Based on research into the confiscated photographic and document archives in the hands of the top antiquities dealers (Robin Symes-Christos Michaelides, Robert Hecht, Giacomo Medici, and Gianfranco Becchina), so far more than 250 looted and smuggled masterpieces have been repatriated from the most reputable North American museums, private collections, and galleries, mainly to the Italian and the Greek states. Most of these repatriations were advertised in the press as voluntary action by the institutions and the individuals who possessed them. However, this is far from true; the repatriations were the results of lengthy negotiations, where the presentation of evidence alternated with diplomatic tactics and legal threats in order for the two parties (in some cases, three) to reach an agreement. Among the much-celebrated repatriated antiquities are at least two cases that require further research regarding their legal owner. This article aims to analyze these two cases and to set out new questions. In the end, there is doubt that the state who finally received these antiquities is necessarily the one from which they have been looted and smuggled. Based on this analysis, the article aims to highlight alternative paths to the discovery of the truth, paths that might have been more effective, if they had been followed.

The text of the Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (the Convention) had its origin in a Unidroit Study Group which produced the Preliminary Draft Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (hereinafter PDC or Urtext) in 1991. With the PDC as their working text, four conferences of National Experts produced the Draft Unidroit Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and a Diplomatic Conference held in June, 1995, produced the Convention.

This article explores the history and present operation of the Waverley system, the United Kingdom's art export policy established in 1952. A key component of the article is its attempt to illuminate the little-known story surrounding the birth of the system, which has been pieced together using treasury and Board of Trade papers held in the National Archives. The article then examines, both qualitatively and quantitatively, how responsibility for the system has evolved. The main pattern that emerges is the progressive detachment of the treasury: Although it spearheaded the formation of the Waverley system in 1952, today it is much more removed, in terms of administration and attitude, from the system.

This article presents the perspective of a long-time dealer in ancient art and antiquities on the many attacks on the antiquities trade. After a brief historical review of collecting and the different national approaches to control of export of archaeological materials, the author presents an analysis of why the more draconian of the legal systems defeat their intended purposes and are themselves unethical in that they promote the destruction of archaeological sites and the black market in antiquities.

This article explores the limits and possibilities of international human rights law in protecting cultural heritage from state-led destruction. It does so by focusing on two attempts by activists and non-governmental organizations to have the United Nations and the Council of Europe intervene to save the ancient city of Hasankeyf in Turkey’s southeast region, which will soon be flooded by the reservoir waters of the Ilısu Dam. Adopting a heritage rights focus, these grassroots initiatives have argued that Hasankeyf’s destruction would constitute a violation of human rights because it would deprive people of their right to participate in, and benefit from, cultural heritage. I suggest that, as powerful attempts to link cultural heritage and human rights, these cases demonstrate the need for more effective and legally binding international frameworks to protect heritage rights as an aspect of human rights.

This article is dedicated to the collection from the Bremen Kunsthalle, comprising 1715 drawings, 50 paintings, and about 3000 prints found by Soviet troops in castle of Karnzow near Berlin in May 1945. The collection was not seized by Soviet trophy brigades but was looted by soldiers and officers of the 38th Field Engineers' Brigade of the Red Army.

After their return to the USSR and demobilization, some of the officers donated their loot to different museums around the Soviet Union. One of the most important parts of the collection, with 362 drawings and two paintings—among them works of Dürer, Rembrandt, Goya, and Van Gogh, was appropriated by Captain Viktor Baldin. In 1948 Baldin deposited his loot in the A. V. Shchusev State Research Museum of Architecture in Moscow. Later Baldin became the director of the museum and advocated return of the art to its rightful owners.

Since the days of Gorbachev's perestroika, these art works have frequently attracted public attention and provoked fierce debates. The Federal Law on Cultural Valuables adopted in 1998 did not cover art works looted by private individuals. Rather, such conflicts have to be solved within the framework of Russian criminal law.

In contrast, other works of art from the same Bremen Kunsthalle collection were restituted from the United States, Ukraine, and Estonia. Another 101 drawings and prints of the collection, seized by another member of Baldin's brigade, were returned from Russia to Bremen in 2000, but that was in “exchange” for an original mosaic from the legendary Amber Chamber. However, despite more than 20 years of efforts by German officials and endless negotiations, the Baldin Collection remains in the Russian Federation. The return of those stolen drawings any time soon now looks highly improbable. The case of the Baldin Collection became the most striking example of the Russian nonrestitution of cultural property looted during World War II.

After briefly discussing ethics in general, stating the public interest in cultural property, and positing that collecting and dealing in cultural objects are not inherently unethical activities, the writer contrasts ethical attitudes toward legal controls over the international movement of people and of cultural objects. He then discusses the ethical bases of cultural property export controls and ethical questions raised by dealing in and collecting cultural objects, and identifies particular applications of export controls that are ethically unproblematic or ethically clouded. He discusses the difficult area of antiquities and questions whether anyone involved in it - from source nations, archaeologists, and ethnographers to museums, collectors, and the art trade - has clean hands. Finally, he states a hypothetical case of invited theft and asks readers to decide what the ethical response would be.

