Cultural property claims are numerous and of very different nature. Some relate to recent trafficking of cultural property;1 some are based on ancient legal grounds which are contested today;2 others relate to past wars and colonial times;3 others, still, relate to mass spoliations in times of conflict.4 In general, though, the original owner seeks to recover what was taken from him, or at least to obtain some form of compensation.5 The present owner or possessor is as a matter of principle interested in keeping his possession.6 These conflicting positions are often seen as irreconcilable and, indeed, litigation in a traditional manner will bring to the typical “either/or” solution: either I am the owner, or you are. There is no in-between solution.

In the UK, there is a public perception that, if a cultural object is given to a museum, it will remain in its collections forever. But does UK law reflect this? This article analyses UK law and discusses whether a commercial approach is not always well suited to serve the needs of the museum sector and whether there should be more thought given to the public nature of museums. It calls for law reform in order to ensure that UK law and ethical guidance relating to deaccessioning and disposals from collections is sufficient to maintain public trust, so that people continue to visit museums and to offer objects for their collections.

The concept of the “cultural heritage of all humankind” is often summarily dismissed by scholars, possibly due to the aura of unscholarly idealism it appears to emanate. However, it has long been claimed that the special status of objects of cultural, historical, or religious value is a consequence of their importance to the whole humanity rather than their economic or aesthetic value. Global outrage provoked by destruction of unique symbols of our shared past is proof that such claims are not unfounded. Considering that cultural heritage faces increasing risk of intentional destruction for ideological reasons, and the discriminatory intent inherent in such devastations poses a threat to the entire international community, it is opportune to initiate a discussion on the adequacy of the existing legal mechanisms for the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflicts and the perspectives it offers to address these challenges in a comprehensive and informed manner.

UK museums are required to present themselves as the ethical guardians rather than simply the owners of their collections (Museums Association Code of Ethics principles 1.0 and 1.3). Museums which are members of the International Council of Museums are required, when acquiring objects for their collections, to ensure that they obtain valid title, rather than simply strict legal title, to the object (ICOM Code of Ethics, principle 2.2). This notion of valid title focuses on the relationship between the current possessor (the museum) and the object. However, one can also see the concept of claimants having moral claims to cultural heritage objects developing in the context of the notion of the “rightful owner” which is a term increasingly deployed to signify the person who has a valid moral, rather than legal, claim to the cultural heritage object (Seventh Report of the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee 1999-2000 [193]).

Since 2000 the UK has introduced mechanisms to resolve, in limited circumstances, moral claims to cultural objects of which their owners were dispossessed during the Nazi era. This paper analyses the way in which a concept of moral title can be seen to have developed in the context of the resolution of Nazi era claims by the UK’s Spoliation Advisory Panel. To this end the paper analyses: how far the moral entitlement is linked with the legal title to the object; and whether moral title arises from the morally abhorrent dispossession that befell the claimant or his ancestor or whether it results from the recommendation of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. It is argued that the development of the notion of moral title poses challenges for the future, but an understanding of its role may also inform the resolution of disputes involving cultural heritage objects outside the context of the Nazi era.

Private ownership and cultural heritage protection are two interests in continuing tension. The traditional conception of property right is based on an absolute individual right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, interference in this right may restrict its exercise and impose charges on the owner, such as classification measures and conservation easements. This paper formulates a hypothesis about an increased protection of cultural heritage along with that of private ownership.

Against the background of a complex constitutional allocation of cultural powers, Belgian law provides a pertinent illustration of this development. At the one hand, Belgian governments have been adopting more extensive legislation protecting cultural heritage. On the other hand, Belgian courts, traditionally reluctant to recognize any compensation right when the protective measure only restricts the ownership, gradually appear to undertake a more thorough analysis of the fair balance between the conflicting interests, notably in favor of the owner.

The authors gauge the merits of a new model of cultural heritage protection.

In the art field the centuries-old concepts of property and state immunity are interwoven in an ambivalent relationship. Immunity rules may constitute a shield for the works of art that have been temporarily sent abroad for exhibition purposes. The obverse of the same coin is that the same rules may thwart the legal actions filed by individuals against foreign states to retrieve art objects lost in the past as a result or in connection with grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This article examines this conundrum and argues that the relationship between property rights and immunity rules should be reconceptualised and aligned with the values and priorities of the international community, such as the protection of human rights, the reparation of massive and violent crimes and the respect for cultural heritage.

