Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Approach: Formalisation and Juridification of the Dispute Resolution Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Return of Cultural Artefacts

  • 734 Accesses

Abstract

The seeds of the idea to employ alternative dispute resolution as a way to solve cultural object related disputes can be traced back to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. For example, Article 17 (5) of the 1970 UNESCO Convention provides the possibility for UNESCO to extend, upon request, its good offices to reach a settlement between two state parties which are engaged in a dispute over the implementation of the convention. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention even contains an arbitration clause. However, it has only been in recent years, when the treaty approach had been complemented by a more cooperative and procedural approach, that alternative dispute resolution entered the limelight and rules of procedure for alternative dispute resolution tailored specifically for cultural object related disputes came into being. Both UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation and ICOM in cooperation with WIPO have adopted rules of procedure for mediation (and conciliation). This chapter assesses the benefits and limitations of alternative dispute resolution as a means to solve cultural heritage related disputes in general before analysing both instruments, the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation and the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules, in detail and highlighting their linkages with the instruments covered in the previous chapters.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Francioni (2013), p. 17.

  2. 2.

    Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 189ff, 208.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 604; for the role of MOUs in this context see also Lyons (2014), pp. 251–265.

  4. 4.

    Many authors seem to favour alternative dispute resolution over litigation in cultural property related disputes. This appears however to be a general trend in the international law on culture. Cf., for instance, Campfens (2014), p. 79; cf. also von Schorlemer (2007), p. 84. Kuprecht and Siehr (2012), pp. 265ff all emphasise the benefits alternative dispute resolution may have for cultural material related disputes concerning indigenous groups. For the role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in this context see Daly (2009), pp. 465ff.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), p. 193.

  6. 6.

    Varner (2011–2012) p. 482.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Beckmann (2008), p. 118.

  8. 8.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 94; Theurich (2010), p. 575.

  9. 9.

    Stamatoudi (2009), p. 118; cf. also Palmer (2013), p. 100; cf. also Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 604.

  10. 10.

    Stamatoudi (2011), p. 191. Nevertheless, the legal rules generally shape the discourse of the dispute resolution; cf. Strother (2014), p. 375.

  11. 11.

    Bandle and Theurich (2011), p. 29; cf. also Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 190f.

  12. 12.

    Theurich (2010), p. 576.

  13. 13.

    Barker (2009), p. 485; Stamatoudi (2009), p. 118.

  14. 14.

    Wichard and Wendland (2009), p. 477.

  15. 15.

    Similar Varner (2011–2012), p. 483.

  16. 16.

    Chechi (2013), p. 190.

  17. 17.

    Similar Varner (2011–2012), p. 483.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Chechi (2013), p. 193.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Palmer (2009), p. 359.

  20. 20.

    Wichard and Wendland (2009), p. 479.

  21. 21.

    Stamatoudi (2009), p. 118.

  22. 22.

    Renold (2015), p. 163; Chechi (2013), p. 194.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Nafziger et al. (2014), p. 605.

  24. 24.

    See Cornu and Renold (2010), pp. 19ff.

  25. 25.

    Merrills (2011), p. 29; Palmer (2009), p. 358.

  26. 26.

    Shyllon (2009), pp. 375f; Merrills (2011), p. 111.

  27. 27.

    Beckmann (2008), p. 117.

  28. 28.

    Cf. also Varner (2011–2012), pp. 487, 488.

  29. 29.

    Campfens (2014), pp. 80f.

  30. 30.

    Beckmann (2008), p. 118.

  31. 31.

    Stamatoudi (2011), p. 190.

  32. 32.

    Stamatoudi (2011), p. 179 sees it as the institutionalisation of the diplomatic actions of UNESCO.

  33. 33.

    For an overview of cases in which the ICPRCP was involved cf. pp. 139f.

  34. 34.

    Shyllon (2009), pp. 374f.

  35. 35.

    UNESCO Doc CLT-83/CONF.216/8, 10.11.1983, p. 5.

  36. 36.

    Cf. UNESCO GC 32 C/Resolution 38, 16.10.2003, Paragraph 9 (a).

  37. 37.

    UNESCO GC 32 C/Resolution 38, 16.10.2003, Paragraph 9 (a).

  38. 38.

    UNESCO Doc 33 C/REP/15 Annex II, 21.10.2005, pp. 2f.

