hands is in doubt, the Chairman of the meeting may take a second vote by roll-call. A vote by roll-call is also taken if it is requested by not less than two States members of the Committee before voting starts. The vote or abstention of each member participation in a roll-call vote shall be inserted in the report (Rule 8.5 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure).
Rule 8 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure contains further detailed regulations on voting, such as the order in which proposals have to be voted upon.
83.
Rule 6.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
84.
Article 8 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
85.
Article 8 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
86.
Article 8 (3) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
87.
ICOM and the Organization for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa are such international organisations explicitly enlisted in Rule 4.5 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
88.
Article 8 (4) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
89.
Rule 6.1 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
90.
Rule 6.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
91.
Rule 5.7 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
92.
Rule 7.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
93.
Rule 7.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
94.
Rule 7.4 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
95.
Article 9 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
96.
Article 9 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
97.
In 1981, the ICPRCP has adopted a Standard Form Concerning Requests for Return or Restitution.
98.
Rule 9.1 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
99.
Rule 9.2 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure regulates the specification of this requirement: “Following the closure of each session, a summary of the Committee’s proceedings, prepared by the Rapporteur with the assistance of the Secretariat, shall be submitted for approval by the Chairman. The summary shall be transmitted to all the States members of the Committee, to the Member States and Associate Members of UNESCO which are not members of the Committee, and to the international organizations invited by the Committee to take part in the session.”.
100.
Rule 9.3 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
101.
Rules 11.3 and 11.4 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure.
102.
UNESCO Doc CLT-83/CONF.216/8, 10.11.1983, p. 4; http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/committes-successful-restitutions/.
103.
UNESCO Doc 24 C/94, 20.11.1987, p. 2.
104.
UNESCO Doc 24 C/94, 20.11.1987, pp. 4f; UNESCO Doc 25 C/91 Annex, 16.06.1989, p. 1.
105.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-heritage-page-8/the-hittite-cuneiform-tablets-from-bogazkoey/#c187076.
106.
UNESCO Doc 37 C/REP/14, 23.08.2013, p. 2.
107.
UNESCO Doc 25 C/91, 16.11.1989, p. 1.
108.
UNESCO Doc CLT-2010/CONF.203/COM.16/6REV, May 2012, p. 4.
109.
UNESCO Doc CLT-2011/CONF.208/COM.17/2REV, May 2012, p. 2.
110.
Gillman (2010), p. 24.
111.
For further details about the circumstances of their acquisition see Cuno (2008), p. ix.
112.
UNESCO Doc CLT-85/CONF.202/2, 15.02.1985, p. 2; UNESCO Doc 37 C/REP/14, 23.08.2013, pp. 1f.
113.
This case has recently seen an interesting twist; Greece has informed the United Kingdom that it will possibly resort to the mediation and conciliation procedure provided for by the ICPRCP. The United Kingdom is currently considering the Greek proposal. UNESCO Doc ICPRCP/14/19.COM/3, September 2014, p. 2. On the ICPRCP mediation and conciliation procedure cf. pp. 181ff.
114.
UNESCO Doc CLT-98/CONF.203/INF.7, December 1998, pp. 1f; UNESCO Doc CLT-2005/CONF.202/2, January 2005, pp. 6f.
115.
http://archives.icom.museum/object-id/about.html.
116.
For a more detailed list of partners see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/partnerships/ and respective links on the website.
117.
UNESCO Doc 24 C/94 Annex, 20.11.1987, p. 3.
118.
UNESCO Doc 30 C/REP.14, 28.09.1999, p. 6.
119.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/.
120.
For more details on the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property cf. pp. 159ff.
121.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/fund-of-the-committee/.
122.
Cf. Shyllon (2009), p. 372.
123.
UNESCO Doc 30 C/REP.14 Annex I, 28.09.1999, p. 4.
124.
UNESCO GC 30 C/Resolution 27, 17.11.1999.
125.
Rule V of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
126.
Rule II of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
127.
