No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Foreign Export Prohibitions: Cultural Treasures and Minerals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes and Shorter Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1984
References
1. President of the District Court of The Hague, 17 September 1982, RvdW/KG nr. 167, NYIL 1983 416, ILM 1983 66, AJIL 1983 636, Rev. Crit. 1983 473 note Audit p. 435, RabelsZ. 1983 141 note Basedow p. 147–172. Comment by De Boer & Kotting. NJB 1982 1177 and IPRax 1984 108.
2. ILM 1982 891.
3. Basedow loc. cit. p. 165/6: ‘Je mehr dagegen die Norm Uebereinstimmende Zielen der internationalen Gemeinschaft dient, desto geringer sind die Anforderungen des Völkenrechts an die Beziehung zwischen regelndem Staat und geregeltem Sachverhalt’ (italics added). On the next page the author speaks of ‘Solidarwerte’. Grossfeld & Rogers, 32 ICLQ (1983) 931, recommend ‘A shared values approach to jurisdictional conflicts in international economic law’, referring to the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof, mentioned below, as an example of sensitiveness to international concerns (p. 938).
4. Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property, of 17 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231, 10 ILM 289 (1971), Tractatenblad 1972 nr. 50 (English text) and 1983 nr. 66 (Dutch translation). The Convention has been ratified by 52 countries, including the U.S., Canada, W-Germany (16 April 1974), Italy, Greece, Nigeria (24 April 1972).
5. BGH 22 June 1972, Entscheidungen des BGH, Zivilsachen, 59 (1973) 82. This was an indirect application: the export, violating Nigerian regulations, was held contrary to good morals under German law. The action, against a shipping insurer, for the loss of six bronze statues, failed.
6. HR (criminal division) 18 January 1983 NJ 445.
7. Article 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, as a rule, the thing seized shall be returned to the person in whose possession it was when seized, but that the public prosecutor may return it to another person; in that case he has to notify his intention to the person in possession at the time of seizure, who can appeal to the District Court within a fortnight. Article 118 deals with a sort of provisional measure, relating to the civil aspect of criminal proceedings, without prejudice to possible subsequent civil proceedings.
8. Loi du 31 décembre 1913 sur les monuments historiques, D.P. 1915. 4.153, also in Dalloz, , Code Civil, 1982–1983, p. 1330Google Scholar:
18.Tous les objets mobiliers classés sont imprescriptibles. Les objets classés appartenant à l'Etat sont inaliénables. Les objets classés appartenant à un departement, à une commune à un établissement public ou d'utilité publique ne peuvent être aliénés qu'avec l'autorisation du ministre des Beaux-Arts et dans les formes prévues par les lois et règlements. La propriété ne peut en être transférée qu'à l'Etat, à une personne publique ou à un établissement d'utilité publique.
19.Les effets du classement suivent l'objet, en quelques mains qu'il passe.
Tout particulier qui aliène un objet classé est tenu de faire connaftre à l'acquéreui l'existence du classement.
Tout aliénation doit, dans les quinze jours de la date de son accomplissement, être notifiée au ministère des Beaux-Arts par celui qui l'a consentie.
20.L'acquisition faite en violation de l'article 18, deuxième et troisième alinéas, est nulle. Les actions en nullité ou en revendication peuvent être exercées a toute époque tant par le ministre des Beaux-Arts que par le propriétaire originaire. Elles s'exercent sans préjudice des demandes en dommages-intérêts qui peuvent être dirigées soit contre les parties contractantes solidairement responsables, soit contre l'officier public qui a prêté son concours à l'aliénation. Lorsque l'aliénation illicite a été consentie par une personne publique ou un établissement d'utilité publique, cette action en dommages-intérêts est exercée par le ministre des Beaux-Arts au nom et au profit de l'Etat.
L'acquéreur ou sousácquéreur de bonne foi, entre les mains duquel l'objet est revendiqué, a droit au remboursement de son prix d'acquisition; si la revendication est exercée par le ministie des Beaux-Arts, celui-ci aura recours contre le vendeur originaire pour le montant intégral de l'indemnité qu'il aura dû payer à l'acquéreur ou sous-acquéreur.
Les dispositions du présent article sont applicables aux objets perdus ou volés.
9. This Article provides, in the relevant part, that “as to chattels, possession amounts to a perfect title” (French: la possession vaut titre), but that stolen or lost things may be recovered within three years from the day of the theft or loss. Case law has established that mala fide purchasers can never rely on this provision, i.e. they are obliged to return the thing stolen even after expiry of the 3 year limitation period.
