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.

The essay narrates the biography of a single art object—acclaimed in recent history as a “masterpiece” of ancient Indian sculpture—to invoke the larger spectrum of practices and discourses that came to constitute the field of art history in modern India. It explores the shifting locations and aesthetic trajectories that marked the transformation of this artifact from a curious archaeological “antiquity” into a national “art-treasure” and icon of Indian femininity, and later even into “a travelling emissary of ancient Indian art and culture.” On the one hand, the spectrum of travels of this object provides an ideal instance for mapping over the twentieth century the changing colonial, national and international stature of Indian art. On the other hand, its career also pointedly reveals the clash of contending claims and the politics of “return” and “restitution” that have attended the nationalization and artistic consecration of many such objects.

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.

Cicero's speeches and essays—especially the Verrines—were widely read in France and England during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when they were used in public debates about the fate of art in wartime. The early development of the concept of “cultural property” owed much to careful readings and citations of Cicero's views. The main charge brought against Verres in 70 B.C. was extortion during his term as governor of Sicily, but in the course of his prosecution Cicero depicts Verres as a rapacious collector of art who even took cult statues from temples for his private collection. This portrait of a “collector” who felt entitled to anything he could get and who abused his official authority to acquire works of art was recalled and used in debates about “collecting” many centuries later. This paper examines how Ciceronian views contributed to the development of the concept of art as cultural property.

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.

The British parliamentary report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade was published in 2000. Three key areas were addressed: the illicit excavation and looting of antiquities, the identification of works of art looted by Nazis, and the return of cultural property now residing in British collections. The evidence presented by interested parties—including law enforcement agencies and dealers in antiquities—to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is assessed against the analysis of collecting patterns for antiquities. The lack of self regulation by those involved in the antiquities market supports the view that the British Government needs to adopt more stringent legislation to combat the destruction of archaeological sites by looting.