Rule IV a) of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
128.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/fund-of-the-committee/.
129.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/fund-of-the-committee/.
130.
Rule IV b) of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
131.
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/29261/11326563663assessmente.pdf/assessmente.pdf.
132.
Rule III a) of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund; however, even though Rule III b) of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund allows “Public bodies, international governmental organizations, international non-governmental organizations, similar foundations and institutions with which UNESCO has official relations” to submit projects, this is limited by the phrase “if endorsed by a Member State”.
133.
Rule III c) of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
134.
Rule I of the Operational Guidelines of the Fund.
135.
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/appealdg_march2001.pdf.
136.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 58.
137.
UNESCO Doc ICPRCP/14/19.COM/7, August 2014, p. 2.
138.
UNESCO Doc 37 C/REP/14, 23.08.2013, p. 3.
139.
UNESCO Doc ICPRCP/14/19.COM/8, p. 3.
140.
UNESCO Doc CLT-2011/CONF.208/COM.17/2REV, May 2012, p. 2.
141.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/standards-for-ownership/.
142.
Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects:
- Provision 1—General Duty: The State shall take all necessary and appropriate measures to protect undiscovered cultural objects and to preserve them for present and future generations.
- Provision 2—Definition: Undiscovered cultural objects include objects which, consistently with national law, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and are located in the soil or underwater.
- Provision 3—State Ownership: Undiscovered cultural objects are owned by the State, provided there is no prior existing ownership.
- Provision 4—Illicit excavation or retention: Cultural objects excavated contrary to the law or licitly excavated but illicitly retained are deemed to be stolen objects.
- Provision 5—Inalienability: The transfer of ownership of a cultural object deemed to be stolen under Provision 4 is null and void, unless it can be established that the transferor had a valid title to the object at the time of the transfer.
- Provision 6—International enforcement: For the purposes of ensuring the return or the restitution to the enacting State of cultural objects excavated contrary to the law or licitly excavated but illicitly retained, such objects shall be deemed stolen objects.
For the further information on the model rules, in particular the explanatory guidelines see: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/UNESCO-UNIDROIT_Model_Provisions_en.pdf.
143.
UNESCO Doc CLT-2011/CONF.208/COM.17/5, 01.07.2011, p. 3.
144.
UNESCO Doc ICPRCP/14/19.COM/3, September 2014, pp. 4f.
145.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/intergovernmental-committee/historical-background/.
146.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/; Stamatoudi (2011), p. 179 sees it as the institutionalisation of the diplomatic actions of UNESCO.
147.
Shyllon (2011), p. 435.
148.
Even though the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums and the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property are the two most relevant ethics codes at the international level concerning cultural heritage in a peacetime context, there are many other codes of ethics, both at the international and national levels addressing the issue of handling and dealing with cultural material. At the international level, the Code of Ethics of the World Association of Antique Dealer Associations and the International Association of Dealers in Art Code of Ethics and Practice should be mentioned. For further information on these see Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 175ff and O’Keefe (2007), pp. 159ff.
At the national level, the Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for Good Practice of the Museums and Galleries Commission of the United Kingdom, the German Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Works of Art (Thorn (2005), pp. 283ff), the Code of Ethics of the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Weidner (2001), p. 283), and the Guidelines on Due Diligence by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the United Kingdom (O’Keefe (2007), p. 157) are noteworthy.
However, an area in which soft law has an enormous significance in the context of cultural heritage is in the case of cultural objects looted by the Nazis. The laws enacted by the Allied Forces as well as the ones adopted by the German Government subsequent to World War II are by now precluded due to temporal aspects. After German reunification, the subject of Nazi looted cultural material once again gained attention since in East Germany the victims of the looting had not been compensated. This led to the adoption of the Principles of the Washington Conference With Respect to Nazi-Confiscated Art in 1998. For further information on soft law and its achievements in the context of Nazi confiscated art see Martinek (2011), pp. 415ff.
149.
Graf Vitzthum (2013), p. 58.
150.
Martinek (2011), pp. 417f.
151.
