Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:34:49.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fight Against the Illicit Trade in Asian Cultural Artefacts: Connecting International Agreements, Regional Co-operation, and Domestic Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2013

Stefan GRUBER
Stefan GRUBER*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Looting and illicit trafficking of cultural artefacts pose major threats to Asia's cultural heritage. This not only causes a continuing loss of cultural objects but also the destruction of large numbers of archaeological and historical sites as objects are often looted from tombs or cut off from larger pieces in order to obtain transportable parts for sale on the international art market. In addition, items are stolen from collections and museums or are trafficked in violation of export bans. This article explores the relevant international conventions dealing with the prevention of the illicit export of cultural artefacts and their repatriation, examines how those legal instruments are implemented in Asia and extended in bilateral agreements between market and source countries, and how particularly regional co-operation between Asian nations, international solidarity and assistance, and relevant domestic approaches can assist in improving the situation.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 341 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Lecturer, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney. Legal practitioner (Chamber of Lawyers, Frankfurt am Main). The author would like to thank the participants of the 6th Asian Law Institute (ASLI) Annual Conference: Dynamics of Change in Asia, at the University of Hong Kong, the 3rd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop 2012-Asian Approaches to International Law: Organisations, Laws, Oceans, Environment, Trade & Finance, and Rights, at the National University of Singapore, and the workshop on Contemporary Perspectives on the Detection, Investigation, and Prosecution of Art Crime, at the ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS) at Griffith University, and particularly Professor Simon CHESTERMAN and Dr TAN Hsien-Li from the National University of Singapore Law School and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

1. See e.g. Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982), art. 22; Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1948), art. 9; Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987), art. 14.

2. Ben BOER and Stefan GRUBER, “Heritage Discourses” in Kim RUBENSTEIN and Brad JESSUP, eds., Environmental Discourses in International and Public Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar

3. DILLON, Michael, China: A Modern History (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010) at 103Google Scholar

4. GREENFIELD, Jeanette, The Return of Cultural Treasures, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) at 254Google Scholar

5. “Chinese Lawyers Apply for Injunction to Stop Sale of Stolen Relics” China Daily (22 February 2009), online: China Daily <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn>; “Beijing Can't Stop Saint Laurent Sale” Forbes.com (23 February 2009), online: Forbes.com <http://www.forbes.com>.

6. ARKELL, Roland, “Christie's Face Chinese Threats as Buyer Refuses to Pay” Antiques Trade Gazette (9 March 2009)Google Scholar

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Le-Min, LIM and LIU, John, “Chinese Buyer of Saint Laurent's Qing Bronzes Refuses to Pay” Bloomberg (2 March 2009)Google Scholar

10. Arkell, supra note 6Google Scholar

11. See related information by the Cultural Property Crimes Program of Interpol on the website of the US Department of Justice and the US National Central Bureau of Interpol, online: <http://www.usdoj.gov/usncb/programs/cultural_property_program.php>.

12. Neil BRODIE, “An Archaeologist's View of the Trade in Unprovenanced Antiquities” in Barbara HOFFMAN, ed, Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

13. MANACORDA, Stefano ed, Organized Crime in Art and Antiquities (Milan: ISPAC, 2009)Google Scholar

14. Duncan CHAPPELL and Kenneth POLK, “Unraveling the ‘Cordata’: Just How Organized is the International Traffic in Cultural Objects?” in Stefano MANACORDA and Duncan CHAPPELL, eds, Crime in the Art and Antiquities World (New York: Springer, 2011)Google Scholar

15. MURPHY, David, “The People's Republic of China and the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property: Is the Embargo the Answer?” (1994) 3 International Journal of Cultural Property 227 at 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

PALMER, Charles A., “Recovering Stolen Art: Avoiding the Pitfalls” (2003) 82 Michigan Bar Journal 20 at 21Google Scholar

16. “200,000 Ancient Tombs Plundered in Past Decades” Xinhua (5 July 2005).

