This article explores the history and present operation of the Waverley system, the United Kingdom's art export policy established in 1952. A key component of the article is its attempt to illuminate the little-known story surrounding the birth of the system, which has been pieced together using treasury and Board of Trade papers held in the National Archives. The article then examines, both qualitatively and quantitatively, how responsibility for the system has evolved. The main pattern that emerges is the progressive detachment of the treasury: Although it spearheaded the formation of the Waverley system in 1952, today it is much more removed, in terms of administration and attitude, from the system.

Defining the relationship between folklore and intellectual property continues to be an ongoing debate. Some challenges in defining this relationship center on the main characteristics of intellectual property, namely, the eligibility criteria and limited protection period that make the current construction of intellectual property incompatible with folklore protection. However, countries like Ghana have been using the intellectual property system as one of its tools to protect folklore. This article focuses on traditional textile design protection in Ghana, establishing the importance and significance of these designs in Ghana's history and culture and why Ghana is determined to protect these designs. After examining Ghana's efforts and the obstacles in its path as it uses the intellectual property law system to protect traditional textile designs, the article argues that there should be regional cooperation and international protection to strengthen individual national efforts.

A long-running dispute between the Beaverbrook Art Gallery and its benefactor foundations illustrates the need for documentation of gifts or loans of artwork. At issue in this dispute is ownership of over 200 of the paintings on display at the gallery valued at up to $200 million. None of the parties to the dispute has been able to produce records to establish that the paintings were either a gift or on loan to the Beaverbrook. Instead the parties have had to rely on newspaper and magazine articles, speeches, gallery catalogues, and export documents to substantiate their positions. Central to the dispute has been the role of the First Lord Beaverbrook and whether his actions amounted to a breach of his fiduciary duty to the gallery. This article examines the particulars of the parties' claims as well as the decisions that have been made to date. Final resolution of the dispute is not expected until all appeals have been decided.

The Protected Objects Amendment Act (POA) was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, so New Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995. This represents a significant delay after the drafting of these two conventions. This article explores why New Zealand has taken so long to give domestic effect to these conventions and examines the manner in which they have been given domestic legal effect in the POA. The article also focuses on issues of Māori cultural property, the practical implementation of the POA, and the cultural heritage climate in New Zealand.

Blanket ownership laws, export restrictions, and the criminal law of market nations are the default legal strategies currently used by nations of origin to prevent the looting of archaeological sites. Although they have been remarkably successful at achieving the return of looted objects, they may not be the best strategies to maximize the recording and preservation of archaeological context. In England and Wales a more permissive legal regime broadly applied and adopted by the public at large has produced dramatically better results than the strong prescriptive regime of Scotland, which can be easily ignored.

This article attempts to clear up any misconceptions of the cultural policy framework in England and Wales. It accounts for the legal position accorded undiscovered portable antiquities, and describes how this legal framework is perfected by a voluntary program called the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). This approach stands in stark contrast to Scotland, which has used a legal strategy adopted by most other nations of origin.

The domestic legal framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique and differs from the typical approach. Coupled with the PAS, this legal structure has resulted in a better cultural policy, which leads to less looting of important archaeological sites, allows for a tailored cultural policy, and has produced more data and contextual information with which to conduct historical and archaeological research on an unprecedented scale. Compensating finders of antiquities may even preclude an illicit market in antiquities so long as this compensation is substantially similar to the market price of the object and effectively excludes looters from this reward system. Although the precise number of found versus looted objects that appear on the market is open to much speculation, an effective recording system is essential to ensure that individuals who find objects are encouraged to report them.

This case arose out of a controversy over the return of a Māori head from the collection of a city of Rouen museum to New Zealand. The case raised the issue of whether the head was a French public good that required declassification before it could be returned or a body part (and not a work of art) that could be immediately returned for appropriate treatment in its place of origin.