In April of 2003 the collection of André Breton, one of the founders of Surrealism, was auctioned off at the Hôtel Druout in Paris. This article focuses on how the sale sparked a heated debate about the French state's role as the protector of French cultural patrimony and looks at the different interests involved, from Breton's daughter, who authorised the sale, to the Minister of Culture. Ultimately, the author argues that the state allowed the sale to occur, despite popular protest, in order to improve France's position in the global art market.

Recent developments in U.S. case law have strengthened the power of private individuals to sue foreign sovereigns in U.S. courts over claims for artwork and cultural heritage property. Traditionally, however, the U.S. government granted a large amount of deference to foreign sovereigns regarding ownership rights in such property. Principles such as grace and comity with other nations, respect for cultural heritage property ownership, and increasing public access to art are reflected in U.S. legislation. For example, the adoption of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) all demonstrate a strong position held by the United States to recognize and protect ownership rights in cultural heritage property.

The return of 13 classical antiquities from Boston's Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) to Italy provides a glimpse into a major museum's acquisition patterns from 1971 to 1999. Evidence emerging during the trial of Marion True and Robert E. Hecht Jr. in Rome is allowing the Italian authorities to identify antiquities that have been removed from their archaeological contexts by illicit digging. Key dealers and galleries are identified, and with them other objects that have followed the same route. The fabrication of old collections to hide the recent surfacing of antiquities is also explored.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors are grateful to the following for their assistance during the writing of this paper: Malcolm Bell, Ann Copeland (La Trobe University), Tracey Cullen, Colin Hope (Monash University), Andrew Jamieson (University of Melbourne), Ian MacPhee (La Trobe University), Jessica Powers (San Antonio Museum of Art), Sonia Puttock (University of Queensland), Peter Watson, and Karol Wight (The J. Paul Getty Museum).

To draw on recent developments and find ways to break the deadlocks that have stymied discussions on cultural property and heritage, the International Cultural Property Society organized the conference, “What Heritage to Preserve?” held at the Pocantico Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brother's Fund from October 19 to 21, 2005.

The field of cultural property or heritage, as it appears to an outsider, is bedeviled by different, perhaps contradictory fundamental values and structuring metaphors, on one hand, and by large practical problems of enforcement and unintended consequence, on the other. I am an outsider to the field. I was asked to write a report with the hope that I might be able to provide a different perspective precisely because I am not a practitioner. I am taking it on faith that my lack of authority is, for the purposes of this essay, authoritative. I will focus on questions that seem important to me and suggest some answers that seem reasonable to me. I leave it in the hands of the readers to decide whether the exercise serves any purpose for them.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Peter Turner is a doctoral student in Classics at Princeton University.

Switzerland is undergoing a period of change from the perspective of fighting the illegal traffic of cultural goods. Effective January 3, 2004, Switzerland has ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Furthermore the convention has been put into effect in Switzerland by the adoption of the Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property (CPTA) and its related ordinance, both of which took effect on June 1, 2005.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would like to express my thanks to my friend and colleague Professor Bénédict Foëx for his comments, his insight, and our lively discussions about this case. My thanks also go to the editors of the Uniform Law Review, which has published a French version of the present article.Unif. L. Rev./Rev. dr. Unif. (2006): 399.

S. R. M. Mackenzie, Going Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Pp. viii, 290. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester: 2005. ISBN: 1-903987-07-5.

“It's very rare to get something with a provenance, with an actual collection name. Usually it's entirely anonymous, especially in the London and New York trade. Just objects for sale in a shop …” (p. 32). To anyone with an interest in the antiquities market, this Melbourne dealer's view is unsurprising. More surprising, perhaps, is the dealer's willingness to even discuss the issue of provenance and the extent to which the antiquities market is awash with unprovenanced illicit antiquities. Essentially, Simon Mackenzie's work is about provenance. He sets out to answer the question, “How should we regulate the antiquities market so as most appropriately to address the issue of looted antiquities in that market?” (p. 1). The first step in answering this question is to understand how the market actually functions. And what better way than to ask market participants themselves. Mackenzie does so through interviews with dealers, collectors, auction house representatives, and museum curators; and the work is substantially based around an analysis of these interviews. The extensive use of quotes allows readers a glimpse into the secretive and exclusive world of the antiquities market and lays bare the prevailing attitude of the interviewees, providing a rich (and dare I say, even entertaining) dialogue throughout the work.