Müller-Karpe (2010), p. 93.
152.
Boos (2006), p. 120; Schönenberger (2009), p. 255.
153.
Martinek (2011), pp. 422f; cf. also Frigo (2009), p. 57.
154.
Graf Vitzthum (2013), p. 58.
155.
Weidner (2001), p. 284.
156.
Martinek (2011), p. 418.
157.
Martinek (2011), pp. 424f.
158.
For the general role private actors play in international cultural heritage law see Vrdoljak (2016), pp. 546ff.
159.
On the addressees of ICOM Code of Ethics cf. p. 191, on those of the UNESCO Code of Ethics cf. p. 206 and for the addressees of the ILA Principles cf. p. 216; cf. also Frigo (2009), p. 50.
160.
For further information on ICOM cf. p. 188; for further information on the ILA cf. p. 214.
161.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 156; for further information on the earlier involvement of the international museums community also cf. pp. 5ff.
162.
http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/buenos-aires-1986/.
163.
http://icom.museum/icom-network/.
164.
In the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural material ICOM has and still does undertake a number of measures. As a preventive measure, its International Committee for Museum Security is, for instance, concerned with the security of collections. The work is supported by the International Documentation Committee, which helps museums to inventory their collections, and the International Committee for the Training of Personnel. Furthermore, it maintains the so-called Red Lists which contain lists of objects subject to export restrictions. Additionally, it promotes Object ID. See also Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 180ff.
165.
Rush (2013), p. 66; cf. also Mugabowagahunde (2016), p. 146.
166.
Prott (1992), p. 160; Thorn (2005), pp. 275f; cf. also Koppar (2014), pp. 42f; see also Frigo (2009), p. 52; The idea of museums as safeguards, trustees, and stewards of cultural property is also inherent to the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. See Principle 2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums: “Museums that maintain collections hold them in trust for the benefit of society and its development – Principle: museums have the duty to acquire, preserve and promote their collections as a contribution to safeguarding the natural, cultural and scientific heritage. Their collections are a significant public inheritance, have a special position in law and are protected by international legislation. Inherent in this public trust is the notion of stewardship that includes rightful ownership, permanence, documentation, accessibility and responsible disposal.”
167.
For the highly questionable role (certain) museums used to and occasionally still do play concerning the illicit trafficking of cultural property see Wessel (2015), pp. 92ff; on the developments in this field and the increasing willingness of museums to cooperate see however Lyons (2014), pp. 251–265.
168.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Preamble and Paragraph 3 of the Introduction of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
169.
http://www.unidroit.org/status-cp.
170.
Weidner (2001), p. 284; O’Keefe (2007), p. 156 states that certain museums have declared that they would comply with the principles set forth in the 1970 UNESCO Convention, even though the countries in which they are situated are not state parties to the agreement.
171.
Campfens (2014), p. 71.
172.
Cf., for example, Principle 8.13 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Outside Employment or Business Interests): “Members of the museum profession, although entitled to a measure of personal independence, must realise that no private business or professional interest can be wholly separated from their employing institution. They should not undertake other paid employment or accept outside commissions that are in conflict with, or may be viewed as being in conflict with the interests of the museum.”.
173.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 156; for further information on the earlier involvement of the international museums community also cf. pp. 5ff.
174.
Printed in Yusuf (2007), pp. 377ff.
175.
Thorn (2005), p. 277; http://archives.icom.museum/acquisition.html#2.
176.
Cf. http://archives.icom.museum/acquisition.html#2.
177.
http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/copenhagen-1974/.
178.
http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/buenos-aires-1986/.
179.
http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf.
180.
Paragraph 1 of the Preamble and Paragraphs 1–3 of the Introduction of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
181.
Paragraph 3 of the Introduction of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
182.
Cf., for example, Principle 8.7 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Museum and Collection Security): “Information about the security of the museum or of private collections and locations visited during official duties must be held in strict confidence by museum personnel.”.
183.
Cf. Principles 6.2 (Return of Cultural Property) and 6.3 (Restitution of Cultural Property) of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
184.
