Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.024.17037
R. Peters
The debate on the return and restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. In recent years, however, the debate – stimulated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech in 2017 – extended to include the question of how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. Whereas international law provides a legal framework for how to deal with war-time looting (the 1954 Hague Convention) and the present-day trafficking in cultural property (the 1970 UNESCO Convention), no such legal regime exists for cultural objects removed during colonial times. Nevertheless, as this article illustrates – with a focus on recent examples in Germany – current developments indicate a movement towards new political and ethical schemes on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts and, in a broader sense, how to come to terms with the colonial past. In Germany, this includes the return of cultural objects and human remains to Namibia as well as the transfer of ownership of all Benin Bronzes held by German institutions to Nigeria.
{"title":"Dealing with Collections from Colonial Contexts: Current Developments in Germany","authors":"R. Peters","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.024.17037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.024.17037","url":null,"abstract":"The debate on the return and restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. In recent years, however, the debate – stimulated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech in 2017 – extended to include the question of how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. Whereas international law provides a legal framework for how to deal with war-time looting (the 1954 Hague Convention) and the present-day trafficking in cultural property (the 1970 UNESCO Convention), no such legal regime exists for cultural objects removed during colonial times. Nevertheless, as this article illustrates – with a focus on recent examples in Germany – current developments indicate a movement towards new political and ethical schemes on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts and, in a broader sense, how to come to terms with the colonial past. In Germany, this includes the return of cultural objects and human remains to Namibia as well as the transfer of ownership of all Benin Bronzes held by German institutions to Nigeria.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46980906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.026.17039
Jos van Beurden
This commentary offers an overview of the restitutions and claims processed in the Netherlands until recently, and the legal framework in which they took place. Although the focus is on restitutions to and claims from Indonesia, those to and from a number of other former colonial possessions occur as well. It thus looks at Dutch cultural heritage regulations and laws concerning colonial possessions. Next, the current situation is reviewed, with special attention paid to the Dutch Heritage Act of 2016 and the 2021 Policy Vision on Collections from a Colonial Context, and possible frictions between the two. In the final part, two comparisons are made. One is between how the Netherlands has been dealing with claims for Nazi-looted art works and with claims for items looted from colonial areas. The second comparison is between the current measures for dealing with colonial loot by the Netherlands and Belgium. For several years now, both countries have taken up more seriously the decolonization of state-owned collections from colonial contexts. However, the new policies of both countries have their limitations as well. For the Netherlands, the author concludes that this former major colonial power is in an intermediate phasein the process of developing new rules for dealing with objects and collections from colonial contexts.
{"title":"Hard and Soft Law Measures for the Restitution of Colonial Cultural Collections – Country Report: The Netherlands","authors":"Jos van Beurden","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.026.17039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.026.17039","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary offers an overview of the restitutions and claims processed in the Netherlands until recently, and the legal framework in which they took place. Although the focus is on restitutions to and claims from Indonesia, those to and from a number of other former colonial possessions occur as well. It thus looks at Dutch cultural heritage regulations and laws concerning colonial possessions. Next, the current situation is reviewed, with special attention paid to the Dutch Heritage Act of 2016 and the 2021 Policy Vision on Collections from a Colonial Context, and possible frictions between the two. In the final part, two comparisons are made. One is between how the Netherlands has been dealing with claims for Nazi-looted art works and with claims for items looted from colonial areas. The second comparison is between the current measures for dealing with colonial loot by the Netherlands and Belgium. For several years now, both countries have taken up more seriously the decolonization of state-owned collections from colonial contexts. However, the new policies of both countries have their limitations as well. For the Netherlands, the author concludes that this former major colonial power is in an intermediate phasein the process of developing new rules for dealing with objects and collections from colonial contexts.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47097922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.013.17026
Paul P. Stewens, N. Raja, E. Dunne
Debates on the restitution of colonial loot usually focus on art, antiquities, religious artefacts, and similar objects. Many fossils of considerable scientific and cultural value were also removed under colonial rule, yet they rarely feature in these discussions despite being classified as cultural objects. This article seeks to shed light on the colonial removal of fossils and explore potential avenues for their return under public international law. Instead of focusing on the (il-)legality of colonial takings, we argue that the right to access culture has developed from the right to participate in cultural life in Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provides, if not a solid legal basis, a valuable set of arguments for former colonies requesting the return of fossils looted from their countries/territories of origin. The case study of the negotiations on the return of the Broken Hill skull before the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) highlights the potential of this mechanism of dispute resolution with respect to fossils.
