Abstract
This article argues that a foreign state should be entitled to sue the possessor/owner of a cultural object in an English court whenever such an object is brought to England in violation of the foreign state’s export regulations. At the moment, the legal position is that a state’s right to sue for the return of a cultural object is patrimonial and is categorised as an administrative act when the ownership or possession of the object was vested in the state before its removal from its territory and such a claim is akin to a private individual claiming for the restitution of their property. The claim is based on public law and belongs to the category of acts of sovereignty, when neither the proprietary nor the possessory interest was vested in the state before its removal, and is not justiciable in an English court. This article challenges this inadequate position as the real issue is whether international law regards such a claim as constituting an infringement of the sovereignty of the forum state. In the case of cultural objects, the answer is negative as stated in numerous international and European conventions as well as in English law, namely Lord Phillips’ judgment in the case of The Islamic Republic of Iran v Barakat Galleries and in a Bill that would have implemented the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the Return of Cultural Objects Regulation 1994.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Works-of-art/Frequently-asked-questions. Accessed 14 March 2013. See: Dietrich (2002), Drake (2008), Luke (2006), Police Seize $100 Million in Latin American Antiquities (2008), Bourget (2002), C (2008), McMahon (2006), Menegazzi (2005), Renfrew (2000), and Szopa (2004).
- 2.
- 3.
Lufkin (2008).
- 4.
- 5.
O’Keefe and Prott (1989), para 1044.
- 6.
Gerstenblith (2007).
- 7.
See also the 1950 Florence Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials.
- 8.
In application of those principles, the European Court of Justice decided in 1968 that works of art were goods that should travel freely if they were not in the protected category of national treasures. Case 7/68 Commission of the European Communities v Italy [1968] ECR 423. Stamatoudi (1998).
- 9.
- 10.
Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1374 (CA).
- 11.
Bailey (2007).
- 12.
The judge did not assess the validity of Iran’s claim in conversion as the question of ownership was a preliminary issue. However, the Barakat Gallery defended that it had bought the items in France, Germany and Switzerland.
- 13.
Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWHC 705 (QBD). Weller (2007).
- 14.
Iran v Barakat (CA).
- 15.
The case was still pending as to whether there was a subsequent valid transfer of ownership to the Barakat Gallery when the Gallery bought the items in good faith in France and in Germany.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Renfrew (2000).
- 19.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Cm 7298.
- 20.
[2007] EWCA Civ 1374 (CA).
- 21.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Cm 7298; Ministerial Foreword, p. 3.
- 22.
Collins (2006), Rule R-019.
- 23.
Re State of Norway’s application [1986] 3 WLR 452 at 479.
- 24.
Huntington v. Attrill [1893] 1 AC 150 at 156.
- 25.
Government of India v Taylor [1955] 1 AC 491.
- 26.
Attorney General of New Zealand v Ortiz [1982] 3 WLR 570 at 581.
- 27.
Collins (2006), at p. 5-032.
- 28.
Attorney General for the United Kingdom v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 FSR 631 at 640.
- 29.
The President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and others v The Royal Bank of Scotland and others [2006] UKPC 7 at 25.
- 30.
Mbasogo and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea v Logo Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 1370 at 52.
- 31.
Mbasogo and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea v Logo Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 1370 at 50.
- 32.
- 33.
King of Italy v de Medici (1918) 34 TLR 623.
- 34.
If the same facts happened today, Italy could claim for the return of the archives according to the 1994 Return of Cultural Objects Regulations.
- 35.
Iran v Barakat (CA) para. 128.
- 36.
Attorney General of New Zealand v Ortiz [1982] 3 WLR 570.
- 37.
Attorney General of New Zealand v Ortiz [1982] 2 QB 349, 372.
- 38.
Attorney General of New Zealand v Ortiz [1982] 3 WLR 570, 585.
- 39.
Iran v Barakat (CA) 84.
- 40.
Iran v Barakat (CA), 149.
- 41.
Iran v Barakat (CA), 154.
- 42.
Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. and Another [1986] 1 WLR 1120 (Ch. D.).
- 43.
Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. and Another [1986] 1 WLR 1120, 1130.
- 44.
Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. and Another [1986] 1 WLR 1120, 1131.
- 45.
Greenfield (2007), p. 252. Today this situation would be covered by the 1993 EU directive on the Return of Cultural Objects Unlawfully Removed from the Territory of a Member State.