  39. 39.

    UNESCO GC 33 C/Resolution 44, 21.10.2005.

  40. 40.

    UNESCO Doc CLT-2007/CONF.211/COM.14/2, 31.05.2007, p. 2.

  41. 41.

    UNESCO Doc CLT-2010/CONF.203/COM.16/2 Rev, July 2010, p. 2; Urbinati (2014), p. 95, n 12.

  42. 42.

    UNESCO Doc CLT-2010/CONF.203/COM.16/5, September 2010, p. 4.

  43. 43.

    In the meanwhile, both the Athens International Conference on Return of Cultural Property to its Country of Origin in March 2008 and the extraordinary session in honour of the 30th Anniversary of the ICPRCP stressed the importance of mediation and conciliation.

    Conclusions of the Athens Conference Paragraph 6: “The role of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation must be strengthened through the necessary means, resources and infrastructure. Effort should be made to encourage mediation either through the Committee or by other means of alternative dispute resolution;”.

    Recommendations of the extraordinary session Paragraph 13: “Considers that adoption of rules of procedure on mediation and conciliation will be a significant step to strengthen the role of the Committee;”.

  44. 44.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 100.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Article 3 (2) of the ICPRCP Statutes: “A request for the restitution or return by a Member State or Associate Member of UNESCO may be made concerning any cultural property which has a fundamental significance from the point of view of the spiritual values and cultural heritage of the people of a Member State or Associate Member of UNESCO and which has been lost as a result of colonial or foreign occupation or as a result of illicit appropriation.”.

  46. 46.

    Article 4 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  47. 47.

    Article 4 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Vrdoljak (2008), p. 235; for further and more detailed information on the scope of the Intergovernmental Committee and thus the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation cf. also p. 132f.

  49. 49.

    Article 2 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  50. 50.

    Article 2 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 198, 201.

  52. 52.

    Merrills (2011), p. 58; in case of conciliation Paragraph 6 of the Annex to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly states: “The report of the Commission, including any conclusions stated therein regarding the facts or questions of law, shall not be binding upon the parties and it shall have no other character than that of recommendations submitted for the consideration of the parties in order to facilitate an amicable settlement of the dispute.”.

  53. 53.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 105.

  54. 54.

    Article 6 (4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  55. 55.

    This is also why the literature seems to use both terms interchangeably.

  56. 56.

    Article 3 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation nevertheless requires the parties, mediators, and conciliators to give due regard to international law and recognised principles.

  57. 57.

    Stamatoudi (2011), pp. 198, 201.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Article 8 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  59. 59.

    Merrills (2011), p. 58.

  60. 60.

    Stamatoudi (2011), p. 201; Article 3 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation also requires parties, mediators, and conciliators to give due regard to international law and recognised principles.

  61. 61.

    Article 7 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  62. 62.

    Article 7 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  63. 63.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 98.

  64. 64.

    Article 2 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation; Article 7 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation states further: “Mediator(s) […] shall be selected taking into consideration their expertise in the field of restitution and/or their knowledge with regard to the nature of the dispute or the specificity of the cultural property at stake.”.

  65. 65.

    Article 5 (b) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  66. 66.

    In particular, they ought to be experts in the field of return and restitution of cultural property and may not act as a representative or counsel of either party in any proceedings concerning the dispute at issue. Furthermore, they have to be appointed within 60 days of the written request to initiate the procedure. Otherwise, the Director-General has to appoint them after consultation with the parties as soon as possible.

  67. 67.

    Articles 2 (4), (5) and 5 (b) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  68. 68.

    Articles 2 (5) and 7 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  69. 69.

    Article 2 (6) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  70. 70.

    Article 7 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  71. 71.

    Article 7 (5) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  72. 72.

    Article 1 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  73. 73.

    Article 8 (8) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  74. 74.

    Article 3 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  75. 75.

    Article 3 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  76. 76.

    Same Urbinati (2014), p. 110.

  77. 77.

    Article 3 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  78. 78.

    Article 3 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  79. 79.

    Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  80. 80.

    Article 6 (1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  81. 81.

    Article 8 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  82. 82.

    Article 8 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  83. 83.

    Article 8 (5) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  84. 84.

    Article 8 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  85. 85.

    Article 8 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  86. 86.

    Article 8 (6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  87. 87.

