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?