The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

In June 2011, France returned to South Korea nearly 300 volumes of Korean royal archives from the Joseon Dynasty. French forces had seized them in an 1866 military campaign, and the volumes had resided in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) ever since. The return is not a legally permanent restitution, but rather a five-year renewable loan. The compromise followed years of unsuccessful negotiations and a noteworthy decision of a French administrative tribunal that found that the seized Korean archives constituted inalienable French property. The legal debate over the Korean manuscripts illustrates the unique complexities of treating archives as a form of cultural property in armed conflict. In the end, the imperfect compromise satisfies neither side: The BnF is deprived of custody of items that have formed part of its collections for more than 140 years while technically, and perhaps uselessly, retaining formal legal title; South Korea, meanwhile, has physical custody of the archives while suffering the indignity of being denied ownership over its own national heritage.

Continuous changes are happening in the legislation of preventive archaeology in Hungary. The protection of cultural heritage in Hungary is currently regulated by the Cultural Heritage Law Nr. LXIV of 2001, according to which, if an development project endangers an archaeological site and its replanning would raise the budget considerably, preventive excavation is needed. All the costs of the excavation should be covered by the investor, but the financing should be at least 0.9% of the total budget of the project. Normally, the archaeological works covered 1–5% of the overall cost of the constructions. This law made possible the complete excavation, documentation, deposition, and primary study of the finds endangered by the development.

The 16th Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation was held in Paris at the UNESCO headquarters, 21–23 September 2010.

On 15 and 16 March 2011 UNESCO held a meeting on The Fight Against the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Objects: The 1970 Convention: Past and Future at its Paris headquarters. The meeting served two purposes: an evaluation of the 1970 Convention, 40 years after its adoption, and a meeting of delegations to UNESCO who wanted to express their views on the problem of illicit traffic and how UNESCO should proceed to improve the present situation.

Whether from climate change, mass tourism, or decay of historical objects, cultural heritage researchers in Europe face many challenges. Common priorities became apparent at a conference about the EU project NET-HERITAGE on 24 March in Brussels. And among these and other important issues raised by the 170 participants were the economic and social value of cultural heritage for Europe.

Directed by Professor Dr. Kurt Siehr, Professor Dr. Wolfgang Ernst, and Dr. Andrea F. G. Raschèr, the seminar exposed the legal fundaments of art auctions and provided an overview of some underlying problems currently faced by practitioners and legal scholars. The seminar was followed by a panel discussion called the “Boon and Bane of Auction Houses for the Art Market,” gathering directors of auction houses as well as art market and art law experts.

Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, universities and nongovernmental organizations, as well as UNESCO, have held innumerable meetings, workshops, and conferences on the subject of illicit traffic by. The “Illicit Traffic in Cultural Objects: Law Ethics and the Realities” workshop, however, is distinguished by two important elements. First, it emphasizes the importance of the issue for Asian and Pacific countries. Although there have been some meetings focused on the region of Asia—such as the meeting in Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka, in 2003; one in Bangkok in 2004; and one specifically including oceanic countries in Brisbane in 1996—these are few compared to meetings held on illicit traffic in Europe and North America. The second aspect is the range of expertise of the participants. Though we are used to seeing dealers, archaeologists, and lawyers debate the subject, this workshop included on-the-ground managers, an expert in systems of detection, as well as specialists in particular fields such as underwater heritage, postconflict restoration. and criminology.

Protocols in international law seem to be proliferating. Examples of official protocols at international law abound, from the 1967 Stockholm Protocol Regarding Developing Countries (amending the Berne Convention on copyright), to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, to the recent Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing in 2010. But what exactly is a “protocol” compared to other international legal instruments, such as declarations and treaties? And why does there seem to be a flurry of new protocols today, in domains as vast as intellectual property and indigenous people's rights? On 19 August a new “working group” convened at the New York University School of Law to begin to study protocols, especially with an eye toward their use as a tool to protect indigenous cultural property—hence, the term “cultural protocols.” The working group is the brainchild of Dr. Jane Anderson of the University of Massachusetts and Professor Barton Beebe of the New York University School of Law.

In October 2011 the Cultural Heritage Law Committee of the International Law Association, under the chairmanship of Professor James Nafziger, met in Kohunlich, Quintana Roo, Mexico. The purpose of the meeting was to fuse culture with working sessions over a period of four days. The meeting took place amid fascinating Mayan ruins and the Kalakmul biosphere reserve near the Belizean border. It proved to be a great and successful venture.

Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War (ed.). Report 2009. The Hague: 2010. 88 pp. No ISBN or ISSN. No price. This is the last annual report of the Dutch Advisory Committee on Restitution. The report informs the public of 16 applications in which the return of art objects have been demanded in 2009. In about 50% of cases, the objects were returned. The applications of the other 50% were rejected.

The Unidroit Convention of 24 June 1995 on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects entered into force for Greece.

Alivizatou, Marilena, “Intangible Heritage and Erasure: Rethinking Cultural Preservation and Contemporary Museum Practice” 37