No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Licit International Art Trade in Times of Armed Conflict?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 September 2010
Extract
The articles concerning a licit international trade in artistic and other cultural objects published recently in the first volume of the 1995 International Journal for Cultural Property address a great number of issues concerning current trends in the law governing the exportation, importation and transfer of ownership of cultural property. What is barely mentioned in these articles, however, is the problem of the trade in art objects originating from occupied territories in times of armed conflict.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 1996
References
Notes
1 Coggins, Clemency Chase, A Licit International Traffic in Ancient Art: Let There Be Light, International Journal of Cultural Property 4 (1995), pp. 61–79, at 64.Google Scholar
2 The same applies to the 1972 Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. See also Thomas Fitschen, Common Heritage of Mankind, in: Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.). United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice, The Hague 1995, pp. 149–159; Francesco Francioni, World Cultural Heritage List and National Sovereignty, Humanitäres Völkerrecht-lnformationsschriften 1993, pp. 195–198; Kiss, Alexandre-Charles, La notion de patrimoine commun de l'humanité, Recueil des Cours 175 (1982–11), pp. 99–256.Google Scholar
3 For the history and some current developments see Clément, Etienne, Some Recent Practical Experience in the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention, IJCP 3 (1994), pp. 11–25Google Scholar; Patrick Boylan, Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1993, UNESCO Doc. CLT-93/WS/12; Nahlik, Stanislaw E., La protection Internationale des biens culturels en cas de conflit armé, Recueil des Cours 120 (1967–1), pp. 61–163.Google Scholar
4 de Breucker, Jean, Pour les vingt ans de la Convention de La Haye du 14 Mai 1954 pour la protection des biens culturels, Revue beige de droit international 11 (1976), pp. 525–547, at 540Google Scholar; Nahlik, St. E., On Some Deficiencies of the Hague Convention, Annuaire des Anciens Auditeurs 44 (1974), p. 105Google Scholar; Lyndel V. Prott, The Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention), Humanitäres Völkerrecht-lnformationsschriften 1993, pp. 191–194.
5 For the most recent account see Lynn H. Nicholas, The Rape of Europa - The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War, New York 1994.
6 Inter-Allied Declaration Against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories Under Enemy Occupation or Control, issued in London on January 5, 1943, in: Wilfried Fiedler (ed.), Internationaler Kulturgüterschutz und deutsche Frage, Berlin 1991, pp. 282–283.
7 All quotes from: Draft Agreement on Principles Governing Restitution of Cultural Property, circulated in the EAC on June 11, 1945, in: Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers 1945, Vol.2, General Political and Economic Matters (Washington 1967), p. 943; also in: W. Fiedler (ed.), supra note 6, pp. 284–285.
8 It should be noted that the 1907 Hague Regulations were in no way considered obsolete or having lost their binding character because of the massive violations during the war; rather, the 1954 Convention was understood to supplement and reinforce the earlier text, as is demonstrated by the explicit reference to the text of 1907 in the Preamble.
9 The separation of the question of restitution from the text of the Convention itself took place at the insistence of the United States, the United Kingdom and others who demanded further study of the problem of restitution in view of the difficulties in harmonizing the private law of all states parties. They declared not to be able to sign the Convention if any such clause were to form part of the text. The provisions were thus put in a Protocol which was independent from the Convention, but the US and the UK still did not sign the Convention.
10 UNESCO, Projets de convention, de reglement d'exécution et de protocole, UNESCO Doc. CBC/3; also in: Actes de la Conférence de La Haye 1954, p. 317.
11 Observations de l'lnstitut International pour l'Unification du Droit Privé concemant la restitution des biens culturels qui ont changés de mains pendant une occupation militaire, UNESCO Doc CBC/6; see also Actes de la Conférence de La Haye, pp. 362–371.
12 On this subject UNIDROIT had annexed a separate study to its observation mentioned above note 11, entitled “Bref aperçu de droit comparé sur la protection du possesseur dans la circulation des meubles”, see Actes de la Conference pp. 369–371.
13 Such a provision is now contained, however, in the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Art. 11: “The export and transfer of ownership of cultural property under compulsion arising directly or indirectly from the occupation of a country by a foreign power shall be regarded as illicit”.
14 The scope of paragraph 3 was enlarged by replacing the term “restitution” - which implies an element of redress for earlier unlawful behavior on the part of the state having to give the object back – with the more neutral “return”, so that States are obliged to return the object even where they have not done any wrong.