{"title":"The Return of Fossils Removed Under Colonial Rule","authors":"Paul P. Stewens, N. Raja, E. Dunne","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.013.17026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.013.17026","url":null,"abstract":"Debates on the restitution of colonial loot usually focus on art, antiquities, religious artefacts, and similar objects. Many fossils of considerable scientific and cultural value were also removed under colonial rule, yet they rarely feature in these discussions despite being classified as cultural objects. This article seeks to shed light on the colonial removal of fossils and explore potential avenues for their return under public international law. Instead of focusing on the (il-)legality of colonial takings, we argue that the right to access culture has developed from the right to participate in cultural life in Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provides, if not a solid legal basis, a valuable set of arguments for former colonies requesting the return of fossils looted from their countries/territories of origin. The case study of the negotiations on the return of the Broken Hill skull before the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) highlights the potential of this mechanism of dispute resolution with respect to fossils.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42254988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.022.17035
Marie de Clippele, Bert Demarsin
The Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognize the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return (“the Restitution Bill”) puts Belgium at the forefront of international restitutions of colonial collections. With the parliamentary approval, and therefore democratically backed adoption of the Restitution Bill, Belgium is about to write history by being the first country in the world with a legislative framework allowing for large-scale restitutions of colonial collections. The situation, however, is not all roses, as the new legislation keeps its scope quite narrow (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, and no archives or human remains) and excludes local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings. Moreover, the Bill’s initial draft had to be watered down significantly to give the Government maximum freedom in negotiating bilateral restitution agreements. The relative lack of procedural rules renders the process less transparent and more political. In sidestepping the issue, the actual restitution procedure will depend almost entirely on the terms of each of the bilateral agreements, thus giving more leeway to political squabbling.
{"title":"Pioneering Belgium: Parliamentary Legislation on the Restitution of Colonial Collections","authors":"Marie de Clippele, Bert Demarsin","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.022.17035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.022.17035","url":null,"abstract":"The Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognize the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return (“the Restitution Bill”) puts Belgium at the forefront of international restitutions of colonial collections. With the parliamentary approval, and therefore democratically backed adoption of the Restitution Bill, Belgium is about to write history by being the first country in the world with a legislative framework allowing for large-scale restitutions of colonial collections. The situation, however, is not all roses, as the new legislation keeps its scope quite narrow (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, and no archives or human remains) and excludes local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings. Moreover, the Bill’s initial draft had to be watered down significantly to give the Government maximum freedom in negotiating bilateral restitution agreements. The relative lack of procedural rules renders the process less transparent and more political. In sidestepping the issue, the actual restitution procedure will depend almost entirely on the terms of each of the bilateral agreements, thus giving more leeway to political squabbling.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41548495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.020.17033
Grzegorz Mania
This article refers to various intertextual strategies in the field of electronic music and their legal categorization. The main part of the article is devoted to the problem of sampling, widely discussed in the literature and jurisprudence. Possible legal qualifications are discussed, as well as controversies related to the different scope of protection of works, artistic performances, and phonograms. The article also refers to other phenomena in the electronic field, including reedit, remix, or mash-up. In the summary, the general rules for making a legal assessment of musical borrowing strategies, interpretative guidelines in relation to a musical quotation, as well as de lege ferenda postulates are outlined.