Cf., for instance, Principle 8.14 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Dealing in Natural or Cultural Heritage).
185.
The best example of which is the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention).
186.
Principle 8.5 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (The Illicit Market): “Members of the museum profession should not support the illicit traffic or market in natural and cultural property, directly or indirectly.”.
187.
Definition of “Cultural Heritage” in the Glossary of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums: “Any thing or concept considered of aesthetic, historical, scientific or spiritual significance.”.
188.
Cf. Principle 6.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Restitution of Cultural Property).
189.
In the case of return, the ICOM Ethics Code only requires museums to initiate dialogues (Principle 6.2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums); in the case of restitution, museums should take prompt and responsible steps to cooperate in its return (Principle 6.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums).
190.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 31.
191.
Principle 6.2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Return of Cultural Property).
192.
Principle 6.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Restitution of Cultural Property).
193.
Cf. in this context also Frigo (2009), p. 53.
194.
Cf. Principle 6 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
195.
Principle 6.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Restitution of Cultural Property): “When a country or people of origin seeks the restitution of an object or specimen that can be demonstrated to have been exported or otherwise transferred in violation of the principles of international and national conventions, and shown to be part of that country’s or people’s cultural or natural heritage, the museum concerned should, if legally free to do so, take prompt and responsible steps to co-operate in its return.”.
196.
Principle 6.2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Return of Cultural Property): “Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.”.
197.
Principle 4.4 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Removal from Public Display).
198.
Cf., for example, Article 7 (b) (ii) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention: “States Parties to this Convention undertake: […] at the request of the State Party of origin, to take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention in both States concerned, provided, however, that the requesting State shall pay just compensation to an innocent purchaser or to a person who has valid title to that property.”.
Cf. also Article 4 (1) of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention: “The possessor of a stolen cultural object required to return it shall be entitled, at the time of its restitution, to payment of fair and reasonable compensation provided that the possessor neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known that the object was stolen and can prove that it exercised due diligence when acquiring the object.”.
199.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 173; see in this context also O’Keefe (2007), pp. 157f for examples of uncooperative museums.
200.
The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums defines provenance in its glossary as the full history and ownership of an item from the time of its discovery or creation to the present day, from which authenticity and ownership is determined.
201.
Glossary of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
202.
Glossary of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
203.
Principle 2.2 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Valid Title).
204.
Principle 2.3 (Provenance and Due Diligence); Glossary of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
205.
Among others, the provenance of a cultural object being part of a museum collection is also one of the points which have to be included in the documentation of the collection in accordance with Principle 2.20 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Documentation of Collections).
206.
Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 169f; DeAngelis (2009), p. 405.
207.
Principle 2.4 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Objects and Specimens from Unauthorised or Unscientific Fieldwork).
208.
Additionally, Principles 2.5 (Culturally Sensitive Material), 2.6 (Protected Biological or Geological Specimens), 2.7 (Living Collections), and 2.8 (Working Collections) of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums contain special rules for the acquisition of specimens of a particular highly sensitive character.
Another important aspect is to be found in Principle 2.10 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Acquisition by Members of the Governing Body and Museum Personnel). According to the principle “(s)pecial care is required in considering any item, either for sale, as a donation or as a tax-benefit gift, from members of governing bodies, museum personnel, or the families and close associates of these persons.”.
209.
Similar Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 170f.
210.
Cf. Flora (2013), p. 233 argues that American museums seem to include the idea of bringing an object into the public domain to their ethical considerations.
211.
Principle 2.9 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Acquisition Outside Collections Policy).
212.
Principle 3.4 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Exceptional Collecting of Primary Evidence).
213.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 171f.
214.
Principle 4.5 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Display of Unprovenanced Material).
215.
The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums also contains a special provision concerning the removal of human remains and material of sacred significance from public display. According to Principle 4.4 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Removal from Public Display), requests for removal from public display of human remains or material of sacred significance from the originating communities must be addressed expeditiously with respect and sensitivity.
