Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.018.17031
Andreas Giorgallis
Restitution claims involving colonial cultural objects are usually said to lack a sound legal basis. These claims are instead perceived more often than not as belonging solely in the realm of ethics. This article, however, calls that perception into question. It argues for the existence of a more complex picture. It does so by bringing to the forefront the potential of the US courts to adjudicate restitution claims concerning colonial cultural objects. By analysing the largely unexplored 1900 exception of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (2016), amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (1976) expropriation exception, this article posits that the exception might hold the key for offering an alternative road in accessing justice. Being applicable to takings of a systematic nature against members of a targeted and vulnerable group which have taken place after 1900, this provision might provide legal recourse for those colonial takings which have occurred after the dawn of the 20th century.
{"title":"The Potential of the US Courts to Adjudicate Restitution Claims Involving Colonial Cultural Objects","authors":"Andreas Giorgallis","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.018.17031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.018.17031","url":null,"abstract":"Restitution claims involving colonial cultural objects are usually said to lack a sound legal basis. These claims are instead perceived more often than not as belonging solely in the realm of ethics. This article, however, calls that perception into question. It argues for the existence of a more complex picture. It does so by bringing to the forefront the potential of the US courts to adjudicate restitution claims concerning colonial cultural objects. By analysing the largely unexplored 1900 exception of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (2016), amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (1976) expropriation exception, this article posits that the exception might hold the key for offering an alternative road in accessing justice. Being applicable to takings of a systematic nature against members of a targeted and vulnerable group which have taken place after 1900, this provision might provide legal recourse for those colonial takings which have occurred after the dawn of the 20th century.","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":"47876239","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.22.014.17027
Elke Selter
Since late 2021, a new development has been taking place in Nepal. Like many governments around the world, the Nepalese authorities are also fully invested in asking for the return of their looted art held in foreign collections. Yet the policy is no longer to keep these in the country’s main museums, but rather to bring them back to the communities of origin, where they can fully take up their role as “living Gods”. With this move – which fully prioritizes intangible heritage values over tangible – a unique process is taking place that allows for reflection on what the restitution of stolen objects could be all about. In this way the case of Nepal demonstrates that the trafficking of art and its placement in museums abroad, as well as its “typical” return to museums in the source countries, are strongly influenced by Western concepts of art and conservation, often ignoring the local values of this heritage.
{"title":"Returning the Gods to the People: Heritage Restitution in Nepal","authors":"Elke Selter","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.014.17027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.014.17027","url":null,"abstract":"Since late 2021, a new development has been taking place in Nepal. Like many governments around the world, the Nepalese authorities are also fully invested in asking for the return of their looted art held in foreign collections. Yet the policy is no longer to keep these in the country’s main museums, but rather to bring them back to the communities of origin, where they can fully take up their role as “living Gods”. With this move – which fully prioritizes intangible heritage values over tangible – a unique process is taking place that allows for reflection on what the restitution of stolen objects could be all about. In this way the case of Nepal demonstrates that the trafficking of art and its placement in museums abroad, as well as its “typical” return to museums in the source countries, are strongly influenced by Western concepts of art and conservation, often ignoring the local values of this 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":"42294228","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.22.011.17024
Oluwatoyin Sogbesan, Tokie Laotan-Brown
The British punitive expedition of 1897 led to the theft and vandalization of the cultural heritage of the Benin kingdom. The plunder included more than 3,000 cultural objects made of bronzes, ivories, beads, and other objects, which were produced since the 1st century AD to commemorate historical moments, political transitions, and ritual purposes. This theft dishonoured the spiritual and ritual significance of these living cultural objects, and has turned them into museum artefacts. As international debates on restitution and the return of Benin Bronzes intensify, two pertinent questions which arise are: Who will be the custodians of the returned artefacts?; and How will they be conserved? In this article, we address these two questions through the lens of Benin customary laws and practices. We argue that within this local jurisprudence, the Emwin Arre– the living cultural heritage described above –belong to the Oba of Benin and should be returned to the royal Palace, where they will be preserved, protected, and shared with the present and future generations.