17. “More Than 10 Million Chinese Cultural Relics Lost Overseas” People's Daily Online (30 January 2007), online: People's Daily <http://english.people.com.cn>.

18. CHAMBERLIN, Russell, Loot! The Heritage of Plunder (London: Thames and Hudson, 1983)Google Scholar

19. FELCH, Jason and SUSMAN, Tina, “Federal Agents Might Seize Khmer Statue” Los Angeles Times (6 April 2012)Google Scholar

MASHBERG, Tom and BLUMENTHAL, Ralph, “Mythic Warrior Is Captive in Global Art Conflict” New York Times (28 February 2012)Google Scholar

20. BLUMENTHAL, Ralph and MASHBERG, Tom, “Officials Are Set to Seize Antiquity” New York Times (4 April 2012)Google Scholar

21. “Cambodian Illicit Artifact Trade Booms as War Ends” Kyodo News International (8 February 1999), online: The Free Library <http://www.thefreelibrary.com>.

22. McGEOWN, Kate, “Race to Save Cambodia's Heritage” BBC News (9 June 2004)Google Scholar

23. LAFONT, Masha, Pillaging Cambodia: The Illicit Traffic in Khmer Art (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2004)Google Scholar

24. SAYARE, Scott, “Chatter of Swindles and Scams at Auction House” New York Times (26 April 2010)Google Scholar

25. DAVIS, Tess, “Cambodia's Looted Treasures: Plundered Temples Mean the History of Many is Lost for the Pleasure of a Few” Los Angeles Times (25 April 2012)Google Scholar

26. Charney, supra note 13Google Scholar

27. Lyndel V. PROTT, “National and International Laws on Protection of the Cultural Heritage” in Kathryn TUBB, ed., Antiquities Trade or Betrayed-Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues (London: Archetype Publications, 1995)Google Scholar

28. Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and Natural Museums (Thailand), B.E. 2504 [1961], s. 24.

29. FISKESJO, Magnus, “Tomb Raiders and Destruction of History” China Daily (23 June 2010)Google Scholar

30. O'KEEFE, Patrick J., Trade in Antiquities-Reducing Destruction and Theft (London: Archetype Publications, 1997) at 18Google Scholar

31. HOAGLAND, Porter, “China” in Sarah DROMGOOLE, ed., Legal Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National and International Perspectives (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 19 at 26Google Scholar

32. GRUBER, Stefan, “Protecting China's Cultural Heritage Sites in Times of Rapid Change: Current Developments, Practice and Law” (2007) 10 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 253 at 292Google Scholar

33. GERSTENBLITH, Patty, “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past” (2007) 8 Chicago Journal of International Law 169 at 169Google Scholar

34. Gruber, supra note 32 at 292Google Scholar

35. Dafydd NELSON, “Economic Woes, Art Theft, and Money Laundering: A Perfect Recipe” in Noah CHARNEY, ed., Art and Crime: Exploring the Dark Side of the Art World (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Press, 2009)Google Scholar

36. Guido CARDUCCI, “‘Repatriation’, ‘Restitution’ and ‘Return’ of ‘Cultural Property’: International Law and Practice” in Mille GABRIEL and Jens DAHL, eds., Utimut: Past Heritage-Future Partnerships, Discussions on Repatriation in the 21st Century (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2008)Google Scholar

37. ATWOOD, Roger, “The Loot Route” ARTnews (February 2008)Google Scholar

BOGDANOS, Matthew, “The Terrorist in the Art Gallery” New York Times (10 December 2005)Google Scholar

38. SULLIVAN, Kevin, “Stolen ‘Scream’ Painting Recovered after 2-Year Search” Washington Post (1 September 2006)Google Scholar

39. “Man Detained in Palace Museum Theft” People's Daily Online (12 May 2011), online: People's Daily <http://english.peopledaily.com.cn>.

40. “Rewards Offered for Palace Museum Stolen Relics” Xinhua (18 May 2011), online: People's Daily Online <http://english.people.com.cn>.

