In March 2015, it was reported that His Royal Highness, the Duke of Cambridge would “like to see all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace destroyed.” In May 2015, the Conservative Party’s manifesto stated that if elected the party would “press for a total ban on ivory sales,” and policy decisions made as part of President Obama’s National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking saw “all commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques” being prohibited.1 In a changing international environment, the United Kingdom’s antique trade faces a threat to the legitimate sale of pre-1947 worked ivory without the extent of any illegal trade being clear. With only 15 convictions since 1992 for offences relating to the trade in ivory in the English courts, this article examines the two most recent cases, which came to court in 2014.

This article examines the issues surrounding the appropriation of indigenous culture, in particular art. It discusses the nature and context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art in Australia in order to establish why appropriation and reproduction are important issues. The article outlines some of the ways in which the Australian legal system has attempted to address the problem and looks at the recent introduction of the Label of Authenticity. At the same time, the article places these issues in the context of indigenous self-determination and examines the problematic use of such concepts as “authenticity.” Finally, the article looks beyond the Label of Authenticity and existing law of intellectual and cultural property, to sketch another possible solution to the problem.

A recent Australian case has clearly illustrated the tensions between export regulations and the circulation of important cultural works through international exhibition. So far such claims have involved efforts of heirs of collectors to seize works of art appropriated in another country and temporarily located outside that country for exhibition, such as the claim by the Altman heirs in the United States or of Schuckina in France—a situation dealt with in many cases by indemnity statutes which prevent their seizure. This case involved the sensitivity of indigenous people who regard the work in question as part of their cultural heritage.

Proceedings of the Doha Conference of ‘Ulama on Islam and Cultural Heritage. Doha, Qatar. December 30–31, 2001. Pp. 73 in English and Arabic each. New York: UNESCO, 2005.

On February 26, 2001, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ordered the destruction of “all statues and non-Islamic shrines” in the country. In March the ministers of culture and finance destroyed 2750 of the nation's art treasures; after a month of intensive shelling, the Taliban government obliterated the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan. At the end of December 2001, a conference of Islamic legal scholars (‘ulama) was convened on the subject of cultural heritage at Doha, Qatar. In between, of course, came the September 11, 2001, attacks (9/11).

In Italy, churches, chapels, and monasteries are often rich in precious artifacts. However, these religious buildings cannot be easily protected from theft because either they have no antitheft measures or they are abandoned. This article examines the problematic state of the holy heritage in the Italian territory from a legal perspective. In particular, it looks at Italian legislation and the international instruments entered into by the Italian State. The article argues that this protective legal regime is affected by various shortcomings and loopholes that mostly relate to the implementation of existing legal standards. Notably, it appears that these problems originate from the fact that most of the holy heritage situated in Italy belongs to the Catholic Church, and at the same time, it constitutes the historical and artistic patrimony of the Italian State. The article calls for a more efficient management of such precious vestiges by the stakeholders involved and for a revision of the domestic legislation with a view of properly incorporating the achievements of international cultural heritage law.

Lyndel Prott, ed., Finishing the Interrupted Voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage pp. 168; UNESCO Publishing and Institute of Art and Law, Leicester: 2006. ISBN: 1-90398711-3.

Almost 5 years after its adoption, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage has a mere six state parties. It requires 20 parties for the convention to come into force. Although there may be numerous reasons why states have failed to ratify the convention, perhaps the most common is simply because many developing states, even those rich in underwater cultural heritage, have little experience or expertise with protecting underwater cultural heritage, both practical and legal; and they are hesitant to ratify the convention without ensuring that they can implement the then-binding international obligations. This is particularly the case in the Asia-Pacific region, rich in underwater cultural heritage but as yet not represented in those states party to the convention. The need to encourage ratification of the convention in the Asia-Pacific is best described in the paper by Jeremy Green:

Archaeological sites are composed of unique, complex landscape settings including architectural remains, visually and spatially interrelated spaces, and ecologies with topographical features and landforms framing them. Today, they are subject to many pressures caused by developmental changes as well as improper conservation and planning strategies. One reason is that heritage conservation is still heavily focused on architectural features and less on the landscape setting. Wider landscape components set an authentic backdrop for cultural heritage and make the setting vivid and legible. Concentrating on this trend, this article explores the visual values of archaeological sites from the tripartite conceptualization view of visual landscape integrity, namely considering the archaeological landscape setting as an artifact, three-dimensional space, and scenery. Using the archaeological site complex of Bergama in Western Turkey as a case study, I propose a visual landscape–oriented approach as a tool for the sustainable conservation and presentation of heritage sites in the process of cultural resource management.

