This article analyzes the role played by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) in promoting the settlement of disputes barred by the non-retroactivity of the 1970 UNESCO Convention through an assessment of its impact on the dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom over the Parthenon Sculptures. The analysis first focuses on the ICPRCP’s regular mandate, followed by an evaluation of some “collateral effects” that it might have had on the dispute. Through the examination of all reports, recommendations, and decisions issued by the ICPRCP and the performance of a wider interdisciplinary case study, it is argued that the ICPRCP has had an impact on the dispute, both directly and indirectly. The value of these conclusions is to shed light on the complex factors in interplay in voluntary and non-binding dispute settlement mechanisms such as the ones performed by the ICPRCP and to represent a framework for further studies on the ICPRCP’s work and alternative dispute resolution methods in general.

The key issue addressed in this article is authenticity, which is a criterion that is no longer limited to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s world heritage domain. This article draws from one of the most interesting public projects in the United States – the John F. Kennedy (JFK) Terminal 5/6 Redevelopment Plan, which was part of the larger JFK master plan. The project’s Trans World Airlines (TWA) terminal, which is the only landmarked terminal and remnant of the original JFK airport plan, raised concerns. In 2001, the debate started off with keeping the terminal building active for aviation use and experiences. Nonetheless, the terminal was reimagined into a luxury hotel in 2019. This article unveils the micro-politics in the redevelopment plan and examines the authenticity of the TWA terminal and how it was (re)constructed. In doing so, the article sheds light on urban law and the decision-making process. Moreover, it discusses the tangible and intangible consequences of the prevailing speculative logic in the law.

University-based anthropology museums are uniquely positioned to pursue nuanced decisions concerning the disposition of collections in their care, setting best practice for the field. The authors describe a three-staged approach to repatriations that they led during their concurrent service as head of cultural policy and repatriation (Jordan Jacobs) and director (Benjamin Porter) of the University of California, Berkeley’s Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology between 2015 and 2019. Examples involving human remains and cultural objects from Australia, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Saipan, Senegal, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and South Carolina in the United States demonstrate the benefits of transparency, open communication, and rigorous investigation of provenance and provenience, which may or may not lead to transfer based on the criteria and priorities of potential recipients. This article also provides a history of the Hearst Museum’s Cultural Policy and Repatriation division, which was disbanded in 2021.

This article offers a critical appraisal of the evolution of Italian cultural heritage law with respect to issues of colonial and war restitution and of control over the import of potentially trafficked cultural property. As Italy is usually considered a “source country” and a victim of historical depredations, a form of “selective blindness” to its colonial past and to its role at the receiving end of both past and current misappropriations of cultural objects is discussed. Some recent restitutions of cultural property taken in times of colonial occupation are also analyzed as signs of a possible change in policy and practice, but the article also highlights the features of political expediency that have influenced them as well as the many legal and practical obstacles still to be faced by restitution and repatriation claims. Finally, the potential effects of recent (mostly international) inputs on Italy’s cultural heritage policy are presented.