Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:26:38.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity from Seizure and Suit in Australia: The Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act 2013

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2014

Craig Forrest
Craig Forrest*
Affiliation:
Reader and Fellow, Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Australia has, like many other states over the past few years, introduced a statute that provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad and immunity from suit for certain parties. This article explores the historical context that lead to the adoption of this statute and comprehensively explores the legislative regime, highlighting its peculiarities.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 143 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attorney-General’s Department, Ministry for the Arts, Australian Government. “Immunity from Seizure—Public Submissions.” http://www.arts.gov.au/consultations/immunity-from-seizure/submissions (28 August 2011; accessed 6 July 2012).Google Scholar
Bartels, Lorna. “A Review of Confiscation Schemes in Australia.” Technical and Background Paper Series No. 36. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tbp/21-40/tbp036.html (March 2010; accessed 4 February 2013).Google Scholar
Bazyler, Michael J., and Gerber, Seth M.. “Litigating the Pillage of Cultural Property in American Courts: Chabad v. Russian Federation and Lessons Learned.” Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 31 (2010): 45.Google Scholar
Berman, Shoshana. “Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan: The Israeli Perspective.” Art Antiquity and Law 7 (2007): 113.Google Scholar
Boer, Ben, and Wiffen, Graeme. Heritage Law in Australia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Davies, Martin, Bell, Andrew, and Brereton, Paul L.. Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia, 8th edition. Chatswood, Australia: LexisNexis, 2010.Google Scholar
Forrest, Craig. “Australia’s Protection of Foreign States’ Cultural Heritage.” University of New South Wales Law Journal 27 (2004): 605.Google Scholar
Forrest, Craig. “The Scope of Immunity from Seizure and Suit for Cultural Objects on Loan in Australia.” Media and Arts Law Review 18 (2013): 17.Google Scholar
Fox, Hazel. The Law of State Immunity, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Getz, Daniel. “The History of Canadian Immunity from Seizure Legislation.” International Journal of Cultural Property 18 (2011): 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Charles. “Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan: The Israeli Perspective.” Art Antiquity and Law 8 (2008): 361.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Paul. “The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects.” Art Antiquity and Law 2 (1996): 163.Google Scholar
Kaye, Lawrence M. “Art Loans and Immunity from Seizure in the United States and the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Cultural Property 17 (2010): 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, Dan. “Investigating ‘Indecent, Obscene or Pornographic’ Art: Lessons from the Bill Henson Controversy.” Media and Arts Law Review 14 (2009): 292.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A. R., Paterson, Robert Kirkwood, and Renteln, Alison Dundes. Cultural Law: International, Comparative and Indigenous. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, Anna. “The United Kingdom’s Immunity from Seizure Legislation.” Modern Law Review 72 (2009): 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, Patrick. Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention on Illicit Traffic, 2nd ed. Builth Wells, United Kingdom: Institute of Art and Law, 2007.Google Scholar
Office for the Arts, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government. Immunity from Seizure for Cultural Objects on Loan. Discussion Paper 2011. http://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/ifs-paper-2011.pdf. (28 August 2011; accessed 5 February 2013).Google Scholar
Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13646 (Simon Crean, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts). “Bills: Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012, Second Reading.” <http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F50ef4858-02bd-437b-a64f-599769ecfec6%2F0009%22 (28 November 2012; accessed 4 February 2103).Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel. Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention. Builth Wells, United Kingdom: Institute of Art and Law, 1997.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel. “Dja Dja Wurrung Bark Etching.” International Journal of Cultural Property 13 (2006): 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Brooke. “High Anxiety: The Fraught Art of Borrowing.” The Australian Financial Review (28 July 2011): 20.Google Scholar
van Woudenberg, Nout. State Immunity and Cultural Objects on Loan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar