In 2003, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO ICH Convention) formalized provision for forms of heritage not solely rooted in the material world. This expanded the scope and accessibility of cultural heritage rights for communities and groups. To much commentary and critique, the United Kingdom (UK) infamously decided not to ratify the UNESCO ICH Convention. This article examines the implications of the UK’s decision not to ratify the Convention for the cultural heritage and human rights of an asylum-seeking group in Glasgow, Scotland, namely, the Glasgow Bajuni campaigners, members of a minority Somali clan. Based on participatory ethnographic fieldwork with the group and analysis of their asylum cases, this article makes two observations: first, that the UK’s absence from the Convention establishes a precedent in which other state actors (that is, immigration authorities) are emboldened to advance skepticism over matters involving intangible cultural heritage and, second, that despite this, limitations in current provisions in the UNESCO ICH Convention would provide the group with little additional protection than they currently have. Developing these observations, we critique current UK approaches to intangible cultural heritage as complicit in the maintenance of hierarchies and the border. Finally, we consider the extent to which the current provisions of the UNESCO ICH Convention might be improved to include migrant and asylum-seeking groups.

This article investigates China’s heritage development from an evolutionary perspective. On the one hand, by situating the reception of the cultural heritage concept in a socio-cultural construct dimension, it reveals the unique dialogism between the two divergent epistemological paradigms of wenwu (cultural relics) and wenhua yichan (cultural heritage) that underline heritage appropriation and practice in China. On the other hand, it examines China’s cultural heritage development in relation to society, arguing that considerations of national heritage, though influenced by the international environment, are still largely determined by its national socio-cultural, economic, and political settings. The evolutionary approach reveals the way in which China’s heritage vision and practice are negotiated according to international forces and societal imperatives, implicating issues such as commodification and reconstruction in the debate of heritage conservation, which is relevant to, among others, the research on heritage tourism and urban development in contemporary China.

The articles in this special issue on intellectual property in the Pacific document anxieties about culture and tradition, and about the intrusion of ideas of property into previously uncommodified areas of peoples' lives. These include fears that traditional knowledge and skills are not being passed on to young people (Nason and Peter; Pigliasco); that migrants in a globalized world will take aspects of culture with them when they leave (Nason and Peter); that anthropologists and other scholars will wrongfully appropriate and use aspects of the cultures they study for their own benefit (Van Meijl); and that profits from the commercialization of traditional knowledge, practices, and products will not go to the people who consider themselves their owners and caretakers (Lindstrom). In addition, Jo Recht's contribution provides a discussion of attempts to protect culture and tradition through international conventions and national laws. Finally, Andrew Moutu and Michael Goldsmith describe claims of ownership over aspects of nature to reflect on fundamental aspects of intellectual property and ownership more generally.

Following Nepal’s 2015 earthquake, there was speculation that sacred art would be looted from the ruins of severely damaged temples due to a breakdown in formal security. Although pillage did not immediately occur, the months following the earthquake have seen the theft of sacred heritage items. As Nepali sacred art remains under threat of theft, we explore the processes by which government intervention can be destructive of the community dynamic that maintains local crime prevention on an informal and unofficial level. Based on fieldwork conducted in Nepal shortly before and after the earthquake, we ask: can situational crime prevention measures, when imposed in a top-down fashion upon communities by state actors, be corrosive of collective efficacy and, therefore, ultimately self-defeating in crime prevention terms? The case of post-quake Nepal seems to suggest that the answer to this question is, in some circumstances, yes.

This article will show how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in the governance of repatriation policy. By examining ownership paradigms and institutional power structures and analyzing the changing discourses before and after the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, it is possible to understand the ramifications of formalizing repatriation. The current binary of cultural property nationalism/cultural property internationalism in relation to Indigenous ownership claims does not represent the full scope of the conflict for Indigenous people within the Western legal interpretations of property ownership. Inclusion of a cultural property indigenism component into the established cultural property nationalism/internationalism ownership paradigm will more accurately represent Indigenous concerns for cultural property. Looking at the rules, norms, and strategies of national and international laws and museum institutions, this article will argue that there are consequences to repatriation claims that go beyond the possession of property and that a formalized process (or semi-formalized approach) can aid in addressing Indigenous rights.