    Article 8 (9) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  88. 88.

    Article 8 (10) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  89. 89.

    Article 10 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  90. 90.

    Article 10 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  91. 91.

    The parties also have the obligation to inform the committee jointly on the state of progress of the procedure at the sessions (Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation).

  92. 92.

    Article 10 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  93. 93.

    Article 10 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  94. 94.

    Interestingly, Article 4 (4) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation explicitly states that the representatives of the parties have the requisite authority to prepare the terms and conditions of a settlement.

  95. 95.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 106.

  96. 96.

    Article 11 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  97. 97.

    Article 11 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  98. 98.

    Cf. Article 1 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  99. 99.

    Article 2 (6) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  100. 100.

    Merrills (2011), p. 58.

  101. 101.

    Article 3 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  102. 102.

    Cf. Article 2 (2) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation; Article 7 (3) of the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  103. 103.

    ICOM Doc 2005/LEG.06, April 2005, p. 1; http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/shanghai-2010/.

  104. 104.

    http://icom.museum/programmes/art-and-cultural-heritage-mediation/icom-wipo-mediation-rules/.

  105. 105.

    http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/.

  106. 106.

    Article 3 WIPO Convention.

  107. 107.

    See for further information on the Arbitration and Mediation Center http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/background.html.

  108. 108.

    See for further information on the intergovernmental committee http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/. See also Groth et al. (2015), pp. 17–29.

  109. 109.

    See for the suitability of intellectual property law to protect and promote cultural heritage Shyllon (2016), pp. 55–68.

  110. 110.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/programmes/art-and-cultural-heritage-mediation/icom-wipo-mediation-rules/.

  111. 111.

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/rules/.

  112. 112.

    http://icom.museum/programmes/art-and-cultural-heritage-mediation/icom-wipo-mediation-rules/.

  113. 113.

    Same Urbinati (2014), pp. 112ff.

  114. 114.

    Cf. ICOM Doc 2005/LEG.06, April 2005.

  115. 115.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/vienna-2007/.

  116. 116.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/vienna-2007/.

  117. 117.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/the-governance/general-assembly/resolutions-adopted-by-icoms-general-assemblies-1946-to-date/shanghai-2010/.

  118. 118.

    WIPO Doc WIPO/GA/26/6, 25.08.2000, p. 3.

  119. 119.

    WIPO Doc WIPO/GA/26/10, 03.10.2000, p. 23.

  120. 120.

    Theurich (2010), pp. 582f.

  121. 121.

    Theurich (2010), pp. 582ff with further references.

  122. 122.

    Cf. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/rules/.

  123. 123.

    It has for example elaborated special alternative dispute resolution rules for disputes in the film and media sector (cf. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/film/) and concerning domain name disputes (cf. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/).

  124. 124.

    Bandle and Theurich (2011), p. 32.

  125. 125.

    ICOM Minutes of the 27th Session of the General Assembly – ICOM International Museums Meetings – Paris, France, 6 June, 2012, p. 1.

  126. 126.

    WIPO Doc WO/GA/40/9, 26.07.2011, p. 2, n 6; ICOM Minutes of the 26th Session of the General Assembly – ICOM June Meetings – Paris, France, 8 June, 2011, p. 9.

  127. 127.

    Same Urbinati (2014), p. 99.

  128. 128.

    As an exception, however, a request to initiate a mediation or conciliation procedure may be submitted by a member state or associate member of UNESCO with regard to a public or private institution, if the latter are in possession of the cultural property concerned, and if the respective state has been immediately informed of the request by the initiating member state or associated member of UNESCO and does not object (Article 4 (3) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure).

  129. 129.

    Same Urbinati (2014), p. 101.

  130. 130.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 97.

  131. 131.

    Same Urbinati (2014), p. 98.

  132. 132.

    Merrills (2011), p. 26; Article 2 (1) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  133. 133.

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/rules/.

  134. 134.

    Article 29 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  135. 135.

    Article 30 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  136. 136.

    Cf. Article 7 (1) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  137. 137.

    Article 7 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  138. 138.

    Article 7 (b) (i) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  139. 139.

    Article 7 (b) (ii) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  140. 140.

    Article 7 (b) (iii) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  141. 141.

    Article 7 (b) (iv) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  142. 142.

    Article 7 (b) (v) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  143. 143.

