Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:59:21.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art Loans and Immunity from Seizure in the United States and the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2010

Lawrence M. Kaye
Lawrence M. Kaye
Affiliation:
Herrick, Feinstein, New York, NY 10016. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some countries' laws favoring good-faith purchasers over the victims of theft make it difficult to recover stolen artworks. Nonetheless, the loan of such artworks for exhibition abroad may create opportunities to utilize the host country's legal system for recovery. This article examines representative cases illustrating legal options available to plaintiffs in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States, laws at the federal and state level may prevent the seizure of artworks loaned for temporary exhibition, but recent cases show that immunity is not absolute and that such artworks may be subject to suit in the United States. The United Kingdom recently enacted a similar law. That law, however, has been criticized, and future interpretations by U.K. courts will be needed before its true affect can be seen. The article also discusses the backgrounds against which the U.S. and U.K. laws were enacted, illustrating the link between the laws and Russian concerns about protecting cultural artifacts that were nationalized after the Russian Revolution or taken by Soviet troops during World War II.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 17 , Issue 2: SPECIAL ISSUE: Spoils of War v. Cultural Heritage: The Russian Cultural Property Law in Historical Context , May 2010 , pp. 335 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2010

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

Commission for Looted Art in Europe. Response to Consultation Paper on Anti-Seizure Legislation. ⟨http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Commission_for_LAEU.pdf⟩ accessed 2010 March 12.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. E. S. “Some Foreign Effects of Nationalization of Property.” British Year Book of International Law 27 (1950): 355–75.Google Scholar
“Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.” Trans. by Akinsha, Konstantin and Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. International Journal of Cultural Property (2010, Appendix 1, this issue).Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas H. “A Policy Analysis of the American Law of Foreign State Immunity.” Fordham Law Review 50 (1981): 155–238.Google Scholar
Horne, Alexander, and Ward, Philip. “The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill.” House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/22. ⟨http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/RP07-022.pdf⟩ (1 March 2007) accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, Gregor, and O'Connell, Anna. “Immunity from Seizure Becomes Law in the United Kingdom.” American Bar Association Section of International Law, Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter 1, no. 1 (Winter 2008).Google Scholar
Monten, Lina M. “Case Note and Comment: Soviet World War II Trophy Art in Present Day Russia: The Events, the Law, and the Current Controversies.” DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law 15 (2004): 37–98.Google Scholar
O'Connell, Anna. “The United Kingdom's Immunity from Seizure Legislation.” LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 20/2008. ⟨http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/WPS2008-20_OConnell.pdf⟩ (2008) accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
Royal Academy of Arts. “About the Exhibition: From Russia: French and Russian Master Paintings 1870–1925 from Moscow and St. Petersburg.” ⟨http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/from-russia/about-the-exhibition,500,AR.html⟩ accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
Royal Academy of Arts. “From Russia: French and Russian Master Paintings 1870–1925 from Moscow and St. Petersburg,” press release. ⟨http://static.royalacademy.org.uk/files/from-russia-press-release-212.pdf⟩ (22 October 2007) accessed 14 March 2010.Google Scholar
Royal Academy of Arts. “Russian Government Gives Final Approval for Royal Academy Exhibition,” press release. ⟨http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/from-russia/statement-regarding-from-russia-french-and-russian-master-paintings-1870-1925-from-moscow-and-st-petersburg,544,AR.html⟩ (9 January 2008) accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
Tate, Jack B. “Letter to the Acting Attorney General.” Department of State Bulletin 26 (1952): 984.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. “Protection of Items on Loan from Abroad.” ⟨http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/cultural_property/5122.aspx⟩ accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture. “Combating Illicit Trade: Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material.” ⟨http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Combating_Illicit_Trade05.pdf⟩ (October 2005) accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture. “Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill: Regulatory Impact Assessments.” ⟨http://www.dca.gov.uk/risk/tce_bill.pdf⟩ (16 November 2006) accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture. “Consultation Paper on the Draft Regulations for the Publication by Museums and Galleries of Information for the Purposes of Immunity from Seizure under Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.” ⟨http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/Consultation_paper_on_antiseizure_legislation.pdf⟩ accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture. “Explanatory Memorandum to the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan (Publication and Provision of Information) Regulations 2008.” ⟨http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/em/uksiem_20081159_en.pdf⟩ (2008) accessed 14 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Department for Culture. “The Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Regulations (Publication and Provision of Information) Regulations 2008.” ⟨http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081159_en_1⟩ (2008) accessed 14 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Ministry of Justice. “Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act: Explanatory Notes.” ⟨http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/en/ukpgaen_20070015_en_1⟩ (2007) accessed 14 March 2010.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State. “Immunity from Judicial Seizure: Cultural Objects.” United States Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser. ⟨http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3432.htm⟩ accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State. “Statute Providing for Immunity from Judicial Seizure of Certain Cultural Objects: Check List for Applicants.” U.S. Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser. ⟨http://www.state.gov/s/l/3196.htm⟩ accessed 12 March 2010.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Rodney M. “Immunity from Seizure for Artworks on Loan to United States Museums.” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 6 (Winter 1984–1985): 1121–45Google Scholar