216.
Principle 2.11 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Repositories of Last Resort).
217.
Principle 5.1 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Identification of Illegally or Illicitly Acquired Objects).
218.
Principle 2.15 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Disposal of Objects Removed from the Collections): “Each museum should have a policy defining authorised methods for permanently removing an object from the collections through donation, transfer, exchange, sale, repatriation, or destruction, and that allows the transfer of unrestricted title to the receiving agency. Complete records must be kept of all deaccessioning decisions, the objects involved, and the disposition of the object. There will be a strong presumption that a deaccessioned item should first be offered to another museum.”.
219.
Principle 2.12 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Legal or Other Powers of Disposal).
220.
Principle 2.13 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Deaccessioning from Museum Collections).
221.
Again, the ICOM Code of Ethics establishes a restriction concerning museum personnel, the governing body, and their families or close associates. According to Principle 2.17 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Purchase of Deaccessioned Collections), they should not be permitted to purchase objects that have been deaccessioned from a collection for which they are responsible.
Furthermore, Principle 2.16 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Income from Disposal of Collections) dictates that museum collections are held in public trust and may not be treated as a realisable asset. Money or compensation received from the deaccessioning and disposal of objects and specimens from a museum collection should be used solely for the benefit of the collection and usually for acquisitions to that same collection.
222.
“Dealing” is defined in the Glossary of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums as “buying and selling items for personal or institutional gain”.
223.
Principle 8.14 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Dealing in Natural or Cultural Heritage).
224.
Principle 8.15 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Interaction with Dealers).
225.
Principle 8.5 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (The Illicit Market).
226.
Principle 8.1 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Familiarity with Relevant Legislation).
227.
Principle 8.8 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Exception to the Obligation for Confidentiality).
228.
Principle 7.1 of ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (National and Local Legislation).
229.
Principle 7.2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (International Legislation):
“Museum policy should acknowledge the following international legislation which is taken as a standard in interpreting the ICOM Code of Ethics:
- UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention, First Protocol, 1954 and Second Protocol, 1999);
- UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970);
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973);
- UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992);
- UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995);
- UNESCO Convention on the protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001);
- UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003).”.
230.
Cf. Grant (2014).
231.
Cf. Blake (2015), p. 34.
232.
Cf. O’Keefe (2007), p. 157; cf. also Polk (2013), p. 120.
233.
Thorn (2005), p. 277.
234.
Brodie (2009), p. 54; cf. also O’Keefe (2007), p. 158 who reports for example of Dr. Dietrich von Bothmer whose nomination as an Honorary Fellow of the prestigious Society of Antiquaries of London had been withdrawn following concerns expressed about his acquisition policies while at the Metropolitan Museum of Article; cf. also Campfens (2014), pp. 73f.
235.
For further information on soft law and its achievements in the context of Nazi confiscated art see Martinek (2011), pp. 415ff.
236.
Weidner (2001), p. 284.
237.
Cf. Weidner (2001), pp. 282f; cf. also Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 735.
238.
Cf. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/; cf. also Zimmerman (2015), p. 15; cf. further Brodie (2015), p. 328.
239.
Another good example of this realisation is UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. In contrast to the 1972 World Heritage Convention, it adds in its Article 15 the requirement for states to ensure, within the framework of their safeguarding activities of the intangible cultural heritage, the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appropriate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve them actively in its management. See further on this issue Cameron (2016), pp. 327f.
240.
For a general overview on the role and viewpoint of private actors concerning cultural heritage see Nafziger et al. (2014), pp. 208ff.
241.
UNESCO Doc CLT/CH/INS-06/25 rev, 1999, p. 3.
242.
UNESCO Doc CLT/CH/INS-06/25 rev, 1999, p. 3.
243.
For the highly questionable role of (certain) dealers in the illicit trafficking of cultural property see Wessel (2015), pp. 107ff.
244.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/.
245.
UNESCO Doc CLT-98/CONF.203/1, December 1998, p. 1.