    Article 7 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  144. 144.

    Article 7 (2) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  145. 145.

    Article 8 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  146. 146.

    Article 8 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  147. 147.

    Cf. Article 7 (4) and (5) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  148. 148.

    Same Urbinati (2014), p. 98.

  149. 149.

    Cf. Article 2 (6) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  150. 150.

    Article 6 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules; cf. also Article 7 (b) (i) (2) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  151. 151.

    Article 9 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  152. 152.

    Article 10 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  153. 153.

    Article 10 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  154. 154.

    Article 9 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  155. 155.

    Article 9 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  156. 156.

    Article 10 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  157. 157.

    Article 24 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  158. 158.

    Cf. Article 2 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  159. 159.

    Cf. Article 1 (2) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  160. 160.

    Cf. Article 12 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/rules/.

  161. 161.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/programmes/art-and-cultural-heritage-mediation/icom-wipo-mediation-rules/.

  162. 162.

    Article 3 (2) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  163. 163.

    Article 8 (6) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  164. 164.

    Articles 17–21 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  165. 165.

    Articles 15 and 23 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  166. 166.

    Article 17 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  167. 167.

    Article 18 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules contains a quite extensive, but not exhaustive, list of such persons. Thus, “any person” includes the mediator, the parties and their representatives and advisors, any independent experts, and any other persons present during the meetings.

  168. 168.

    Article 18 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  169. 169.

    Article 19 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  170. 170.

    Article 21 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  171. 171.

    Article 20 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  172. 172.

    Cf. Article 20 (a) (i) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  173. 173.

    Articles 20 (b) (i), (ii) and 21 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  174. 174.

    Cf., for example, Articles 19 and 21 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  175. 175.

    Another exception is the utilisation of the information in a statistical manner or for statistical purposes as long as the identity of the parties is not revealed or the particular circumstances are not to be identified, unless again the information is in the public domain (Article 21 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules).

  176. 176.

    Cf. Cornu and Renold (2010), p. 12.

  177. 177.

    Article 9 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  178. 178.

    Article 13 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  179. 179.

    Article 13 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  180. 180.

    For the general principles the ICPRCP mediations and conciliations are subject to cf. p. 241.

  181. 181.

    See the Recommended ICOM-WIPO Mediation Clause for Future Disputes at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/clauses/.

  182. 182.

    Article 3 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  183. 183.

    Cf. Article 6 (1) and (2) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  184. 184.

    Cf. the Recommended ICOM-WIPO Mediation Submission Agreement for Existing Dispute at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/clauses/.

  185. 185.

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/rules/.

  186. 186.

    Cf. Article 6 (3) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  187. 187.

    In compliance with Article 3 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules “writing” in the context of the Mediation Rules means any form that provides a record of the communication, including email or other online options. Consequently, WIPO also provides the WIPO Electronic Case Facility which allows parties and all other actors in a case to file submissions electronically in order to facilitate communication.

  188. 188.

    Article 3 (a) and (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  189. 189.

    Article 4 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  190. 190.

    Article 5 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  191. 191.

    Article 12 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  192. 192.

    Article 14 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  193. 193.

    Article 11 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  194. 194.

    Article 11 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  195. 195.

    Article 15 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  196. 196.

    Article 15 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  197. 197.

    Cf. Article 8 (5) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  198. 198.

    Article 15 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  199. 199.

    Article 22 (i) and (ii) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  200. 200.

    Article 16 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  201. 201.

    Article 22 (iii) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  202. 202.

    Cf. Article 10 (1) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  203. 203.

    Cf. Article 10 (1) (c) of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  204. 204.

    Article 23 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  205. 205.

    Article 23 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  206. 206.

    Article 11 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  207. 207.

    Article 25 (a) and (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  208. 208.

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/rules/.

  209. 209.

    Article 25 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  210. 210.

    Article 25 (d) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  211. 211.

    Article 26 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  212. 212.

    For the Schedule of Fees cf. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/icom/fees/.

  213. 213.

    Article 26 (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  214. 214.

    Article 27 (a) and (b) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  215. 215.

    Article 27 (c) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  216. 216.

    Article 27 (d) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  217. 217.

    Cf. Article 11 of the ICPRCP Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation.

  218. 218.

    Article 28 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  219. 219.