41. BOGDANOS, Matthew, “Opinion: Illegal Antiquities Trade Funds Terrorism” CNN (7 July 2011)Google Scholar

42. TORRE, Laura DE LA, “Terrorists Raise Cash by Selling Antiquities” (2006) 4 Government Security News 1Google Scholar

Atwood, supra note 37Google Scholar

43. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231 (entered into force 24 April 1972) [1970 UNESCO Convention].

44. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, 24 June 1995, 2421 U.N.T.S. 457 (entered into force 1 July 1998) [1995 UNIDROIT Convention].

45. 1970 UNESCO Convention, supra note 43, art. 1.

46. SKEATES, Robin, Debating the Archaeological Heritage (London: Duckworth, 2000) at 40Google Scholar

47. An updated list of all States Parties is available on the website of UNESCO at <http://portal.unesco.org>.

48. GERSTENBLITH, Patty, Art, Cultural Heritage, and the Law, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2008) at 622−633Google Scholar

49. Lyndel V. PROTT, “UNESCO International Framework for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage” in James A.R. NAFZIGER and Ann M. NICGORSKI, eds., Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization, and Commerce (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009)Google Scholar

50. 1970 UNESCO Convention, supra note 43, art. 5.

51. Ibid., art. 7(b)(ii).

52. See particularly 1970 UNESCO Convention, supra note 43, art. 9.

53. MAZURKEWICH, Karen, “End of an Era” The Asian Wall Street Journal (4 March 2005), 1Google Scholar

54. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material from the Paleolithic Period Through the Tang Dynasty and Monumental Sculpture and Wall Art At Least 250 Years Old, 14 January 2009, online: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Department of State <http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/chfact.html> [US-China Agreement].

55. Around 75,000 bce.

56. 907 ce.

57. The list of items from China restricted by the US Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security and Department of the Treasury, effective from 16 January 2009, is available at Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Material from China (United States of America), 74(11) Fed Reg 2838−2844 (16 January 2009), online: US Government Printing Office <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-16/html/E9-848.htm>.

58. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material, 19 September 2003, online: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Department of State <http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/cbfact/pdfs/cb2003mou.pdf>.

59. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Cambodia from the Bronze Age Through the Khmer Era, 26 August 2008, online: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Department of State <http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/cbfact/pdfs/cb2008mouext.pdf> [US-Cambodia Agreement].

60. Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Khmer Stone Archaeological Material of the Kingdom of Cambodia, 64 (231) Fed Reg 67479−67481 (2 December 1999), online: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Department of State <http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/cbfact/pdfs/cb1999eadl.pdf>.

61. The list of items from Cambodia restricted by the US Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, effective from 22 September 2003, can be accessed at Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Materials from Cambodia (United States of America), 68(183) Fed Reg 55000−55005 (22 September 2003), online: : US Government Printing Office <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-09-22/html/03-24085.htm>. For the extended list, effective from 19 September 2008, see Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material from Cambodia (United States of America), 73(183) Fed Reg 54309−54313 (19 September 2008), online: US Government Printing Office <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-09-19/html/E8-22034.htm>.

62. US-Cambodia Agreement, supra note 59, art. I A.

63. US-China Agreement, supra note 54, art. II 6.

64. US-Cambodia Agreement, supra note 59, art. II G.

65. US-China Agreement, supra note 54, art. II; US-Cambodia Agreement, supra note 59, art. II.

66. US-China Agreement, supra note 54, art. II; US-Cambodia Agreement, supra note 59, art. II (11).

67. EFRAT, Asif, Governing Guns, Preventing Plunder: International Cooperation Against Illicit Trade (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Ibid., at 48.

69. Ibid.

70. Barbara HOFFMAN, “Introduction to Parts II and III: Cultural Rights, Cultural Property, and International Trade” in Barbara Hoffman, ed., Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

71. Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property (Switzerland) (2005) art. 1(1).