246.
Article 5 (e) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention actually speaks of “those concerned” and lists curators, collectors, and antique dealers as examples.
247.
UNESCO Doc CLT-98/CONF.203/1, December 1998, p. 1.
248.
O’Keefe (1994).
249.
UNESCO Doc 30 C/REP.14, 28.09.1999, p. 5.
250.
UNESCO Doc 28 C/101 Annex I, 16.11.1995, p. 4.
251.
UNESCO Doc 29 C/REP.12, 12.11.1997, p. 8.
252.
UNESCO Doc 29 C/REP.12 Annex I, 12.11.1997, p. 4.
253.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 168.
254.
UNESCO Doc 30 C/REP.14 Annex I, 28.09.1999, p. 2.
255.
UNESCO Doc CLT/CH/INS-06/25 rev, 1999, p. 3.
256.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/.
257.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/.
258.
UNESCO Doc CLT-98/CONF.203/1, December 1998, p. 1.
259.
Cf., for example, Article 1 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property: “Professional traders in cultural property will not import, export or transfer the ownership of this property when they have reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported.”.
260.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 165.
261.
UNESCO Doc CLT-98/CONF.203/1, December 1998, p. 1.
262.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 161.
263.
Article 3 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
264.
Cf. Article 3 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
265.
Cf. Article 4 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
266.
Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 31.
267.
Cf., for instance, Articles 7 (b) (ii) and 13 (b) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention as well as Article 2 (1) of the ICPRCP Statutes.
268.
Cf. Article 3 and 4 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
269.
Particularly since the UNESCO Code of Ethics itself lists all alternatives in the very same provision without distinguishing like in Article 3 and 4 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property. Article 1 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property reads: “Professional traders in cultural property will not import, export or transfer the ownership of this property when they have reasonable cause to believe it has been stolen, illegally alienated, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported.”.
270.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 165.
271.
O’Keefe (2007), p. 162.
272.
Cf. Principle 6.2 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (Return of Cultural Property): “Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.”.
273.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 168.
274.
Cf. Principles 6.2 and 6.3 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.
275.
Odendahl (2005), p. 180.
276.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/.
277.
Article 1 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
278.
See, for example, O’Keefe (2007), p. 161.
279.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 166.
280.
Article 5 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
281.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 167.
282.
Article 6 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
283.
Article 7 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
284.
Article 8 of the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property.
285.
The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums provides for these cases with Principle 6.2 (Return of Cultural Property), a regulation which reads “Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.”.
286.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 168.
287.
Stamatoudi (2011), p. 168 with the same view.
288.
Weidner (2001), p. 284.
289.
Cf. Weidner (2001), pp. 282f.
290.
http://www.ila-hq.org/en/about_us/index.cfm.
291.
Article 3.1 of the ILA Constitution.
292.
Cf. Nafziger (2006), p. 320.
293.
Cf. Paterson (2006), pp. 327f.
294.
Cf. Paterson (2006), p. 328.
295.
Cf. Nafziger (2007–2008), p. 147.
296.
See ILA (2004), pp. 2ff.
297.
A list of major modifications can be found in Nafziger (2007–2008), p. 157.
298.
ILA (2006), p. 1.
299.
Cf. Paterson (2006), p. 327.
300.
Cf. Paterson (2006), p. 328.
301.
Cf. ILA (2006), p. 6.
302.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 10 of the Preamble of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
303.
Paragraphs 5, 6, and 8 of the Preamble of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
304.
Cf. ILA (2006), p. 6.
305.
Principle 10 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
306.
Principle 1.1 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
307.
Principle 1.2 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
308.
On the problems arising due to the missing definition of cultural property in the context of the UNESCO Code of Ethics cf. p. 206.
309.
Principle 2.1 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
310.
Principle 2.2 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
311.
Cf. Notes on Principle 2 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
312.
Principle 2.3 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
313.
Cf. Notes on Principle 8 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
314.
Principle 8 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
315.
Cf. Nafziger (2007–2008), p. 148.