The return of works of art by museums to nations of origin has generated considerable scholarly response, yet there has been little engagement with the potential role museums could have as responsible stewards for works of art that are at risk. One important example can be seen in the actions of the Menil Foundation. The Menil, with the permission of the Church of Cyprus, conserved a series of frescoes and created a purpose-built gallery on the Menil campus in Houston to safely house them. It was a novel solution to the problems caused by the situation in Cyprus. Acquiring and saving these thirteenth century frescoes gives an important template for the rescue and conservation of works of art that are at risk, but also exposes similarly-situated actors to the moral dilemma of purchasing looted art with the consent of the original owner.

Cultural property protection policy as implemented in Syria since 2011 is structured around standards and practices enshrined within the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (including its First and Second Protocols) and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Policy emphasis is on the in situ protection of cultural sites and the recovery and return of stolen or looted cultural objects. But policy initiatives have very obviously failed to stop the plunder and illegal trade of cultural objects in Syria, as they have failed before for neighboring countries. This paper describes why policy initiatives aimed at site protection and object recovery have failed and how policy might be improved by a market reduction approach aimed at subduing demand.

Although on-the-ground preservation and policing is a major component of our international efforts to prevent the looting and trafficking of antiquities, the expectation placed on source countries may be beyond their capacity. This dependence on developing world infrastructure and policing may challenge our ability to effectively regulate this illicit trade. Using case studies generated from fieldwork in Belize and Bolivia, this paper discusses a number of these challenges to effective policy and offers some suggestions for future regulatory development.

This article reviews the shift in cultural property litigation in the United States over the past twenty-five years from private replevin actions, in which the original owner sues the current possessor and must bear the costs as well as overcome procedural and logistical obstacles, in particular the statutes of limitation, to civil forfeiture actions instituted by the U.S. government to obtain restitution. The article then analyzes recent cases that arguably illustrate over-enforcement of the law through the use of unclear legal standards in civil forfeiture. It then turns to shortcomings in the effectiveness of U.S. law, in particular the difficulty in imposing emergency import restrictions in the cases of Iraq and Syria, and an over-emphasis on the use of civil forfeiture, which has largely replaced criminal prosecutions in the cultural property arena—but without which there is no true deterrent to trafficking in illegal cultural objects.

This article analyzes the dichotomy between the practices of the art market and of court judges when it comes to the authentication of works of art. While judges very much rely on experts acting in the art market, they may not necessarily pursue the same examination methods and conclusions, which can have serious repercussions on the art object and for its owner. The dichotomy unavoidably leads to the questions of what the correct assessment is and whether court judges should be conducting such examinations.

Taking account of the difficulties judges and legislators face in attempting to interfere with established art market practices, it is suggested that courts are not an adequate forum to resolve authenticity disputes. Instead, scholars and art market actors should adopt improved authentication standards and, in the event of a dispute, refer to alternative means of dispute resolution.

This article examines the duties of diligence of lawyers when handling art-related matters. Due diligence is paramount to any activity in the art market and a key element in ascertaining ownership, authenticity or provenance. In particular, it is a benchmark to help determine the existence of possible criminal activities, including money laundering, terrorism financing or document forgery, to which the art market is regularly exposed. The question arises as to the obligations incumbent to art lawyers who are privileged witnesses of the functioning of the art market. Such obligations include in particular the duty to enquire on the particularities of a transaction, the duty to terminate a mandate or the duty to report any suspicious transaction under threat of civil or criminal sanctions. A survey has shown that art law specialists would welcome more guidance in the form of tailored regulations or professional guidelines.

Since the first lawsuit against the Knoedler Gallery was filed for selling forgeries, the art world has been abuzz with stories of high-end fakes. However, forgeries are not a new phenomenon. The law of supply and demand dictates that there will be no end to the rising value of artworks done by the hands of “masters.” And with soaring market prices, art forgery will proliferate as forgers find incentive in skyrocketing sales. At the heart of forgery disputes is the determination of authenticity. Who makes these determinations? How does the market and legal world handle a battle of experts? Moreover, what remedies are available to disappointed buyers? The best method of protection is to complete due diligence; however, the process is often complex and expensive. Even after completing due diligence, it is possible for buyers to be left with sophisticated fakes. What legal remedies are available to buyers?