- 46.
Mann (1986).
- 47.
Mann (1955).
- 48.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, in force 24 April 1972, 823 UNTS 231.
- 49.
Prott (1989), p. 296.
- 50.
Scovazzi (2009).
- 51.
- 52.
Sandholtz (2007).
- 53.
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, in force 7 August 1956, 249 UNTS 240.
- 54.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, in force 7 August 1956, 249 UNTS 358; Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999, in force 9 March 2004, 38 ILM (1999), at 769.
- 55.
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 16 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975, 1037 UNTS 151.
- 56.
Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 2 November 2001, in force 2 January 2009, UNESCO Doc.31C/Resolution 24; (2002) 41 ILM 37.
- 57.
Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 17 October 2003, in force 20 April 2006, 2368 UNTS 1.
- 58.
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, 20 October 2005, in force 18 March 2007, in UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, 33rd session, Paris, 3–21 October 2005 (2 vols., 2005), vol. I, at 83.
- 59.
http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=13039&language=E. Accessed 22 May 2013.
- 60.
It was not considered necessary to have specific legislation to implement the UNESCO Convention except for the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003.
- 61.
1970 UNESCO Convention, Article 3.
- 62.
1970 UNESCO Convention, Article 6.
- 63.
1970 UNESCO Convention, Article 7.
- 64.
1970 UNESCO Convention, Article 13(d).
- 65.
Pecoraro (1990).
- 66.
Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. and Another [1986] 1 WLR 1120. The Court observed that although the Convention was not part of the law of the United Kingdom, its ‘general tenor (…) is clear: it is against illicit import and export.’
- 67.
UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, 24 June 1995, in force 1 July 1998, (1995) 34 ILM 1322.
- 68.
Prott (1996).
- 69.
UNIDROIT Convention Article 5(3).
- 70.
UNIDROIT Convention Article 3(3).
- 71.
At the time of this writing the UNIDROIT Convention has 33 parties. The list is available at http://www.unidroit.org/english/implement/i-95.pdf. Accessed on 22 May 2013.
- 72.
Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade (Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport) (HC 371-I, 1999–2000) 110.
- 73.
Palmer (2000), para. 50.
- 74.
O’Keefe (1994).
- 75.
O’Keefe (1995).
- 76.
Institut de Droit International (1975).
- 77.
Institut de Droit International (1975), p. 55.
- 78.
Institut de Droit International (1977), p. 329.
- 79.
Institut de Droit International (1991), p. 146.
- 80.
- 81.
International Council of Museums, ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, adopted in 1986 and revised in 2004, available at http://icom.museum/the-vision/code-of-ethics. Accessed 6 March 2013.
- 82.
ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, Article 2.3.
- 83.
ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, Article 2.4.
- 84.
American Alliance of Museums, Standards regarding archaeological material and ancient art, http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/characteristics-of-excellence-for-u-s-museums/collections-stewardship. Accessed 6 March 2013.
- 85.
O’Keefe (1998).
- 86.
- 87.
European Council Regulation 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods (1992) OJ L 395, p. 1 replaced by the Council Regulation 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods (2009) OJ L 39, p. 1.
- 88.
Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (27/03/1993) (1993) OJ L 074, pp. 0074–0079.
- 89.
SI 1994 n. 501.
- 90.
Cour de cassation, 2 mai 1990 Bull I n 91 p. 68.
- 91.
Cited in Audit (1997).
- 92.
Siehr (2005).
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
Cultural Property Implementation Act 1983, 19 USC 2607.
- 96.
United States v. An Original Manuscript Dated November 19, 1778 1999 F Supp 2d, 1999 WL 97894 (S.D.N.Y.,1999).
- 97.
Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua and Peru at http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/chart-of-import-restrictions.pdf. Accessed on 22 March 2013.
- 98.
Lobay (2009).
- 99.
United States v An Antique Platter of Gold (1999) Court of Appeal, Second Circuit 184 F 3d 131.
- 100.
Lord Inglewood (1997).
- 101.
Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. and Another [1986] 1 WLR 1120 (Ch. D.).
- 102.
Iran v Barakat (CA) at 151.
- 103.
Iran v Barakat (CA) at 155.
- 104.
Iran v Barakat (CA) at 163.
- 105.
Renfrew (2000).
- 106.
Bland (2009).
- 107.
Mackenzie and Greene (2009b), p. 154.
- 108.
