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.

This case arose out of a controversy over the return of a Māori head from the collection of a city of Rouen museum to New Zealand. The case raised the issue of whether the head was a French public good that required declassification before it could be returned or a body part (and not a work of art) that could be immediately returned for appropriate treatment in its place of origin.

The return of captured French archives—not art—ignited debate in the Russian Duma in the spring of 1994, leading to the passage of the 1998 Federal Law “On Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.” Yet, a decade since the law was signed, there have been five cases of captured archives from the Second World War returned to Western European countries, as explained in the recent book, Returned from Russia. The aim of this article is to examine major factors involved in the restitution of archives from Russia, and why amid the politics of restitution the return of archives has been more successful than art.

The article first successively examines the major factors involved, namely, foreign political pressure; the underlying support of international law, both in specific instruments and historical archival practice; the circumstances and Soviet aims of archival plunder; the present contrast with Soviet political ideology and alignments; the fact that Russian archivists were more willing to return their loot than museum directors; and that archival returns were easier to conform to the 1998 law, because the receiving countries were willing to offer the “compensation” Russian archivists were demanding. Country by country, first in Western Europe starting with France and now Austria and Greece, archives have been going home, but so far only a few symbolic files from Germany have been returned. A final section of the article briefly singles out the captured records from several other countries remaining in Moscow, including many Jewish records, even some representing Holocaust losses.

This article analyses the historical and political background of the Russian law on cultural property displaced to the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War (April 1998, with amendments in 2000). Following the 1990–1991 revelations about the extensive cultural treasures captured by Soviet authorities at the end of the Second World War, there was hope abroad for restitution, with a series of bilateral agreements with the countries of origin, but in spring 1994 the Duma blocked further restitution. We follow the fierce debates, the Constitutional Court ruling (1999), the amended law (July 2000), and its implementation under the Ministry of Culture.

We show the wide-scale Russian support of the law, with its concept of “compensatory restitution” that virtually nationalizes the spoils of war, with only scant provisions for restitution to those who fought against the Nazi regime and those victimized by it. What explanation emerges involves the manipulation of historical memory by the Stalinist regime, as the cultural trophies assume symbolic importance in the “myth and memory” of “victory” in the Great Patriotic War. Restitution to legal owners is to be considered only in exchange for equally substantial compensation for wartime loss and suffering of the population at large.

This article examines the way property rights can be applied to DNA from ancient sources. In particular, it examines the ways in which the legal classification of a source as a “cultural artifact” can influence the assignment of property rights over genetic information. I explore the discrepancy between the legal ability to own ancient dead bodies but not nonancient dead bodies, illustrating how dead bodies with a perceived cultural value are legally distinct from those which are not considered to have cultural value. Second, I address the way such cultural preservation laws fail to influence ownership rights over genetic information. Finally, I propose a model for the best way to deal with genetic information from ancient sources, based on the policies of the International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank.

The panel began with an acknowledgment that we were assembled in the traditional territory of the Blood Nation. The panelists were then introduced and, in alphabetical order, gave their initial opening comments.

An ongoing debate on the protection of traditional knowledge was prompted by the United Nations General Assembly declaration of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples in 1995 and the declaration of the Second International Decade in 2004. These two declarations challenged governments and the international community to address, nationally and internationally, issues that affect indigenous communities. One such issue is the protection of traditional knowledge. The three key international multilateral forums that are debating traditional knowledge issues are the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Using a political economy framework, this study analyzes the policymaking processes and mandates of the three multilateral forums in order to highlight stakeholders' levels of involvement in these processes. The study found that the multilateral forums' power structures, mandates, and decision-making processes disadvantage indigenous peoples and hinder their full participation in the forums' processes. The study recommends establishing a forum that would take into account indigenous peoples' worldviews; otherwise policy outcomes from these discussions will probably disadvantage indigenous peoples.

The Protected Objects Amendment Act (POA) was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, so New Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995. This represents a significant delay after the drafting of these two conventions. This article explores why New Zealand has taken so long to give domestic effect to these conventions and examines the manner in which they have been given domestic legal effect in the POA. The article also focuses on issues of Māori cultural property, the practical implementation of the POA, and the cultural heritage climate in New Zealand.

This commentary debunks the poor scholarship in Repatriation and Erasing the Past by Elizabeth Weiss and James Springer. We show that modern bioarchaeological practice with Indigenous remains places ethics, partnership, and collaboration at the fore and that the authors’ misconstructed dichotomous fallacy between “objective science” and Indigenous knowledge and repatriation hinders the very argument they are espousing. We demonstrate that bioarchaeology, when conducted in collaboration with stakeholders, enriches research, with concepts and methodologies brought forward to address common questions, and builds a richer historical and archaeological context. As anthropologists, we need to acknowledge anti-Indigenous (and anti-Black) ideology and the insidious trauma and civil rights violations that have been afflicted and re-afflicted through Indigenous remains being illegally or unethically obtained, curated, transferred, and used for research and teaching in museums and universities. If we could go so far as to say that anything good has come out of this book, it has been the stimulation in countering these beliefs and developing and strengthening ethical approaches and standards in our field.

This article examines the international legal regime that governs cultural commodities by providing an up-to-date stocktaking in the field. In doing so, this paper focuses on the music industry, both as the general backdrop and as a context in which to observe the evolution of the current regulatory regime. It includes a review of the history of the commoditization process of musical goods, the requisite legislative and judicial decisions, the international regulatory environment, and a tripartite case study. By reviewing various approaches and examining several recent arenas where the issues have been implicated, the author demonstrates that, in its current form, the international copyright regime is not sufficiently supportive of diversity in cultural property.

This article presents a comparative description of the national legislation concerning the protection of cultural property in the various Arab nations and the influence of regional and international agreements. These different legislative schemes are also discussed in the context of attempts to unify the treatment of cultural property among these nations which face similar problems.

Continuous changes are happening in the legislation of preventive archaeology in Hungary. The protection of cultural heritage in Hungary is currently regulated by the Cultural Heritage Law Nr. LXIV of 2001, according to which, if an development project endangers an archaeological site and its replanning would raise the budget considerably, preventive excavation is needed. All the costs of the excavation should be covered by the investor, but the financing should be at least 0.9% of the total budget of the project. Normally, the archaeological works covered 1–5% of the overall cost of the constructions. This law made possible the complete excavation, documentation, deposition, and primary study of the finds endangered by the development.

This article reflects on the arguments that heritage is as much about people as it is about places and objects. It is focused on Syria and based on a doctoral research project. The article investigates how heritage is approached by both “civil society” groups and extremist religious groups in Syria. It argues that the utilization of heritage by these groups offers learning lessons and examples of people-centered, socially innovative, and future-oriented heritage practices. The article suggests that the heritage community’s efforts in conflict contexts should be less about preservation and more about embracing change and finding creative ways to manage the transformation process from a pre-conflict society to a post-conflict society. In other words, they should tackle issues that matter to conflict-affected people, improve the quality of their life, and increase their horizons of hope and opportunities in assembling better futures.