316.
Principle 3.1 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material and Notes on Principle 3 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material; see further for the possibilities offered by the concept of co-ownership to solve claims concerning cultural property Renold (2015), pp. 163–176; on how to use MOUs for the purpose of implementing these solutions see Lyons (2014), pp. 251–265.
317.
Principle 3.3 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
318.
Principle 5 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material and the relevant notes.
319.
Cf. Notes on Principle 6 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
320.
Cf. also Notes on Principle 6 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
321.
Principle 6.2 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
322.
Principle 6.3 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
323.
Cf. also Notes on Principle 6 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
324.
Principle 9 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
325.
Paterson (2006), p. 329.
326.
Cf. Notes on Principle 9 of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
327.
http://www.ila-hq.org/en/about_us/index.cfm.
328.
Cf. Paragraph 9 of the Preamble of the ILA Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.
329.
Cf. ILA (2006), p. 6.

References

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 (2009) An archaeologist’s view of the trade in unprovenanced antiquities. In: Hoffman BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–63
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
Cameron C (2016) UNESCO and cultural heritage: unexpected consequences. In: Logan W, Craith MN, Kockel U (eds) A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 322–336
Google Scholar
Campfens E (2014) Alternative dispute resolution in restitution claims and the binding expert opinion procedure of the Dutch Restitutions Committee. In: Vadi V, Schneider HEGS (eds) Art, cultural heritage and the market: ethical and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–91
Chapter Google Scholar
Cuno J (2008) Who owns antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar
DeAngelis IP (2009) How much provenance is enough? Guidelines for the acquisition of archaeological materials. In: Hoffman BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 398–408
Google Scholar
Flora H (2013) The quest for the masterpiece – traditional practices of collecting in American museums. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 228–239
Chapter Google Scholar
Francioni F (2013) Plurality and interaction of legal orders in the enforcement of cultural heritage law. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–21
Chapter Google Scholar
Frigo M (2009) Ethical rules and codes of honour related to museum activities: a complementary support to the private international law approach concerning the circulation of cultural property. Int J Cult Prop 16:49–66
Article Google Scholar
Gillman D (2010) The idea of cultural heritage, revth edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Graf Vitzthum W (2013) Begriff, Geschichte und Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts. In: Graf Vitzthum W, Proelß A (eds) Völkerrecht, 6^th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1–59
Chapter Google Scholar
Grant D (2014) What happens when museums return antiquities? In: Hyperallergic – sensitive to art & its discontents. http://hyperallergic.com/115015/what-happens-when-museums-return-antiquities/. Accessed 25 April 2016
International Law Association (2004) Cultural Heritage Law Committee Berlin conference report., http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/13. Accessed 25 April 2016
Google Scholar
International Law Association (2006) Cultural Heritage Law Committee Toronto conference report., http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/13. Accessed 25 April 2016
Google Scholar
Koppar DH (2014) Role of museums in preservation and propagation of tribal culture. In: Vyas NN (ed) Tribal heritage and museum development. Himanshu Publications, Udaipur, pp 40–48
Google Scholar
Lyons CL (2014) Thinking about antiquities: museums and internationalism. Int J Cult Prop 21:251–265
Article Google Scholar
Martinek M (2011) Die Wiedergutmachung NS-bedingter Kulturgutverluste als Soft Law-Problem. In: Wittinger M, Wendt R, Ress G (eds) Verfassung – Völkerrecht – Kulturgüterschutz: Festschrift für Wilfried Fiedler zum 70. Geburtstag. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 415–446
Google Scholar
Mugabowagahunde M (2016) African indigenous heritage in colonial and postcolonial museums: the case of the Batwa of Africa’s Great Lakes Region. In: Logan W, Craith MN, Kockel U (eds) A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 146–159
Google Scholar
Müller-Karpe M (2010) Antikenhandel ./. Kulturgüterschutz. Zur Missachtung des bestehenden Handelsverbots für archäologisches Kulturgut ungeklärter Provenienz an einem Beispiel. Kunst und Recht 91–94