{"title":"Legal Scenarios for Borrowing in Electronic Music","authors":"Grzegorz Mania","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.020.17033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.020.17033","url":null,"abstract":"This article refers to various intertextual strategies in the field of electronic music and their legal categorization. The main part of the article is devoted to the problem of sampling, widely discussed in the literature and jurisprudence. Possible legal qualifications are discussed, as well as controversies related to the different scope of protection of works, artistic performances, and phonograms. The article also refers to other phenomena in the electronic field, including reedit, remix, or mash-up. In the summary, the general rules for making a legal assessment of musical borrowing strategies, interpretative guidelines in relation to a musical quotation, as well as de lege ferenda postulates are outlined.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45741408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.023.17036
X. Perrot
Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, the President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President’s wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law’s passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return – from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy.
{"title":"Colonial Booty and Its Restitution – Current Developments and New Perspectives for French Legislation in This Field","authors":"X. Perrot","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.023.17036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.023.17036","url":null,"abstract":"Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, the President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President’s wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law’s passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return – from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44862591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.030.17043
Karolina Kuprecht
In Switzerland, the decolonization of ethnological and historical museums and collections is in progress. This is true in practice, especially by federally funded provenance research projects and by single restitutions of human remains and colonial objects. However, provenance research and its goals need to be better understood in Switzerland, and the reluctance towards restitution is still high. There are no regulations or guidelines that would support the decolonization activities and supplement existing cultural heritage law. In practice and by regulation, the goal to strive for should be to implement the international human rights of Indigenous peoples to control or restitute their cultural heritage.
{"title":"Colonial Loot and Its Restitution – Country Report: Switzerland","authors":"Karolina Kuprecht","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.030.17043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.030.17043","url":null,"abstract":"In Switzerland, the decolonization of ethnological and historical museums and collections is in progress. This is true in practice, especially by federally funded provenance research projects and by single restitutions of human remains and colonial objects. However, provenance research and its goals need to be better understood in Switzerland, and the reluctance towards restitution is still high. There are no regulations or guidelines that would support the decolonization activities and supplement existing cultural heritage law. In practice and by regulation, the goal to strive for should be to implement the international human rights of Indigenous peoples to control or restitute their cultural heritage.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45394151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.016.17029
Agnieszka Plata
This article analyses the case of the dispute over the return of the Aboriginal shield from the collection of the British Museum, which up to 2018 was believed to have come from the First Contact with the Aboriginal people made by the crew of captain James Cook. The arguments exchanged between the parties are studied from the perspective of the theory of hard cases. The claim for the return expressed by Rodney Kelly is supported mostly by the arguments based on justice, and both personal and cultural affiliation. The British Museum responded to the claim with results of research questioning the provenance of the shield. The relevance of the research is evaluated in the context of the symbolic significance of the case. The author believes that application of the theory of hard cases allows to broaden the debate beyond the scope of positive law.
{"title":"The Aboriginal Shield from the Collection of the British Museum: A Case Study from the Perspective of Recent Developments","authors":"Agnieszka Plata","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.016.17029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.016.17029","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the case of the dispute over the return of the Aboriginal shield from the collection of the British Museum, which up to 2018 was believed to have come from the First Contact with the Aboriginal people made by the crew of captain James Cook. The arguments exchanged between the parties are studied from the perspective of the theory of hard cases. The claim for the return expressed by Rodney Kelly is supported mostly by the arguments based on justice, and both personal and cultural affiliation. The British Museum responded to the claim with results of research questioning the provenance of the shield. The relevance of the research is evaluated in the context of the symbolic significance of the case. The author believes that application of the theory of hard cases allows to broaden the debate beyond the scope of positive law.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49237876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.019.17032
Anaïs Mattez
This article highlights the legal and technical challenges of contemporary heritage conservation in the context of a weak democracy, ethnic unrest, and military rule. Burma was a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2010, followed by the operation of the civil government between 2011 and 2021, which was then overthrown by the military in 2021. These ten years of civil government were characterized by a reopening of the borders to the international community, initiatives towards democracy. In terms of cultural heritage, Myanmar appeared to have made progress in modernizing its legislation when the country ratified and implemented international conventions protecting tangible cultural heritage such as the World Heritage Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. In 2015, the elected parliament drafted new legislation protecting cultural heritage: the Law Protecting Ancient Objectsand theLaw on the Preservation and Protection of Ancient Buildings. How has the ratification of international conventions and new laws impacted domestic conservation practices in Myanmar? The democratic turn entailed a visible modernization of laws, policies, and conservation techniques. However, this time was also characterized by peaks of violence between the Burman government, the Rohingya people, and other ethnic minorities. Ultimately, this article reveals that the protection of heritage became closely linked to ethnonationalist ideologies that have survived the numerous changes of political regime. This is particularly true in the Burmese context. Foreign technical assistance must be aware of the country’s complexity and learn from lessons of the past.