{"title":"Reflections on the Customary Laws of Benin Kingdom and Its Living Cultural Objects in the Discourse of Ownership and Restitution","authors":"Oluwatoyin Sogbesan, Tokie Laotan-Brown","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.011.17024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.011.17024","url":null,"abstract":"The British punitive expedition of 1897 led to the theft and vandalization of the cultural heritage of the Benin kingdom. The plunder included more than 3,000 cultural objects made of bronzes, ivories, beads, and other objects, which were produced since the 1st century AD to commemorate historical moments, political transitions, and ritual purposes. This theft dishonoured the spiritual and ritual significance of these living cultural objects, and has turned them into museum artefacts. As international debates on restitution and the return of Benin Bronzes intensify, two pertinent questions which arise are: Who will be the custodians of the returned artefacts?; and How will they be conserved? In this article, we address these two questions through the lens of Benin customary laws and practices. We argue that within this local jurisprudence, the Emwin Arre– the living cultural heritage described above –belong to the Oba of Benin and should be returned to the royal Palace, where they will be preserved, protected, and shared with the present and future generations.","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":"46960662","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.22.015.17028
Karolina Prażmowska-Marcinowska
Considering that the vast majority of the objects constituting Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage are now located outside their source communities, the restitution of cultural property has become a pressing issue among Indigenous Peoples worldwide and should be understood as part of Indigenous Peoples’ historical (as well as current) encounter with colonization and its consequences. As such, this article investigates whether international cultural heritage law offers any possibilities for successful repatriation and to what extent the shortcomings of the framework in place could be complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms and the new mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Expert Mechanism). First, crucial concepts in the repatriation debates are explained. Next the factual background of the case studies of the G’psgolox Totem Pole and Maaso Kova are presented. This is followed by a discussion of the most pertinent mechanisms of international cultural heritage law and the place of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within such a framework. Subsequently, the concept of ADR is introduced, and the details of the negotiation processes between the Haisla First Nation (Canada) and the Yaqui People (Mexico, the United States) – both with the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm (Sweden) – are presented. Finally, the article evaluates to what extent ADR could be an appropriate mechanism for the settlement of disputes concerningIndigenous Peoples’ cultural property, andwhether the Expert Mechanism is a well-suited body for facilitating the process of repatriating Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage.
{"title":"Repatriation of Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Property: Could Alternative Dispute Resolution Be a Solution? Lessons Learned from the G’psgolox Totem Pole and the Maaso Kova Case","authors":"Karolina Prażmowska-Marcinowska","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.015.17028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.015.17028","url":null,"abstract":"Considering that the vast majority of the objects constituting Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage are now located outside their source communities, the restitution of cultural property has become a pressing issue among Indigenous Peoples worldwide and should be understood as part of Indigenous Peoples’ historical (as well as current) encounter with colonization and its consequences. As such, this article investigates whether international cultural heritage law offers any possibilities for successful repatriation and to what extent the shortcomings of the framework in place could be complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms and the new mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Expert Mechanism). First, crucial concepts in the repatriation debates are explained. Next the factual background of the case studies of the G’psgolox Totem Pole and Maaso Kova are presented. This is followed by a discussion of the most pertinent mechanisms of international cultural heritage law and the place of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within such a framework. Subsequently, the concept of ADR is introduced, and the details of the negotiation processes between the Haisla First Nation (Canada) and the Yaqui People (Mexico, the United States) – both with the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm (Sweden) – are presented. Finally, the article evaluates to what extent ADR could be an appropriate mechanism for the settlement of disputes concerningIndigenous Peoples’ cultural property, andwhether the Expert Mechanism is a well-suited body for facilitating the process of repatriating Indigenous Peoples’ 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":"43800458","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.22.021.17034
Sebastian M. Spitra
In January 2022 theAustrian government established an expert committee to study the colonial heritage in its federal museums. Although Austria is a country not considered to have an extensive colonial past, Austrian museums hold large collections of ethnographic objects and human remains that they acquired during the heydays of colonialism. This country report introduces the current restitution debate in Austria through a legal lens. It discusses the legal situation of cultural objects from colonial contexts and the instruments available to museums and the federal government to organize restitutions and formulate rules. From a comparative law perspective, the specific history of Austria might turn the currently-evolving Austrian approach into an interesting example for other countries with public holdings of cultural objects from colonial contexts but without a history of direct colonialism.
{"title":"Austria Approaches Its Colonial Past: Prospects of a New Restitution Law for Cultural Objects","authors":"Sebastian M. Spitra","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.021.17034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.021.17034","url":null,"abstract":"In January 2022 theAustrian government established an expert committee to study the colonial heritage in its federal museums. Although Austria is a country not considered to have an extensive colonial past, Austrian museums hold large collections of ethnographic objects and human remains that they acquired during the heydays of colonialism. This country report introduces the current restitution debate in Austria through a legal lens. It discusses the legal situation of cultural objects from colonial contexts and the instruments available to museums and the federal government to organize restitutions and formulate rules. From a comparative law perspective, the specific history of Austria might turn the currently-evolving Austrian approach into an interesting example for other countries with public holdings of cultural objects from colonial contexts but without a history of direct colonialism.","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":"47021333","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 : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.009.16814
K. Zalasińska
{"title":"Lista krajowa Programu UNESCO „Pamięć świata” jako narzędzie ochrony dziedzictwa dokumentacyjnego, autor Katarzyna Zalasińska","authors":"K. Zalasińska","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.009.16814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.009.16814","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49375374","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 : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.001.16391
D. Bugajski
The legal protection of the RMS Titanic Almost immediately after the Titanic sank on 15 April 1912, proposals were advanced to salvage the ship from her resting place. The wreck was ultimately discovered on 1 September 1985. This article will discuss the application of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the development of the law of salvage through orders of the courts with respect to the protection of the wreck of the RMS Titanic and her artifacts. The paper will discuss the matter of ownership and other legal titles to such property. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage applies to all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been submerged for at least 100 years. Thus, 15 April 2012 marks the moment when the Titanic wreckage became protected under this Convention. The Titanic lies currently in international waters, outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of any State. Legal jurisdiction over the seabed may change when Canada extends its Continental Shelf under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention. Niemal natychmiast po zatonięciu RMS Titanic 15 kwietnia 1912 r. pojawiły się pomysły jego wydobycia. Szczątki Titanica zostały odnalezione 1 września 1985 r. W artykule podjęto zagadnienie zastosowania przepisów Konwencji Narodów Zjednoczonych o prawie morza z 1982 r. i Konwencji UNESCO o ochronie podwodnego dziedzictwa kulturowego z 2001 r. do ochrony szczątków RMS Titanic oraz zagadnienie ewolucji tejże ochrony w świetle orzecznictwa sądów krajowych. Przedmiotem badań jest także własność i inne tytuły prawne związane z wrakiem Titanica. Konwencja UNESCO z 2001 r. ma zastosowanie do wszystkich śladów ludzkiej egzystencji mających znaczenie kulturowe, historyczne lub archeologiczne, które są zatopione od ponad 100 lat. Od 15 kwietnia 2012 r. Titanic i jego artefakty są chronione na podstawie tej Konwencji. Obecnie szczątki tego liniowca spoczywają na wodach międzynarodowych poza wyłączną jurysdykcją jakiegokolwiek państwa. Jurysdykcja w stosunku do dna morskiego może się zmienić, kiedy Kanada rozszerzy swój szelf kontynentalny zgodnie z Konwencją o prawie morza z 1982 r.
泰坦尼克号的法律保护泰坦尼克号于1912年4月15日沉没后，几乎立即提出了将其从其停泊处打捞出来的建议。沉船最终于1985年9月1日被发现。本文将讨论1982年《联合国海洋法公约》和2001年《联合国教科文组织保护水下文化遗产公约》的适用，以及通过法院命令救助法在保护泰坦尼克号残骸及其文物方面的发展。本文将讨论这些财产的所有权和其他法律权利问题。2001年联合国教科文组织《保护水下文化遗产公约》适用于在水下至少100年的所有具有文化、历史或考古特征的人类存在的痕迹。因此，2012年4月15日标志着泰坦尼克号残骸受本公约保护的时刻。泰坦尼克号目前位于国际水域，不属于任何国家的专属管辖。当加拿大根据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》扩展其大陆架时，对海床的法律管辖权可能会发生变化。Niemal natychmiast zatonięciu皇家邮轮泰坦尼克号15号kwietnia 1912 r. pojawiły siwa pomysły jego wydobycia。泰坦尼克号Szczątki”zosta encyclopedia Titanicały odnalezione 1 września 1985 r。W artykule podję,zagadnienie zastosowania przepisow Konwencji Narodow Zjednoczonych o prawie morza z 1982 r . i Konwencji联合国教科文组织o ochronie podwodnego dziedzictwa kulturowego z 2001 r . ochrony Szczątkow泰坦尼克号oraz zagadnienie ewolucji tejże ochrony Wświetle orzecznictwa年代ą陶氏krajowych。Przedmiotem badazijest także własność i inne tytuły prawn związane z wrakiem Titanica。Konwencja UNESCO z 2001 r. ma zastosowanie do wszystkich śladów ludzkiej egzystencji mających znaczenie kulturowe, historyczne luzkiej egzystencji, które zzatopione od ponad 100 lat。2012年8月15日，《泰坦尼克》(Titanic i jego)上映。Obecnie szczątki tego liniowca spoczywajowna wodach międzynarodowych poza wyłączną jurysdykcjejakiegokolwiek państwa。Jurysdykcja w stosunku do dna morskiego może sizyzmieneniki, kiedy canada rozzzzzy swój szelf kontynentalny zgodnie z konwenzjeoprawie morza z 1982 r。
{"title":"Sytuacja prawna wraku RMS Titanic","authors":"D. Bugajski","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.001.16391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.001.16391","url":null,"abstract":"The legal protection of the RMS Titanic\u0000\u0000Almost immediately after the Titanic sank on 15 April 1912, proposals were advanced to salvage the ship from her resting place. The wreck was ultimately discovered on 1 September 1985. This article will discuss the application of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the development of the law of salvage through orders of the courts with respect to the protection of the wreck of the RMS Titanic and her artifacts. The paper will discuss the matter of ownership and other legal titles to such property. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage applies to all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been submerged for at least 100 years. Thus, 15 April 2012 marks the moment when the Titanic wreckage became protected under this Convention. The Titanic lies currently in international waters, outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of any State. Legal jurisdiction over the seabed may change when Canada extends its Continental Shelf under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention.\u0000\u0000Niemal natychmiast po zatonięciu RMS Titanic 15 kwietnia 1912 r. pojawiły się pomysły jego wydobycia. Szczątki Titanica zostały odnalezione 1 września 1985 r. W artykule podjęto zagadnienie zastosowania przepisów Konwencji Narodów Zjednoczonych o prawie morza z 1982 r. i Konwencji UNESCO o ochronie podwodnego dziedzictwa kulturowego z 2001 r. do ochrony szczątków RMS Titanic oraz zagadnienie ewolucji tejże ochrony w świetle orzecznictwa sądów krajowych. Przedmiotem badań jest także własność i inne tytuły prawne związane z wrakiem Titanica. Konwencja UNESCO z 2001 r. ma zastosowanie do wszystkich śladów ludzkiej egzystencji mających znaczenie kulturowe, historyczne lub archeologiczne, które są zatopione od ponad 100 lat. Od 15 kwietnia 2012 r. Titanic i jego artefakty są chronione na podstawie tej Konwencji. Obecnie szczątki tego liniowca spoczywają na wodach międzynarodowych poza wyłączną jurysdykcją jakiegokolwiek państwa. Jurysdykcja w stosunku do dna morskiego może się zmienić, kiedy Kanada rozszerzy swój szelf kontynentalny zgodnie z Konwencją o prawie morza z 1982 r.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43657617","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 : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.007.16397
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk
The UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks are recognized as UNESCO’s “extended family” (Doc. 207 EX/11) and their membership brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to UNESCO Programmes, while serving as an important dimension of UNESCO’s comparative advantage for other potential partners. The UNESCO Chairs Programme celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. The main celebrations for this achievement will be held in Paris in November 2022. The international conference is organized by UNESCO with the support of the French national commission for UNESCO. At the national level, more events will be held online and in person.