The ethics of dealing in antiquities may be discussed in two parts: first, the ethical standards that govern the trade and its relation to clients, and second, the new legal standards that affect dealers and collectors arising from political ambitions in the international relations between source and market nations. Friction between these competing interests began with the ratification of the UNESCO Convention in 1972 and the passage of the Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1983. Unrealistic political approaches to the illicit trade in antiquities have exacerbated rather than solved the problem. A resolution of the conflicts, contradictions, and ambiguities of the present situation can be achieved by stressing the safety of objects and archaeological sites over partisan goals. A satisfactory denouement can be achieved through a partnership between source countries and the market, through an abandonment of retentionist export controls, and through the establishment of an open, free, and rational coalition. Any solution to present difficulties ought to acknowledge the value of continuing to collect and preserve antiquities in private and public collections.

This article explores the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada concerning movable Aboriginal cultural property. Although the Canadian constitution protects Aboriginal rights, the content of this protection has only recently begun to be explored by the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of important cases. This article sets out the existing Aboriginal rights regime in Canada and assesses its likely application to claims for the return of Aboriginal cultural property. Canadian governments have shown little interest in attempting to resolve questions concerning ownership and possession of Aboriginal cultural property, and there have been few instances of litigation. Over the last decade a number of Canadian museums have entered into voluntary agreements to return cultural objects to Aboriginal peoples' representatives. Those agreements have often involved ongoing partnerships between Aboriginal peoples and museums concerning such matters as museum management and exhibition curatorship. A recent development has been the resolution of specific repatriation requests as part of modern land claims agreements. The compromise represented by these negotiated solutions also characterizes the legal standards being developed to reconcile existing Aboriginal rights and the legitimate policy concerns of the wider Canadian society.

The Bonnichsen decision has been heralded as a victory for anthropology, because it appears to vindicate the position of the plaintiffs who brought their suit in order to be allowed to conduct scientific research on a 9,000-year-old skeleton from North America. It appears to be a defeat for Native Americans, who view this skeleton as an ancestor and who would prefer to see the remains of this individual returned to the ground to continue the long journey back to the earth. In fact, this polarized view of the case returns the discourse surrounding repatriation to a previous level in which arguments were made over the question, “who owns the past?” While this may be a rhetorically satisfying problem to wrestle with, it does not capture the true nature of how archaeology can engage with Native people in the process of understanding ancient lives. It presumes that the past exists as a form of property. Under this simplistic construction, human remains can exist as property and can be owned by one group or another.

This article examines the pros and cons of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It also examines two cases in which Greek cultural treasures were returned to their country of origin by a US museum and a US collector on the basis of negotiations: the J.P. Getty Museum and the Leon Levy and Shelby White cases respectively. The Parthenon Marbles case is also examined, especially in light of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s recent (2013) invitation to the United Kingdom (UK) to accept mediation on the matter and the UK’s even more recent (2015) rejection of the invitation. In all three cases, the facts are set out and the author attempts an assessment of the ADR means used. Conclusions are drawn as to whether ADR is a feasible and beneficial option for the parties and whether, nowadays, it constitutes the norm in cases when cultural treasures are returned to their countries of origin.

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.

The recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples has been on the political agenda in Latin America since the 1980s, although it has not always been reflected in the legal systems of the countries in the region. Most of them have passed laws that grant legal recognition to indigenous communities and have recognized their rights in the national constitutions. However, these rules do not always refer to some particular aspects of the indigenous culture, such as those related to their cultural heritage. In general, the archaeological remains are ruled by specific laws that do not consider, or vaguely mention, the indigenous peoples’ rights and their participation in the decision-making process. As a result of the lack of consistency between the indigenous and cultural heritage laws in most countries, the participation of indigenous peoples in heritage management is still exceptional.

The author discusses the conflict in Israel between the public interest in archaeological research and the religious convictions that human remains, once buried, should not be touched. The conflict is exacerbated by urban development, which, in this ancient land, necessitates rescue excavations of tombs, thus bringing the problem to a head. The article examines, first, the rules of Jewish law, which, the author contends, have made it possible to accommodate the interests of the living, and, secondly, the scientific value of the archaeological excavation of tombs, using recent examples as illustrations. The author concludes that Jewish law could be interpreted and applied more flexibly and could then be reconciled with Israeli law. However, even if such a development were not to take place, then, in keeping with democratic values, government officials and the courts would be required to follow the policies established by the legislator, a balance between the conflicting interests having already been embodied in the law.