Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:35:38.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Claims to Cultural Property Under International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Koen De Jager
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After an extensive discussion of the treatment of cultural property through the ages, the author focuses on the position of art treasures under current international law. Are states under an obligation to return cultural property to its country of origin? In order to answer this question, the author introduces a ‘gliding scale’, based on the circumstances of the removal of the works of art.

Type
Student Contributions
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1988 , pp. 183 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cicero, De Signis, In Verrem Oratio, lib. IV.

2. Id., lib. XXXIII.

3. Becher On the Obligations of the Subjects of International Law to Return Cultural Property to its Permanent Place, 44 A.A.A. 96–97 (1974).

4. Rollet-Adrianne, Precedents, 31 Museum 6 (1979).

5. E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations 368 (1844).

6. Allgemeinen Landrecht 1,9, paras. 193–219.

7. See, e.g., Art. 8 Bologna Armistice Agreement (23 June 1796), and Art. 13 Treaty of Tolentino (19 February 1797).

8. Leyten, 1983 ICME News (No. 5), 9.

9. Rollet-Adrianne, supra, note 4, at 6.

10. Letter from the Duke of Wellington to Lord Castlereigh, 23 September 1815, in 12 Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington 641 (1837).

11. J. Ivinson Regulation of the International Trade in Art (diss.) 6 (1986).

12. H. Wheaton Elements of International Law (3rd cd.) 395 (1846).

13. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, drafted by F. Lieber issued as General Order No. 100 by President Lincoln (24 April 1863).

14. Convention with Certain Powers on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), 32 Stat. 1803 (1902); Convention with Other Powers on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (18 October 1907), 36 Stat. 2277 (1909).

15. Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919), 11 N.R.G. 323,3e séne, 225 C.T.S. 289; Treaty of St. Germainenen-Laye (10 September 1919), 11 N.R.G. 691,3e série, 226 C.T.S. 62; Treaty of Trianon (4 June 1920), 12 N.R.G. 423,3e série.

16. Preliminary Treaty of Peace and Armistice Conditions between Poland and the Soviet Republics of Russia and Ukraine (12 October 1920), 4 L.N.T.S. 5; Peace Treaty of Riga (18 March 1921), 13 N.R.G. 139,3e série;6L.N.T.S.51.

17. Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (15 April 1935), 167 L.N.T.S. 290.

18. 1 Nuremberg Trials 56,59.

19. Cited in UNESCO Res. 3.428,1 Records of the General Conference, Eighteenth Session (1974).

20. 49 U.N.T.S. 157.

21. Mentzel v. List, 22 A.D. 2d 647,253 N.Y.S. 2d 43 (1964); on remand 49 Misc. 2d 300,267 N.Y.S. 2d 804 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1966); modified 28 A.D. 2d 516,279 N.Y.S. 2d 608 (App. Div. 1967); mod. rev. 24 N.Y. 2d 91,298 N.Y.S. 2d 979,246 N.E. 2d 742 (1969). General exception to this rule, see Paley Olga v. Weisz, 1. K.B. 718 (1929).

22. E.g. Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar and German Democratic Republic v. Elicofon, 258 F. Supp. 747 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), affd478 F. 2d 331 (2nd Cir. 1973), cert. denied415 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 1443, reh. denied 416 U.S. 952,94 S. CL 1962 (1974). See also 201.L.M. 1122.

23. See De Volkskrant, 14 January 1987,1.

24. Venema, NRC Handelsblad, 15 January 1987,8.

25. See NRC Handelsblad, 31 October 1987.

26. See International Herald Tribune, 29 January 1988,6.

27. Regional Conventions are, e.g., the European Cultural Convention, 218 U.N.T.S 139; European Convention on the Protection of the Archeological Heritage, 788 U.N.T.S. 227, E.T.S. 66; European Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property (not yet published); Convention on the Protection of the Archeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, 15 I.L.M. 1350. Examples of bilateral agreements are the Treaty between the USA and Mexico providing for the Recovery and Return of Stolen Archeological, Historical and Cultural Properties, 22 U.S.T. 494,91.L.M. 1028; and the USAPeruvian Agreement respecting the Recovery and Return of Stolen Archeological, Historical and Cultural Property, 10 T.I.A.S. 136.

28. 249 U.N.T.S. 240.