{"title":"Ethnonationalism and Cultural Heritage Law in Myanmar","authors":"Anaïs Mattez","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.019.17032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.019.17032","url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights the legal and technical challenges of contemporary heritage conservation in the context of a weak democracy, ethnic unrest, and military rule. Burma was a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2010, followed by the operation of the civil government between 2011 and 2021, which was then overthrown by the military in 2021. These ten years of civil government were characterized by a reopening of the borders to the international community, initiatives towards democracy. In terms of cultural heritage, Myanmar appeared to have made progress in modernizing its legislation when the country ratified and implemented international conventions protecting tangible cultural heritage such as the World Heritage Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. In 2015, the elected parliament drafted new legislation protecting cultural heritage: the Law Protecting Ancient Objectsand theLaw on the Preservation and Protection of Ancient Buildings. How has the ratification of international conventions and new laws impacted domestic conservation practices in Myanmar? The democratic turn entailed a visible modernization of laws, policies, and conservation techniques. However, this time was also characterized by peaks of violence between the Burman government, the Rohingya people, and other ethnic minorities. Ultimately, this article reveals that the protection of heritage became closely linked to ethnonationalist ideologies that have survived the numerous changes of political regime. This is particularly true in the Burmese context. Foreign technical assistance must be aware of the country’s complexity and learn from lessons of the past.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47883914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.017.17030
R. Chen
This article focuses on the colonial context of China, which led to a monumental loss of Chinese cultural objects by three means: looting and plundering; cultural expeditions; and illicit trafficking. The loss of cultural objects caused severe deprivation to the country of origin (i.e. China) from the perspective of culture, and active decolonization could helpheal the wounds and rebuild the cultural independency of China.In order to recover cultural objects removed during the colonial era, at the present time countries of origin are faced with difficulties at two levels. In terms of provenance research, the history and ownership trajectory of the cultural objects is difficult to establish in light of the fact that significant time has elapsed. In terms of legal claims, evidence needs to be collected in order to prove the original ownership, while at the same time issues of private law create obstacles to claims. Moreover, current international conventions fail to provide a legally-binding obligation on the part of current possessors to return objects lost due to colonialism. This article proposes mutual respect for cultural sovereignty as a way to make up for the absence of cultural sovereignty during past colonizations.
{"title":"Healing the Past: Recovery of Chinese Cultural Objects Lost during the Colonial Era","authors":"R. Chen","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.017.17030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.017.17030","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the colonial context of China, which led to a monumental loss of Chinese cultural objects by three means: looting and plundering; cultural expeditions; and illicit trafficking. The loss of cultural objects caused severe deprivation to the country of origin (i.e. China) from the perspective of culture, and active decolonization could helpheal the wounds and rebuild the cultural independency of China.In order to recover cultural objects removed during the colonial era, at the present time countries of origin are faced with difficulties at two levels. In terms of provenance research, the history and ownership trajectory of the cultural objects is difficult to establish in light of the fact that significant time has elapsed. In terms of legal claims, evidence needs to be collected in order to prove the original ownership, while at the same time issues of private law create obstacles to claims. Moreover, current international conventions fail to provide a legally-binding obligation on the part of current possessors to return objects lost due to colonialism. This article proposes mutual respect for cultural sovereignty as a way to make up for the absence of cultural sovereignty during past colonizations.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46840628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：