In recent literature on the restitution of Nazi-looted art, reference can be found to notions of morality as impetus for the return of cultural property to claimants who, although they may be able to evidence their ownership to an object, are stymied by onerous legal frameworks. With such claims, it is often the recognition of a moral entitlement or obligation that leads to a resolution regarding restitution. This conflation of morality with justice seems to have taken hold, in particular, with the articulation of the Washington Principles in 1998, which call on nation-states to create alternative dispute resolution processes for the fair and just resolution of Nazi-looted art claims. In determining what is fair and just in the resolution of these looted art claims, regard is often made to the strength of a party’s moral claim to the property. The exercise of notions of morality is often seen as resulting in a fair and just outcome, linking morality with the fair and just solution of such cultural property claims. But, it is justice on what ground? Is morality the proper yardstick by which to determine whether outcomes of restitution claims are just and fair? This article explores the use of morality and offers an argument that it should not be the basis on which entitlement should be determined, primarily due to its amorphous nature and undefined relationship to justice. This is further supported by a claimant narrative suggesting that concepts of reconciliation and procedural fairness are of concern to claimants rather than recognition of moral entitlement. Having regard to these concerns, the article recognizes a need for a new conceptual framework from which to assess the delivery of the just and fair solution and that reflects these concerns.

This article addresses a methodological lacuna in studies of African cultural property: states are rarely subjected to the same detailed ethnographic enquiry as communities local to heritage sites. I argue that this is the result of historical circumstances and disciplinary trends treating states as nebulous “up there” entities distinct from the grassroots—and, thus, subject to different modes of enquiry. I demonstrate a corrective approach through a historical ethnographic examination of the government of Lesotho’s archives, examining a period from 1991 to 1993 that saw early efforts to create a national monument at Thaba Bosiu. This detailed view reveals habits of thinking about heritage among bureaucrat-intellectuals, administrators, and international consultants. It offers new insights into how state actors articulated visions for new industries, public participation, and spirituality in public life as well as how to demonstrate incapacity to secure future development funds.

Scholars argue for greater law enforcement resources for art fraud and forgery investigations, yet these victims rarely report their victimization. While fraud victims generally report at lower rates than street crimes, statistics show they do come forward. Using Niels Christie’s ideal victim theory, this article will argue that art fraud victims occupy a lower position in a hierarchy of victims—where some are more worthy of justice, social support, and public sympathy—than those of other kinds of fraud. This may be due to their perceived personal shortcomings and participation in a market that leaves openings for fraud. Public antipathy toward art fraud victims and the silence of the art community may contribute to what many view as insufficient law enforcement resources for investigations because of the collaborative nature of community policing in many Western countries. Increased reporting and communication with law enforcement could address this problematic cycle.

In Latin America, conflict-of-law norms have not appropriately considered the cultural diversity that exists in their legal systems. However, developments towards the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ human rights, at the international and national levels, impose the task of considering such diversity. In that regard, within the conflict-of-law realm, interpersonal law offers a useful perspective. This article proposes a conflict-of-law rule that can contribute to clarity and legal certainty, offering a sound way of dealing at the national level with Indigenous peoples’ claims for restitution of property with a cultural value for them, which is framed in international instruments on human rights.

The Khmer Rouge’s impact on Cambodia’s ancient heritage has been understudied. There are, at present, no major resources that explicitly present a centralized compilation of data or information regarding the relationship between the communist regime and the temples of Angkor nor the various damaging effects that a decade of internecine upheavals have had on the monuments. This absence of primary material is surprising considering the extensive archaeological and conservational work that has taken place in Cambodia, and not to mention the international fascination with Angkor. This article aims to take the first steps in redressing this palpable gap in the literature—it is a brief inquiry into the cause and effect of damage, desecration, and destruction committed to the major Angkorian monuments and the treatment of Cambodia’s ancient, tangible heritage by successive political regimes. It also attempts to deal with the inadequate nature of existing documentation that has hindered any analysis of the issues at hand. I restrict my attention to the Buddhist complexes in Cambodia with a focus on four phases of violence: “Operation Menu” or the American bombardment of 1969–70; the Cambodian Civil War, 1970–75; Democratic Kampuchea’s occupancy of power, 1975–79; and the Vietnamese invasion of 1978–79. In regard to what exactly happened to these monumental complexes at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, I have covered structural damage from conventional weaponry; the use, and, in most cases, misuse, of the temples by various political factions (including strategic, practical and quotidian, and propagandistic use); and the effect of conservation interruption and looting. In light of the recent destruction of cultural heritage in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq and the recent conflict in Mali, these issues remain perpetually relevant in world affairs.