72. Ibid., art. 5−9.

73. Colombia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, and Peru.

74. PROTT, Lyndel V., Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995 (Leicester: Institute of Art and Law, 1997)Google Scholar

75. PROTT, Lyndel V., “UNESCO and UNIDROIT: A Partnership against Trafficking in Cultural Objects” (1996) 1 Uniform Law Review 56 at 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prott, supra note 49 at 266Google Scholar

76. The term “cultural objects” is defined in 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, supra note 44, art. 1.

77. Ibid.

78. Prott, supra note 49 at 266Google Scholar

BOER, Ben and WIFFEN, Graeme, Heritage Law in Australia (South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2006) at 42Google Scholar

79. LEHMANN, Jennifer, “The Continued Struggle with Stolen Cultural Property: The Hague Convention, the UNESCO Convention, and the UNIDROIT Draft Convention” (1997) 14(2) Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 527 at 542Google Scholar

80. Ibid. at 548. For a general discussion of the role of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention in international arbitration, see Emily SIDORSKYA, “The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects: The Role of International Arbitration” (1996) 5 International Journal of Cultural Property 19.

81. Prott, supra note 49 at 267Google Scholar

82. 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, supra note 44, art. 3(1).

83. Lehmann, supra note 79 at 531Google Scholar

84. BRODIE, Neil, DOOLE, Jenny, and WATSON, Peter, Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material (Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2000) at 40Google Scholar

85. 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, supra note 44, art. 4(1).

86. See e.g. Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics of 2007, arts. 7, 8 [PRC Cultural Relics Law]; Decree of the President of the Lao People's Democratic Republic on the Preservation of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage (1997), art. 22, online: UNESCO Bangkok <http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/cultureMain/Instruments/Lao_PDR_Presidential_Decree__English_.pdf>; also see Law on Cultural Heritage (Socialist Republic of Vietnam) [Law #28/2001/QH10], arts. 6, 7, online: UNESCO Bangkok <http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/vietnam/vn_law_cltal_heritage_engtof.pdf>.

87. 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, supra note 44, art. 3(2).

88. An updated list of all States Parties to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention is available on the website of UNIDROIT at <http://www.unidroit.org/english/implement/i-95.pdf>.

89. Carducci, supra note 36 at 123Google Scholar

90. Agreement Between the Government of Cambodia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand to Combat Against Illicit Trafficking and Cross-border Smuggling of Movable Cultural Property and to Restitute it to the Country of Origin (signed and entered into force 14 June 2000), online: UNESCO <http://www.unesco.org> [Cambodia-Thailand Agreement].

91. Ibid., Preamble.

92. Ibid., art. 2.

93. Ibid., art. 3.

94. Ibid., art. 4(4).

95. Ibid., art. 4(5).

96. MURPHY, J. David, “Hong Kong, 1997, and the International Movement of Antiquities” (1995) 4 International Journal of Cultural Property 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mei Wan CAMPBELL, “Laws in the People's Republic of China Protecting its Cultural and Intellectual Properties” in Marilyn E. PHELAN, ed., The Law of Cultural Property and Natural Heritage: Protection, Transfer, and Access (Evanston, IL: Kalos Kapp Press, 1998)Google Scholar

97. CAPA-Centre for Aviation, “Hong Kong International Airport a Regional and Global Force” (10 July 2012), online: CAPA-Centre for Aviation <http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/hong-kong-international-airport-a-regional-and-global-force-77710>.

98. “Top 10 Busiest Ports in the World” Marine Insight (14 June 2012), online: Marine Insight <http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/top-10-busiest-ports-in-the-world/>.

99. Mazurkewich, supra note 53 at P1Google Scholar

100. POMFRET, James and BLANCHARD, Ben, “Chinese Art Market on Tenterhooks Amid Bronzes Row” Reuters (9 March 2009)Google Scholar

101. O'DEA, Madeleine, “Looted Imperial Treasure Hits the Block at Christie's Hong Kong” ARTINFO (8 December 2010)Google Scholar

102. US-China Agreement, supra note 54, art. 2(6).

103. The member countries of ASEAN are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

104. ASEAN Declaration on Cultural Heritage, Bangkok, Thailand, 24−25 July 2000, ASEAN Documents Series (25 July 2000), art. 10.

105. Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects, online: UNESCO <http://www.unesco.org>.

106. Gruber, supra note 32 at 293Google Scholar

107. Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics, 19 November 1982.

108. Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics, 29 December 2007 [PRC Cultural Relics Law].

109. Ibid., art. 50.

110. Ibid., art. 53 for cultural relics stores, and art. 54 for auction enterprises.

111. Ibid., art. 55.

112. Ibid., art. 56(1).

113. MURPHY, J.D., “Art Auctions in China” (1996) 1(1) Art, Antiquity and Law 37Google Scholar

114. PRC Cultural Relics Law, supra note 108, art. 57.

115. Compilation of Law and Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Items of Cultural Property (2003), art. 7.

116. PRC Cultural Relics Law, supra note 108, art. 55(3).

117. Ibid., arts. 60−3.

118. Law for the Protection of Cultural Property (Japan) (1950).

119. Ibid., art. 44.

120. Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Cambodia) (1996).

121. Ibid., art. 11ff.

122. Ibid., art. 19.

123. Ibid., art. 8.

124. PRC Cultural Relics Law, supra note 108, art. 27ff.

125. See e.g. Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Republic of Korea), art. 55.

126. PRC Cultural Relics Law, supra note 108, art. 34.

127. Decree of the President of the Lao People's Democratic Republic on the Preservation of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage (1997), art. 22; Law on Cultural Heritage (Socialist Republic of Vietnam), art. 41.

128. See e.g. Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Cambodia), art. 34.

129. See further Measures of the People's Republic of China for the Administration of the Foreign-Related Archaeological Activities (1991).

130. Gruber, supra note 32 at 257Google Scholar

131. NEWELL, Phillip, “The PRC's Law for the Protection of Cultural Relics” (2008) 13 Art, Antiquity and Law 1 at 1Google Scholar

132. Greenfield, supra note 4 at 274Google Scholar

133. World Heritage Committee, Decisions Adopted at the 28th Session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, 2004), UNESCO Doc WHC-04/28 COM/26 (Paris, 29 October 2004), Decision 28COM 14B.35.

134. JIANG, Xueqing and ZHANG, Yuchen, “Forbidden City's Stolen Reputation” China Daily (13 May 2011)Google Scholar

135. Ibid.

136. “China Tightens Museum Security Amid Theft” Xinhua (7 September 2011).

137. Gruber, supra note 32 at 293−295Google Scholar

138. Stefan GRUBER, “Poverty and the Loss of Cultural Heritage Sites” in Yves LE BOUTHILLIER, Miriam Alfie COHEN, José Juan GONZÁLEZ MARQUEZ, Albert MUMMA, and Susan SMITH, eds., Poverty Alleviation and Environmental Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2012)Google Scholar

139. SHENG, Gao, “Recovering Illegally Removed Cultural Property and Improving Cultural Property Protection: A Chinese Perspective” (2009) 14 Art, Antiquity and Law 1 at 7−8Google Scholar

140. Cambodia-Thailand Agreement, supra note 90, art. 2(1)(c).

141. For further information on the Object ID standard, see the website of the International Council of Museums at <http://archives.icom.museum/object-id/index.html>.

142. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 3 March 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 243 (entered into force 1 July 1975).

143. LEMIEUX, Andrew M. and CLARKE, Ronald V., “The International Ban on Ivory Sales and its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa” (2009) 49 British Journal of Criminology 451CrossRefGoogle Scholar

144. REYNOLDS, Emma, “Worst Year for Elephants since Ivory Trade Banned with at least 2,500 Slaughtered for Ivory” Daily Mail (29 December 2011)Google Scholar

145. “Illegal Ivory Trade Flourishes once again” Shanghai Daily (17 February 2012), online: China.org <http://www.china.org.cn>.

146. See further Gerstenblith, supra note 33 at 195.