The 1954 Convention does not apply to the illicit export of cultural objects in time of war or occupation. It is one of the shortcomings of this Convention addressed by the 1999 Second Protocol.
- 109.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Cm 7298, Ministerial Foreword.
- 110.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Section 19.
- 111.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Schedule 5.
- 112.
The government was of the opinion that had the Convention been ratified, it would not apply to the conflict in Iraq because it was not a party to the non-international conflict there. This paper does not aim at discussing this issue which raises many questions of international public law as well as definitions of occupation and non-international conflict. DCMS, ‘Government Response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Reports on the Draft Heritage Protection Bill and Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill’ DCMS (Cm 7472, 2008), at 102.
- 113.
Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (2008), Schedule 5.
- 114.
Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 UNTS 262, in force 18 May 1954, Article 1. Beyeler v Italy (2001) 33 EHRR 52.
- 115.
Kurtha v Marks [2008] EWCH 336 (QB) at 140. Tughendhat J.: ‘A dealer in valuable works of art who pays in large amounts of cash, keeps no records, and asks no questions as to provenance of his supplier, exposes himself, and those who buy from him, to (…) very serious risks.’
- 116.
Gerstenblith (2007).
References
Audi A (2007) A semiotics of cultural property argument. Int J Cult Property 14:131–167
Audit B (1997) Le statut des biens culturels en droit international privé français. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 405
Bailey M (2007) Iran loses case against Barakat Gallery, The Art Newspaper, May, p 6
Blake J (2000) On defining the cultural heritage. Int Comp Law Q 49:61–85
Bland R (2009) The United Kingdom as a source country, some problems in regulating the market in UK antiquities and the challenge of the internet. In: Mackenzie S, Greene P (eds) Criminology and archaeology, studies in looted antiquities. Hart, Oxford, pp 83–102
Bourget S (2002) Ancient cultures in Peril: the case of Peru. Art Antiquity Law 7(4):371–377
Byrne-Sutton Q (1988) Le trafic international des biens culturels sous l’angle de leur revendication par l’Etat d’origine. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zurich
C FG (2008) Italy returns artefacts to Iran and Pakistan, The Art Newspaper, January, p 11
Chang D (2006) Stealing beauty: stopping the madness of illicit art trafficking. Houston J Int Law 28:829–870
Collins L (ed) (2006) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws, 14th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
DCMS (2008) ‘Government Response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Reports on the Draft Heritage Protection Bill and Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill’ DCMS (Cm 7472)
Dietrich R (2002) Cultural property on the move – legally, illegally. Int J Cult Property 11:294–305
Drake C (2008) Italy awaits biggest ever trial of Tomb Robbers, The Art Newspaper, January, p 11
Ferreri S (1994) The status of cultural property in private international law from an Italian point of view. In Rapports Italiens présentés au XIVe Congrès International de Droit Comparé, Athènes. Giuffré, Milano, pp 133–176
Frigo M (2004) Cultural Property v. Cultural Heritage: a “Battle of Concepts” in international law? Int Rev Red Cross 86(854):367–378
Frigo M (2007) Le rôle des règles de déontologie entre droit de l’art et régulation du marché. Journal de Droit International 3:883–898
Frigo M (2009) Ethical rules and codes of honor related to museum activities: a complementary support to the private international law approach concerning the circulation of cultural property. Int J Cult Property 16:49–66
Gerstenblith P (2007) Controlling the international market in antiquities: reducing the harm, preserving the past. Chic J Int Law 8:169–195
Gill D, Chippindale C (2006) From Boston to Rome: reflections on returning antiquities. Int J Cult Property 13:311–331
Gill D, Chippindale C (2007) From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities. Int J Cult Property 14:205–240
Greenfield J (2007) The return of cultural treasures, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Institut de Droit International (1975) Annuaire (Wiesbaden Session). S. Karger, Basel
Institut de Droit International (1977) Annuaire (Oslo Session). S. Karger, Basel
Institut de Droit International (1991) Annuaire (Basel Session – I). Pedone, Paris
Institut de Droit International (1992) Annuaire (Basel Session – II). Pedone, Paris
Last K (2004) The resolution of cultural property disputes: some issues of definition. In: Resolution of Cultural Property Disputes (ed) International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 53–84