10. In this case, civil proceedings were instituted between the antiques dealer and the State of the Netherlands, in which the French State intervened. They have been settled in the sense that the antiques dealer will return the statue against compensation of his purchase price and costs. I owe this information to Jhr. Mr. F.F.C.M. van Rijckevorsel, counsel for the antiques dealer.
11. Thus: Hoge Road 13 May 1966 (Alnati), NJ 1967 3, NILR 1968 82, Rev. Crit. 1967 522, Clunet 1969 1010. See also the last dictum in the Sensor case, note 1. The doctrine has been adopted by Article 7(1) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Rome 19 June 1980, Official Journal of the EC No. L266 (not yet in force) in a mitigated version: “…effect may be given to the mandatory rules of the law of an other country with which the situation has a close connection, if and in so far as, under the law of the latter country, those rules must be applied whatever the law applicable to the contract”. See J.C. Schultsz, RabelsZ. 47 (1983) 267.
12. New Zealand v. Ortiz, [1982] 3 WLR 570. Affirmed by [1983] 2 WLR 809 (HL). Comment by Susan M. Nott 33 ICLQ (1984) 203.
13. At p.585 and 581, respectively.
The judgment on appeal shows some confusion between the unenforceability of foreign public laws on the one hand, and the situs requirement (lex rei sitae rule) on the other. Strikwerda calls it formal territoriality and material (substantive) territoriality, see: Semipubliekrecht in het conflictenrecht, 1978, p. 6. Cf. E.M. Meijers, L'histoire des principes fondamentaux du d.i.p. à partir du Moyen Age, RdC 1934 III p. 576. As to the lex rei sitae rule, see my observations above on the Dutch decision.
14. 77 AJIL 633 (1983).
15. 18 U.S.C. par. 2314, 2315.
16. At p. 1000 and 1001 note 28. In this case it had not been proved that the exportation had occurred after the Mexican declaration of national ownership of all pre-Columbian movable artifacts (1972). However, convictions for conspiracy followed in McClain II, 593 F. 2d 658 (1979).
17. At p. 996.
18. At p. 1001 note 30.
19. GAOR 29 Suppl. 24 A (A/9624/Add. 1) p. 27. Also in ILM 1974 1513 and 26 ICLQ (1977) 86. I owe this comparison to H.G. Schermers, The Namibia Decree in National Courts, ICLQ 1977 81, at p. 91.
20. The U.K. does not even recognize the Council and considers the relevant Resolutions of the Security Council as not binding, this in spite of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, 16. The argument used is evidently pour les besoins de la cause, see Higgins, R., “The Advisory Opinion on Namibia”, ICLQ 1972, 270Google Scholar.
21. See note 16. See also I. Sagay, AJIL 1972 600. In the uranium business there are no “innocent purchasers”.
22. See also Zacklin, R., “The Problem of Namibia in International Law”, Hague Academy of Int. Law, CC 1981 II, 229, at p. 322Google Scholar: “Municipal courts of member States which have lecognized the authority of the Council may be expected to uphold the decree notwithstanding the lack of de facto control”.
23. Lammers, J.G. (Pollution of international watercourses, Thesis Leiden 1984, p. 152Google Scholar) searching for rules of customary international law, observes that statements made by States serving their immediate self-interest “are of dubious value”, whereas a recognition of the existence of an obligation on the part of the State making the statement “provides more reliable evidence of the state of the law”. The Reagan pipeline regulations cannot contribute to the formation of new rules of international law, if only because a similar intervention by a foreign State in U.S. affairs “would probably not be recognized and enforced by U.S. courts” (EEC Memorandum, see note 2).
24. Resolution of 14 December 1962 on permanent sovereignty over natural resources. For: 87 (inter alios Belgium, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, U.K., U.S.A.). Against: 2 (France, South-Africa). Abstained: 12.
25. See: Verbatim Record of the Seminar on legal issues concerning the question of Namibia, June 1981, A/AC. 131/SLI/PV. 1–6, and my report “Namibian uranium” submitted to that Seminar, A/AC. 131/SLI/L.1, Dutch version in NJB 1981 469.
26. Peters, P., “Extraterritoriale Wetgeving”, Med. NVIR No. 89 05 1984, at p. 86Google Scholar, mentions, among the category of regulations with the strongest claim for extraterritorial application, sanctions based on mandatory resolutions of the Security Council and regulations based on a decision of the ICJ; probably also those based on an advisory opinion.