29. See Arts. 4,18,19.

30. See Arts. 6,8,16–17.

31. Art. 4(2); see Nahlik, On some Deficiencies of the Hague Convention of 1954 on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 44 A.A.A. 103 (1974).

32. 823U.N.T.S.231.

33. Gordon, The UNESCO Convention on the Illicit Movement of Art Treasures, 12 H.I.L.J. 540 (1971).

34. But see, e.g., International Herald Tribune 12–13 March 1988,16.

35. 11 I.L.M. 1358.

36. Elias, Modern Sources of International Law, Transnational Law in a Changing Society: Essays in Honour of P.C. Jessup (ed. by W. Friedman L. Henkin and D. Lissitzyn) 34–69 (1982).

37. Per G.H.J. van Hoof Rethinking the Sources of International Law (1983).

38. Larschan and Brennan The Common Heritage ofMankindPrinciple in International Law,21C J.TJL. 305 (1982).

39. Id., at 305,328.

40. See, e.g., Syatauw, The Protection of Cultural Heritage: a Heritage of Colonial Expansion, 44 A.A.A. 40 (1974).

41. 1954 Hague Convention, Preamble, supra, note 28.

42. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Res. 808 (1983) on the Return of Works of Art.

43. 5111 Council of Europe Doc., 6.

44. The so-called argument of “matter of convenience”.

45. Syatauw, supra, note 40.

46. Becher, supra, note 3, at 96.

47. UNESCO Committee of Experts to Study the Question of the Restitution of Works of Art (Venice, 29 March - 2 April 1976), Final Report 4.

48. Fourth Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries (Algiers, 5–9 September 1973), Declaration.

49. Marchisotto, The Protection of Art in Transnational Law, 7 VanderBilt Journal of Transnational Law 714(1974).

50. Larschan and Brennan, supra, note 38, at 306.

51. Ivinson, supra, note 11, at 1.

52. Syatauw, supra, note 40, at 38.

53. Cf.Siehr,Kunstraub und das internationale Rechl,77Schw J.Z.211 (1981).

54. Marchisotto, supra, note 49, at 705.

55. Nafziger, The New International Framework for the Return, Restitution or Forfeiture of Cultural Property, 15 N.Y.UJ.I.LP. 791 (1983).

56. E.g., U.S. Regulation of Importation of Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals, Public Law 92–587,19 U.S.C. 2091–2091 (1976).

57. Verheul, Foreign Export Prohibitions, Cultural Treasures and Minerals, 31 N.IX.R. 419 (1984).

58. French Madonna case, 1983 NJ. No. 445, at 1402.

59. Alnati case, 1967 NJ. No. 3; Sensor case 77 A.J.I.L. 636 (1983).

60. 59 Entscheidungen des BGH in Zivilsachen 86–87 (1973).

61. Republica dell' Ecuador v. Danusso, 18 R.D.I.P.P. 623.

62. King of Italy v. De Medici, 34 TX.R. 623. See also Winkworth v. Christie, 2 W1.R. 937 (1980).

63. 2W.L.R. 30–31 (1982).

64. 3 W.L.R. 584,581 (1982) per Lord Denning MR.

65. 77 A.J.I.L. 633 (1983).

66. 2 W.L.R. 809 (1983).

67. 495 F. 2d 1154 (9th Cir., 1974).

68. 545 F. 2d 988 (5th Cir.); reh. denied 551 F. 2d 52 per curiam; 593 F. 2d 658, cert, denied 444 U.S. 918 (1979).

69. 545F.2d 989, No. 8.

70. See Public Law 92–587, supra, note 56; and 18 U.S.C.A. paras. 2314–2315 (1976).

71. 545 F. 2d 989, Nos. 7,10.

72. Nafziger, supra, note 55, at 827.

73. 2 R.I.A.A. 829,845–846 (1928).

74. Sir H. Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. l.The General Works, 131 (1970).

75. Lena Goldfields Arbitration, 1929–1930 Annual Digest No. 1,258.

76. 5111 Council of Europe Doc., 1.

77. Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies in Africa (Accra, 1975), Final Report, paras. 32–33

78. World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico, 1982), par. 83.

79. Ivinson, supra, note 11, at 54.

80. Mexico Conference, supra, note 78, par. 22.

81. The Daily Telegraph, 30 January 1984.