    Urbinati (2014), p. 106.

  220. 220.

    On indigenous peoples as claimants cf. Cornu and Renold (2010), pp. 5ff.

  221. 221.

    Cf. Theurich (2010), pp. 580f.

  222. 222.

    Cf. http://icom.museum/programmes/art-and-cultural-heritage-mediation/icom-wipo-mediation-rules/.

  223. 223.

    Cf. Article 2 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  224. 224.

    Cf. Article 2 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  225. 225.

    Cf., for example, Article 7, 12 and 18 of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

  226. 226.

    Such as the requirement for the mediator to be impartial and independent provided for in Article 9 (a) of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules.

References

  • Bandle AL, Theurich S (2011) Alternative dispute resolution and art-law – a new research project of the Geneva Art-Law Centre. J Int Commer Law Technol 6:28–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker I (2009) Thoughts of an alternative dispute resolution practitioner on an international ADR regime for repatriation of cultural property and works of art. In: Hoffman BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 483–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann NL (2008) Die internationale Kulturstiftung – Ein Beitrag zur Debatte über die Rückführung der nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg kriegsbedingt verbrachten Kulturgüter. Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg

    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 

  • 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 

  • Cornu M, Renold M-A (2010) New developments in the restitution of cultural property: alternative means of dispute resolution. Int J Cult Prop 17:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly BW (2009) Arbitration of international cultural property disputes: the experience and initiatives of the permanent court of arbitration. In: Hoffman BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 465–474

    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 

  • Groth S, Stoll PT, Sanmukri M (2015) Das zwischenstaatliche Komitee der WIPO zu geistigem Eigentum an traditionellem Wissen, traditionellen kulturellen Ausdrucksformen und genetischen Ressourcen. In: Groth S, Bendix RF, Spiller A (eds) Kultur als Eigentum: Instrumente, Querschnitte und Fallstudien. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen, pp 17–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuprecht K, Siehr K (2012) International trade in moveable tangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples: a European perspective. In: Graber CB, Kuprecht K, Lai JC (eds) International trade in indigenous cultural heritage: legal and policy issues. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 246–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons CL (2014) Thinking about antiquities: museums and internationalism. Int J Cult Prop 21:251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrills JG (2011) International dispute settlement, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger JAR, Paterson RK, Renteln AD (2014) Cultural law: international, comparative, and indigenous. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer N (2009) Alternative procedures – litigation: the best remedy? In: Prott LV (ed) Witness to history: a compendium of documents and writings on the return of cultural objects. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 358–368

    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 

  • Renold MA (2015) Cultural co-ownership: preventing and solving cultural property claims. Int J Cult Prop 22:163–176

    Article  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 (2016) Cultural heritage and intellectual property: convergence, divergence, and interface. In: Logan W, Craith MN, Kockel U (eds) A companion to heritage studies. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi IA (2009) Mediation and cultural diplomacy. Mus Int 61:116–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi IA (2011) Cultural property law and restitution: a commentary to international conventions and European Union law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Strother G (2014) Resolving cultural property disputes in the shadow of the law. Harv Negot Law Rev 19:335–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Theurich S (2010) Alternative dispute resolution in art and cultural heritage – explored in the context of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s work. In: Odendahl K, Weber PJ (eds) Kulturgüterschutz – Kunstrecht – Kulturrecht: Festschrift für Kurt Siehr zum 75. Geburtstag aus dem Kreis des Doktoranden- und Habilitandenseminars “Kunst und Recht”. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 569–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati S (2014) Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in cultural property related disputes: UNESCO mediation and conciliation procedures. In: Vadi V, Schneider HEGS (eds) Art, cultural heritage and the market: ethical and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 93–116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varner E (2011–2012) Arbitrating cultural property disputes. Cardozo J Confl Resolution 13:477–526

    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 

  • Wichard JC, Wendland WB (2009) Mediation as an option for resolving disputes between indigenous/traditional communities and industry concerning traditional knowledge. In: Hoffman BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 475–482

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hannover, Germany

    Alper Taşdelen

Authors
  1. Alper Taşdelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taşdelen, A. (2016). The Alternative Dispute Resolution Approach: Formalisation and Juridification of the Dispute Resolution Procedure. In: The Return of Cultural Artefacts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44060-6_5

  • Published:

  • 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

Search

Navigation