The Black Sea is a substantial inland sea and has a very fascinating border on the east and west. It reaches into the Mediterranean through the straits, into Europe via rivers, and toward Asia via the Caucasus. The human relations developed through this network has led to the emergence of cultural landscape elements in the region. The natural landscape elements that have developed inherently in the natural beauty of the region have also become one of the most important pieces of heritage in the region. In this region, many uncontrolled practices that have taken place in recent years have rapidly degraded the cultural and natural landscape. The purpose of this study is to emphasize the beauty of nature, which makes the Eastern Black Sea region one of the most significant cultural and natural heritage areas of the world, and to explore its impact on human life in the context of water heritage as well as to address the dynamic risks of losing this beauty. In this study, the recognition of water as a heritage component is conceptually discussed in the context of the inherent cultural heritage and natural heritage. The unifying and integrative power of the multicultural water heritage that the region possesses is explicated.

This article applies the tools of legal semiotics to examine the terms, modalities, and conventions of legal argument in the cultural property context. In a first instance, the author re-enacts Duncan Kennedy's study of recurrent patterns within legal argument to illustrate the highly structured nature of most cultural property argument. This mapping exercise shows how legal concepts draw their meaning in part from their place within a broader linguistic system, and as a result cannot by themselves form an adequate basis for ethical positions. Following this, the pervasive Elgin Marbles controversy is shown to resemble a myth (in Roland Barthes's sense of the term) behind which a series of value judgments and support systems are embedded into cultural property argument. The conclusion presents a number of observations sketching a framework centered on restitution as a starting point for resolution of cultural property disputes.Acknowledgements: I am grateful for the many helpful comments received on previous versions of this piece, especially from Ali Wick, Lama Abu Odeh, and Alex Bauer. A special thank you to Natalia and Sofia for their support.

The debates on the ownership of contested cultural objects bring forth questions regarding the representation of history. But might these debates also lead to the fabrication of history? Previous research has analyzed how the British Museum’s anti-restitution position contributes to its distortion of British (Museum) history. Instead, this article considers if – and, if so, how – history is distorted to argue for restitution. It examines the eulogized publication The Brutish Museums (2020) by Oxford professor Dan Hicks asking whether his claims regarding British mass atrocities in the conquest of Benin in 1897 can be substantiated by the documentary evidence. The investigation shows that this is not the case. The article also scrutinizes what the source material reveals about the death toll of the events of 1897. The results of the inquiry question oversimplified notions about culprits and victims in the wake of colonial conquest. It is argued that an incomplete understanding of the past impairs efforts to repair past wrongs and that questions about the ownership of colonial collections could productively be linked with questions about the representation of history, such as whose and which histories are told – or not – through contested objects.

The legal literature on refugee cultural heritage is limited, and cultural rights are part of the law that appropriately addresses refugee cultural heritage issues. Cultural heritage is integral to the definition of refugees; refugee protection must include safeguarding refugee cultural heritage.1 This Article reviews international law around refugees’ intangible cultural heritage, which incorporates refugee relationships with their tangible cultural heritage.2 It also frames the discussion around refugee intangible cultural heritage in a holistic paradigm that consolidates “refugee home heritage” (refugee intangible cultural heritage of home country) and “refuge heritage” (refugee intangible cultural heritage of refugee journey from persecution or conflict to resettlement or return). The Article finds that, whereas the international law framework lays the groundwork for such a holistic paradigm, international and national laws and state policy approaches must be reformed to achieve refugee protection in line with international obligations.