This article presents a comparative description of the national legislation concerning the protection of cultural property in the various Arab nations and the influence of regional and international agreements. These different legislative schemes are also discussed in the context of attempts to unify the treatment of cultural property among these nations which face similar problems.

The enactment of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 represented the culmination of a long process of negotiation and ultimate compromise between representatives of Native American tribes and American museums. This paper focuses on the initial implementation stage of NAGPRA. That stage reveals that interaction between the two sides has entailed (and continues to entail) negotiations not only concerning the disposition of specific Native American cultural objects but also equally important concerning the professional identities of Native Americans and museum professionals, respectively. Viewed in this way, NAGPRA's post-enactment process is seen to illustrate the various functions of law (both symbolic and concrete) in maintaining the social and ideological dialectic of American society.

The preservation of cultural heritage is costly and one has to decide if and which items of cultural heritage are worth preserving. A method for determining the value of cultural heritage is therefore needed. In economics, several evaluation procedures are applied. This article briefly comments on impact studies and willingness- to-pay studies (hedonic market approach and the travel cost approach) and then focuses on contingent valuation surveys. The application of contingent valuation on the arts and related problems are discussed. Finally, the article combines the evaluation methods with democratic decisions by referenda. Switzerland presents an example of referenda held on art policy.

The author discusses the conflict in Israel between the public interest in archaeological research and the religious convictions that human remains, once buried, should not be touched. The conflict is exacerbated by urban development, which, in this ancient land, necessitates rescue excavations of tombs, thus bringing the problem to a head. The article examines, first, the rules of Jewish law, which, the author contends, have made it possible to accommodate the interests of the living, and, secondly, the scientific value of the archaeological excavation of tombs, using recent examples as illustrations. The author concludes that Jewish law could be interpreted and applied more flexibly and could then be reconciled with Israeli law. However, even if such a development were not to take place, then, in keeping with democratic values, government officials and the courts would be required to follow the policies established by the legislator, a balance between the conflicting interests having already been embodied in the law.

This article describes the history of the objects stored at the Mauerbach monastery in Austria from soon after the Second World War until their auction last year. During the war, the German National Socialists had collected art works throughout Europe in many different ways—through theft, confiscation, forced sales, and legitimate sales. Both the legal issues raised by the attempts to determine the rightful owners of these objects and the criticism which the Austrian government received for failing to find more of these owners are discussed. The situation was finally resolved last year when the remaining objects were auctioned and the proceeds given to various organizations representing the victims of the Nazis.

At long last, the story of the “Mauerbach Treasure” has been concluded. This hoard of art objects has been the source of many legends owing to the secrecy, including even the identification of the objects themselves, which had surrounded it for many years.1

The Koenigs Collection of Old Master drawings was transferred during the course of World War II from private ownership to the German government. Most of the collection recently appeared in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. The author examines the validity of these transfers and the proper ownership of the collection today from both a public and private international law perspective. The dispute as to ownership between Russia and the Netherlands and the role of the German government is a difficult one to resolve, particularly in light of current claims for war reparations and recent developments in international law concerning the transfer of cultural property.