The World Heritage Convention, revolutionary in its conception thirty years ago, has today become the most widely accepted international legal instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. Now, however, it requires adjustments if its successful implementation is to continue. These changes must not modify the Convention but must achieve an equivalent level of implementation. This article focuses on three issues, which are currently the subject of ongoing discussions: the representivity of the World Heritage List, equitable representation in the World Heritage Committee, and revision of the Operational Guidelines. The author not only describes the procedures for reform and the results achieved so far, but he also compares the legal provisions of this Convention to the other international legal instruments for the protection of cultural heritage.

In October 1997 the Times of London announced the sale by auction of fourteen hundred gold coins that formed part of the hoard lost by Clive of India when the East Indiaman Dodington was wrecked in Algoa Bay on July 17, 1755. The wreck and its contents lie within South African territorial waters and are protected by South African heritage legislation. Very little gold has ever been reported recovered, despite ongoing excavations, and only a single permit has been issued for the export and sale of twenty–one gold coins. This article will consider the legal steps taken to repatriate the coins, and the difficulties encountered when taking such steps before a foreign court. It evaluates the extent to which existing international conventions, including the recently adopted UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, are able to assist states in repatriating stolen or illegally exported underwater cultural heritage.

In 1999 a load of about sixty kilograms of ancient coins, looted from illegal excavations in Bulgaria and falsely declared, were stopped by German customs at the Frankfurt Airport, on its way to the United States. Notwithstanding any rights of ownership or administrative rights to confiscate the smuggled goods, in the end the coins were returned to the dealer. The main weakness proved to be the lack of interest in an “exotic” case like this and a lack of communication among all administrative agencies concerned.