In an era when war, acts of terror, and the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change loom large in the public conscience, the conservation community is grappling with the associated loss of the historic built environment and potential responses. But the built environment—at least some aspects of it—is becoming progressively obsolete due to environmental and social changes. Coastal sea-level rise, inefficient resource and land use, and the role of the built environment in perpetuating social exclusion raise questions about the potential value of destruction and the opportunities it affords for reframing spatial memory and historical narrative in more just and sustainable ways. The heritage field’s preoccupation with the physical, place-based fabric will be challenged in the face of this obsolescence, compelling a reexamination of attitudes toward destruction and reconstruction. This article borrows loosely from Joseph Schumpeter’s economic concept of creative destruction to explore the ways in which both innovation and new lenses on history and memory may be borne of change, loss, and obsolescence. Using the discourse surrounding past and contemporary North American cases, it examines some fundamental ideas regarding capital in the built environment and the economic value of destruction. It also explores the negative social consequences of destruction and the historical influence cum perspective of the heritage enterprise and posits potentially positive values and opportunities engendered through destruction. Finally, it reimagines how approaches to reconstruction by the heritage field may contribute to more socially just and sustainable futures.

The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A common response is: “it was legal at the time” and, therefore, not a legal issue. But is that so? This article argues that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion but, rather, the asymmetrical application of norms. Moreover, a human rights law approach, focusing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects for people today—instead of a sole focus on property title—offers useful tools to structure this field. To illustrate these points, a case concerning an African ancestral sculpture today known as the “Bangwa Queen” will be assessed on its merits under international law. The Bangwa Queen is of spiritual importance to the Bangwa, a people indigenous to the western part of Cameroon. She was taken as part of a collection of so-called lefem figures by German colonizers in 1899 and is currently part of a French museum collection.

The idea that the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean islands became extinct has until recently dominated scholarly discourse and popular awareness. This “extinction” narrative served to justify the appropriation of indigenous lands during the colonial period, and its legacy continued into post-independence. In recent years, these misconceptions have been put under increasing scrutiny, not only by archaeological, historical, and ethnographic research but also, more importantly, by communities themselves. In Dominica, Saint Vincent, and Trinidad, communities are contesting negative stereotypes, reasserting their presence, and agitating for their human rights in the post-colonial islands states. This article discusses the acquisition of indigenous rights by descendant communities in the eastern Caribbean. It reveals the various degrees to which communities have gained state recognition and illustrates that while progress has been made in relation to recognition and cultural rights for communities in the islands, issues remain in relation to land security.

Although on-the-ground preservation and policing is a major component of our international efforts to prevent the looting and trafficking of antiquities, the expectation placed on source countries may be beyond their capacity. This dependence on developing world infrastructure and policing may challenge our ability to effectively regulate this illicit trade. Using case studies generated from fieldwork in Belize and Bolivia, this paper discusses a number of these challenges to effective policy and offers some suggestions for future regulatory development.

This article considers the role of recently adopted human rights-based policies in the context of preparations for the world heritage nomination of Bagan in Myanmar. Several conceptual, political, and practical factors influence the way in which such policies can be implemented. Conceptually, conflicting interpretations of the meaning of certain categories of human rights—most notably, cultural, development, and land rights—create ambiguity about who has rights to what. Politically, multilateral and bilateral negotiations between states parties inform whether and how human rights-based policies are enforced. On a practical level, implementation of such policies may be challenged by the low legal and administrative capacity of the state of Myanmar. Taking account of these factors, it is argued that human rights-based approaches can provide certain valuable insights but remain subject to serious limitations.

This article analyzes the dichotomy between the practices of the art market and of court judges when it comes to the authentication of works of art. While judges very much rely on experts acting in the art market, they may not necessarily pursue the same examination methods and conclusions, which can have serious repercussions on the art object and for its owner. The dichotomy unavoidably leads to the questions of what the correct assessment is and whether court judges should be conducting such examinations.

Taking account of the difficulties judges and legislators face in attempting to interfere with established art market practices, it is suggested that courts are not an adequate forum to resolve authenticity disputes. Instead, scholars and art market actors should adopt improved authentication standards and, in the event of a dispute, refer to alternative means of dispute resolution.

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.