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR (2006) The development of international cultural law. Am Soc Int Law Proc 100:317–322
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR (2007–2008) The principles for cooperation in the mutual protection and transfer of cultural material. Chicago J Int Law 8:147–167
Google Scholar
Nafziger JAR, Paterson RK, Renteln AD (2014) Cultural law: international, comparative, and indigenous. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
O’Keefe PJ (1994) Feasibility of an international code of ethics for dealers in cultural property for the purpose of more effective control of illicit traffic in cultural property. In: UNESCO Doc CLT-94/WS/11
Google Scholar
O’Keefe PJ (2007) Commentary on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, 2^nd edn. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester
Google Scholar
Odendahl K (2005) Kulturgüterschutz: Entwicklung, Struktur und Dogmatik eines ebenenübergreifenden Normensystems. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Paterson RK (2006) New Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material. Am Soc Int Law Proc 100:327–329
Google Scholar
Polk K (2013) The trade in antiquities: is it time for additional approaches to reducing destruction and theft? 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 111–120
Google Scholar
Prott LV (1992) Restitutionspolitik der UNESCO in Zusammenarbeit mit Museen. In: Reichelt G (ed) Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz: Wiener Symposium 18./19 Oktober 1990. Manz, Wien, pp 157–162
Google Scholar
Prott LV (2011) 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
Renold MA (2015) Cultural co-ownership: preventing and solving cultural property claims. Int J Cult Prop 22:163–176
Article Google Scholar
Rush LW (2013) Illicit trade in antiquities – a view ‘From the Ground’. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–76
Chapter Google Scholar
Schönenberger B (2009) Restitution von Kulturgut: Anspruchsgrundlagen – Restiutionshindernisse – Entwicklung. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern
Google Scholar
Shyllon F (2009) The recovery of cultural objects by African states through the UNESCO and UNIDROIT conventions and the role of arbitration. In: Prott LV (ed) Witness to history: a compendium of documents and writings on the return of cultural objects. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 369–382
Google Scholar
Shyllon F (2011) The 16^th 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. Int J Cult Prop 18:429–435
Article Google Scholar
Shyllon F (2013) Museums and universal heritage: right of return and right of access for Africans. 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 133–144
Google Scholar
Specht J (2009) Comments on the establishment of the committee. In: Prott LV (ed) Witness to history: a compendium of documents and writings on the return of cultural objects. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 28–29
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
Thorn B (2005) Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz nach der UNIDROIT Konvention. De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
van Beurden J (2014) How to break the deadlock in the debate about colonial acquisitions? In: Vadi V, Schneider HEGS (eds) Art, cultural heritage and the market: ethical and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 165–181
Chapter Google Scholar
von Schorlemer S (2007) UNESCO dispute settlement. In: Yusuf AA (ed) Standard-setting in UNESCO: normative action in education, science and culture, vol 1. UNESCO Publishing, Paris/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 73–103
Google Scholar
Vrdoljak AF (2008) International law, museums and the return of cultural objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Vrdoljak AF (2016) Challenges for international cultural heritage law. In: Logan W, Craith MN, Kockel U (eds) A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 541–556
Google Scholar
Weidner A (2001) Kulturgüterschutz als res extra commercium im internationalen Sachenrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Wessel G (2015) Das schmutzige Geschäft mit der Antike: Der globale Handel mit illegalen Kulturgütern. Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin
Google Scholar
Yusuf A (2007) Standard-setting in UNESCO: conventions, recommendations, declarations and charters adopted by UNESCO (1948 – 2006), vol 2. UNESCO Publishing, Paris/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Google Scholar
Zimmerman O (2015) Die Zerstörung, der Raub und der illegal Handel mit Kulturgut: Besitz von Raubkunst muss gesellschaftlich und rechtlich geächtet werden. Politik und Kultur 15
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 Two-Pronged Strategy: Transiting to a Cooperative and Procedural Solution. In: The Return of Cultural Artefacts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_4
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