Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:29:14.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Legislation Seeks to Confirm Immunity of Artwork and Facilitate Cultural Exchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On December 16, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (FCEJICA). This act amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) in order to confirm the jurisdictional immunity of foreign states in connection with lending artwork to the United States for temporary exhibit. The FCEJICA contains two exceptions, described below, that introduce some uncertainty about the extent of protection the statute provides to foreign states.

Type
State Jurisdiction and Immunity
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 510 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 114-319 (2016) [hereinafter FCEJICA]; see also Alyssa Buffenstein, Obama Signs Law that Could Reopen Cultural Exchange with Russia, Artnet News (Jan. 5, 2017), at https://news.artnet.com/art-world/obama-signs-law-cultural-exchange-russia-805304; Ingrid Wuerth, An Art Museum Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Lawfare (Jan. 2, 2017, 12:48 PM), at https:// www.lawfareblog.com/art-museum-amendment-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act.

2 22 U.S.C. §2459.

3 H.R. Rep. No. 89-1070 (1965).

4 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3).

5 H.R. Rep. No. 114-141, 2 (2015).

6 Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 362 F.Supp.2d 298, 300 (D.D.C. 2005).

7 Id. at 301.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 301–03.

10 Id. at 303.

11 Id. at 300.

12 Id. at 303.

13 Statement of Interest of the United States at 6, Malewicz, No. 1:04-cv-00024-RMC, available at https:// www.state.gov/s/l/2004/78110.htm.

14 Malewicz, 362 F.Supp.2d at 315–16 (denying the first motion to dismiss); see also Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 517 F.Supp.2d 322, 340 (D.D.C. 2007) (denying the renewed motion to dismiss).

15 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3) (emphasis added).

16 Malewicz, 517 F.Supp.2d at 340.

17 Malewicz, 362 F.Supp.2d at 311–12.

18 Carol Vogel and Clifford J. Levy, Dispute Derails Art Loans from Russia, N.Y. Times (Feb. 2, 2011), at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/arts/design/03museum.html; H.R. Rep. No. 114-141, 1–2 (2015) (“This has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to export artwork and cultural objects to the United States for temporary exhibition or display.”).

19 House Rep. 114-141 at 6 (citations omitted).

20 FCEJICA, supra note 1.

21 See supra note 15 and corresponding text.

22 28 U.S.C. §1605(h)(1).

23 See supra note 15 and corresponding text.

24 §1605(h)(2)(A).

25 House Rep. 114-141 at 7.

26 §1605(h)(2)(B).

27 Doreen Carvajal, Dispute over Bill on Borrowed Art, N.Y. Times (May 21, 2012), at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/arts/design/dispute-over-bill-to-protect-art-lent-to-museums.html.

28 Id.

29 Wuerth, supra note 1. Wuerth also points out that, by excluding any explicit requirement for a violation of international law, this second exception to the FCEJICA “arguably supports the groundbreaking 2016 D.C. Circuit opinion in Simon v. Republic of Hungary … [which] held that confiscations of property can themselves constitute genocide and accordingly violate international law regardless of the nationality of the party from whom the property was taken.” Id.