The United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel hears claims for cultural objects held in museum collections of which their original owners lost possession during the Nazi era. The Panel aims to achieve “fair and just” solutions for the parties and was created in response to the strong impetus to return cultural objects lost by Jewish owners during the Nazi era. This article argues that understanding the rationale for this claims process and the choice of remedies is essential for achieving such just and fair solutions, specifically whether the Panel aims to redress the past injustices of Hitler’s tyranny, return objects to their “rightful owners,” or prevent the public’s unjust enrichment from access to objects “tainted” by their Nazi association. If it aims to return cultural objects to their rightful owners or to strip museums of unjust gains, it is only a small step to allowing moral claims by other claimant groups whose cultural objects reside in national museums.

“Traditional” foodways are represented as an important part of cultural heritage in Europe. Two legal instruments aim to play a role in safeguarding them—namely, the Traditional Specialties Guaranteed (TSG) scheme and the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. These instruments are sometimes used in parallel—for example, in the TSG registration for “Pizza Napoletana” and the nomination of “the art of Neapolitan ‘pizzaiuolo’” to one of the lists of the Convention. While recognizing the important role of state actors in this process, this article proposes going beyond a simple “misappropriation” thesis to look at the possible economic effects of registration and inscription.

The role of ethical rules and codes of conduct in the field of art law and international protection of cultural property, together with the adoption of the relevant international conventions, has constantly increased in the last decades. This article considers the main codes of conduct drafted by international organizations as well as international, national, public, and private institutions, federations, and associations. The focus is on their influence on international trade as instruments of art market regulation. Specific attention is paid to the interaction with the private international law approach and to a survey of both direct and indirect effects of these rules on the international circulation of cultural property.

In this article, we reflect on the current socio-political context of the 1972 World Heritage Convention after 50 years rather than its significant achievements and trials throughout its turbulent history. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has already documented and publicized these formative episodes. Instead, we consider the World Heritage milieu today, embedded as it is within a much broader landscape of non-governmental organizations and civil society preservation initiatives than it was five decades ago. Like other United Nations agencies, UNESCO now faces challenges arising from various types of re-spatialization beyond the nation-state that further impact its effectiveness. Those challenges encompass not only the expansive force of globalization but also regionalization and localization, all of which have given rise to a new diplomacy. We discuss the proliferation of competing international agencies and individual donors, then describe the dilemmas facing World Heritage, including the rise of non-state actors and post-conflict remediation in the Middle East, the limited recognition of Indigenous Peoples and their role in decision making, and the persistent failures to remedy the inequitable position of Africa as a priority region.

Because of their status of res nullius—owned by no one—property theory is underdeveloped in regard to wildlife. In this article, wildlife is seen to be sometimes subject to a shadow ownership by class interests in society. Hunters accuse protected wolves of being the “pets” or “property” of an urban-based conservationist middle class. This phenomenon fragments the common fauna and undermines responsibility taking and policy compliance for wildlife that is seen as being owned by an oppositional social class. Using an empirical case study of Swedish hunters, we show how responsibility for wildlife has become entangled with property rights. A historical materialist analysis reveals that hunters once experienced ownership of wildlife by the nobility as co-opting state coercive power. Today, however, aristocracy is replaced by a new elite class of conservationists. Noting the hunters’ tendency to evoke quasi-aristocratic virtues of ownership, we advance recommendations for an alternative approach. We appeal to deliberative democracy to promote the “communing” of wildlife across classes in fora that withstand co-optation by class interests.

This article explores critical directions in the study of cultural heritage and, in particular, food heritage research. Its goal is to deliver insight into local perspectives produced outside mainstream heritage organizations. Strategies implemented jointly by peasant farmers of rural Peru and non-governmental organizations committed to promoting cultural resurgence show how food discloses the symbiotic relation between nature and culture in these indigenous worlds, and allows for claims grounded in social, political, and economic imaginaries. The initiatives described in this article develop within transnational networks of partners and interlocutors but outside of universalist pretensions. They constitute food heritage that differs from that of global cultural actors such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the United Nations by addressing only the needs of local communities and not complying with mechanisms that bring prestige and revenues to states and powerful cultural entrepreneurs. Globally nurtured, but locally implemented, these locally based initiatives seek out and take advantage of opportunities in strategic, proactive fashions.