The bust of Nefertiti symbolizes the transformation of the Egyptian heritage where the West has become the rightful heir of Ancient Egypt through a system of knowledge production that controls the Egyptian cultural heritage in Western Museum collections. This article explores the intricacies of the entanglement of cultural property with heritage politics projected on the famous bust. It is the best example to discuss decolonization and its ethical implications on museum practice in the twenty-first century and Egyptology as an area study. The article discusses the legal and ethical framework of the bust of Nefertiti’s discovery, export, and current exhibition and its complex receptions in Germany and Egypt.

This article maps the field of cultural heritage law, arguing for the need for its renewal, even if at the cost of some iconoclasm of notions we hold dear in our conceptual thinking about heritage. The article pursues this thesis by excavating a conceptual archaeology (broadly in the Foucauldian sense) of four key assumptions or conceptual pillars of cultural heritage law, which are the assumption of inherent value of cultural heritage; the pillar of authenticity; the assumption that human rights can work as a panacea for the renewal of the field; and the pillar of expertise. The archaeology of these ideas shows how much of what we take for granted in cultural heritage law is no longer fit for purpose, and the article shows those stakes by contrasting the work of these pillars and assumptions against some of the key challenges to the field: interdisciplinarity; the Anthropocene; enforcement; and the growing use of heritage as an ideological target in armed conflicts.

The legal literature on refugee cultural heritage is limited, and cultural rights are part of the law that appropriately addresses refugee cultural heritage issues. Cultural heritage is integral to the definition of refugees; refugee protection must include safeguarding refugee cultural heritage.1 This Article reviews international law around refugees’ intangible cultural heritage, which incorporates refugee relationships with their tangible cultural heritage.2 It also frames the discussion around refugee intangible cultural heritage in a holistic paradigm that consolidates “refugee home heritage” (refugee intangible cultural heritage of home country) and “refuge heritage” (refugee intangible cultural heritage of refugee journey from persecution or conflict to resettlement or return). The Article finds that, whereas the international law framework lays the groundwork for such a holistic paradigm, international and national laws and state policy approaches must be reformed to achieve refugee protection in line with international obligations.

While disputes concerning the return of antiquities and artworks have become increasingly prevalent and receive public attention, the parallel issue of returning unlawfully exported fossils is rarely discussed. The fossils of “Ubirajara jubatus” and Irritator challengeri are prime examples of such disputes: they were taken from Brazil unlawfully, as Brazilian researchers allege, and displayed in German museums. The return disputes were characterized by both parties relying on arguments based almost exclusively on public (international) law. This Article explores private law as an alternative approach to these and similar disputes, discussing whether the fossils are the property of Brazil and could, therefore, be claimed in an action for restitution under German law. It finds that both fossils belong to Brazil since the museums did not acquire good title through a good faith purchase or acquisitive prescription.

Even though places of worship are protected by the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, they often become targets. To safeguard the cultural property of religious communities, it is necessary to plan for wartime protection under peaceful conditions, but studies of how this planning was conducted after 1945 are largely missing. This Article compares how the cultural property of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) has been planned for protection up until 2023. Cultural property protection was first introduced in World War II, but the Church had to plan and carry out most protective measures without state support. During the Cold War, a system for protecting movable property was developed that lasted until it was replaced in the 1980s by cultural protection plans that employed a more holistic approach to risk mitigation in peace as well as in war. Finally, the recent development and future challenges are discussed in relation to the 1954 Hague Convention and the reconstruction of a Swedish total defense due to the Russo-Ukrainian War.