Lobay G (2009) Border controls in market countries as disincentives to antiquities looting at source? The US–Italy bilateral agreement 2001. In: Mackenzie S, Greene P (eds) Criminology and archaeology, studies in looted antiquities. Hart, Oxford, pp 59–80
Lufkin M (2008) Museums raided in tax fraud and smuggling case, The Art Newspaper, March, p 12
Luke C (2006) Diplomats, banana cowboys and archaeologists in Western Honduras: a history of the trade in pre-Columbian materials. Int J Cult Property 13:25–57
Mackenzie S (2005) Going, going, gone: regulating the market in illicit antiquities. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester
Mackenzie S, Greene P (eds) (2009a) Criminology and archaeology, studies in looted antiquities. Hart, Oxford
Mackenzie S, Greene P (2009b) Introduction: a context for the engagement of criminology and archaeology. In: Mackenzie S, Greene P (eds) Criminology and archaeology, studies in looted antiquities. Hart, Oxford, pp 1–10
Mann FA (1955) Prerogative rights of foreign states and the conflict of laws. Trans Grotius Soc 40:25
Mann FA (1986) The international enforcement of public rights. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 19:603–630
McMahon B (2006) Art thieves turn to looting Italy’s churches, The Guardian, 1st November
Menegazzi R (ed) (2005) An endangered cultural heritage: Iraqi antiquities recovered in Jordan. Le Lettere, Firenze
Noth M, Noth E (2005) Switzerland’s New Federal Act on the international transfer of cultural property. Art Antiquity Law 10:73
O’Keefe P (1994) Mauritius scheme for the protection of the material cultural heritage. Int J Cult Property 3:295–300
O’Keefe P (1998) Codes of ethics: form and function in cultural heritage management. Int J Cult Property 7:32–51
O’Keefe R (2006) The protection of cultural property in armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
O’Keefe P, Prott LV (1989) Law and the cultural heritage. Butterworths, London
O’Keefe P (1995) Protection of the material cultural heritage: the commonwealth scheme. Int Comp Law Q 44:147–161
Palmer N (2000) Ministerial advisory panel on illicit trade (Report), Department of Culture, Media and Sport
Pecoraro T (1990) Choice of law in litigation to recover national cultural property: efforts at harmonisation in private international law. Vanderbilt J Int Law 31:1–52
Police Seize $100 Million in Latin American Antiquities (2008) Spiegel, 30 April 2008
Polk K (2009) Whither criminology in the study of the traffic in illicit antiquities? In: Mackenzie S, Greene P (eds) Criminology and archaeology, studies in looted antiquities. Hart, Oxford, pp 13–26
Prott LV (1989) Problems of private international law for the protection of the cultural heritage. Recueil des Cours (Académie de droit international) 243:215–315
Prott LV (1996) UNESCO and UNIDROIT: a partnership against trafficking in cultural objects. Uniform Law Rev 1:59–71
Renfrew C (2000) Loot, legitimacy, and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology. Duckworth, London
Résultat 2006 La douane: “Agir pour protéger” (2007). Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Paris
Sandholtz W (2007) Prohibiting plunder: how norms change. OUP, Oxford
Scovazzi T (2009) Diviser c’est détruire, Ethical principles and legal rules in the field of return of cultural properties. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/39157/12433501641Scovazzi_E.pdf/Scovazzi_E.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2013
Siehr K (1993) International art trade and the law. Recueil des Cours (Académie de droit international) 243:9–288
Siehr K (2005) Globalization and national culture: recent trends toward a liberal exchange of cultural objects. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 38:1067–1096
Stamatoudi I (1998) The national treasures exception in Article 36 of the EC treaty: how many of them fit the bill? Art Antiquity Law 3:39–51
Szopa A (2004) Hoarding history: a survey of antiquity looting and black market trade. Univ Miami Bus Law Rev 13:55–89
Vrdoljak AF (2006) International law, museums and the return of cultural objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Watson P, Todeschini C (2006) The Medici conspiracy: the illicit journey of looted antiquities, from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the world’s greatest museums. Public Affairs, New York
Weber M (2006) New Swiss law on cultural property. Int J Cult Property 13:99–113
Weller M (2007) Iran v Barakat: some observations on the application of foreign public law by domestic courts from a comparative perspective. Art Antiquity Law 12:279
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vigneron, S. (2014). Protecting Cultural Objects: Enforcing the Illicit Export of Foreign Cultural Objects. In: Vadi, V., Schneider, H. (eds) Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45094-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45094-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45093-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45094-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)