{"title":"Cultural heritage law in the UNESCO Chairs’ activities. The 30th anniversary of the UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs Programme (Prawo dziedzictwa kultury w działalności Katedr UNESCO. 30. rocznica programu UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs)","authors":"Alicja Jagielska-Burduk","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.007.16397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.007.16397","url":null,"abstract":"The UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks are recognized as UNESCO’s “extended family” (Doc. 207 EX/11) and their membership brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to UNESCO Programmes, while serving as an important dimension of UNESCO’s comparative advantage for other potential partners. The UNESCO Chairs Programme celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. The main celebrations for this achievement will be held in Paris in November 2022. The international conference is organized by UNESCO with the support of the French national commission for UNESCO. At the national level, more events will be held online and in person.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43730958","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 : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.006.16396
Weronika Łubian
World heritage and national heritage in the context of the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles This article provides an exposition of two approaches to the integrity of cultural heritage: cultural nationalism and cultural internationalism. The controversy over the Parthenon Marbles between Greece and the United Kingdom illustrates this issue. The dispute has no resolution within the bounds of current legal norms. Furthermore, the international community has not yet reached a consensus on the legal, ethical, historical, and cultural bases upon which the issue could be resolved. Direct negotiations between the two interested parties could potentially provide the optimal path to a resolution, yet they require goodwill from both sides. In the event of a prolonged impasse in the negotiations, an intervention by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property (ICPRCP) may be useful. Celem artykułu jest pokazanie dwóch możliwych stanowisk wobec reintegracji narodowego dziedzictwa kulturowego – narodowego i światowego. Szczególnie dobrze ujawniają się one w kontekście starań Grecji o odzyskanie tzw. marmurów partenońskich z Wielkiej Brytanii. Reintegracja rzeźbionych części świątyni nie może dokonać się na podstawie współczesnych norm prawnych. W społeczności międzynarodowej nie ma zgodności co do jej legalnych, etycznych, historycznych i kulturowych podstaw. Najlepszym sposobem rozwiązania problemu mogłyby być negocjacje między zaangażowanymi podmiotami. Nie są one jednak możliwe bez dobrej woli obu stron. W długi konflikt został nawet włączony Międzyrządowy Komitet ds. Wspierania Zwrotu D
从帕台农神庙的重新统一看世界遗产和国家遗产本文阐述了文化遗产完整性的两种途径:文化民族主义和文化国际主义。希腊和英国之间关于帕台农神庙大理石雕像的争议说明了这个问题。这一争端在现行法律规范范围内没有解决办法。此外，国际社会尚未就解决该问题的法律、伦理、历史和文化基础达成协商一致意见。双方直接谈判可能是解决问题的最佳途径，但这需要双方的善意。在谈判陷入长期僵局的情况下，促进归还文化财产政府间委员会(文物委会)的干预可能是有用的。Celem artykułu jest pokazanie dwóch możliwych stanowisk wobec reintegracji narodowego dziedzictwa kulturowego - narodowego i światowego。Szczególnie dobrze ujawniajosioonew kontekście starazogioodzyskanietzw。marmurów partenońskich z Wielkiej Brytanii。Reintegracja rzeźbionych części świątyni nie może dokonazi sizyna podstawie współczesnych norm pranych。W społeczności międzynarodowej nie ma zgodności co do jej legalnych, etycznych, historycznych i kulturowych podstaw。Najlepszym sposobem rozwiązania problemu mogłyby byki negochjacje między zaangażowanymi podmiotami。聂斯涅涅涅jednak możliwe bez dobrej woli obu strong。W długi konflikt zostaownawet włączony Międzyrządowy Komitet ds。藤属植物
{"title":"Światowe i narodowe dziedzictwo kulturowe a reintegracja tzw. marmurów partenońskich","authors":"Weronika Łubian","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.006.16396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.006.16396","url":null,"abstract":"World heritage and national heritage in the context of the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles\u0000\u0000This article provides an exposition of two approaches to the integrity of cultural heritage: cultural nationalism and cultural internationalism. The controversy over the Parthenon Marbles between Greece and the United Kingdom illustrates this issue. The dispute has no resolution within the bounds of current legal norms. Furthermore, the international community has not yet reached a consensus on the legal, ethical, historical, and cultural bases upon which the issue could be resolved. Direct negotiations between the two interested parties could potentially provide the optimal path to a resolution, yet they require goodwill from both sides. In the event of a prolonged impasse in the negotiations, an intervention by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property (ICPRCP) may be useful.\u0000\u0000Celem artykułu jest pokazanie dwóch możliwych stanowisk wobec reintegracji narodowego dziedzictwa kulturowego – narodowego i światowego. Szczególnie dobrze ujawniają się one w kontekście starań Grecji o odzyskanie tzw. marmurów partenońskich z Wielkiej Brytanii. Reintegracja rzeźbionych części świątyni nie może dokonać się na podstawie współczesnych norm prawnych. W społeczności międzynarodowej nie ma zgodności co do jej legalnych, etycznych, historycznych i kulturowych podstaw. Najlepszym sposobem rozwiązania problemu mogłyby być negocjacje między zaangażowanymi podmiotami. Nie są one jednak możliwe bez dobrej woli obu stron. W długi konflikt został nawet włączony Międzyrządowy Komitet ds. Wspierania Zwrotu D","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47425853","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 : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.002.16392
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk, Joanna Markiewicz
Museum inventories and inventorying of collections in light of the UNESCO legal framework Summary: This article presents the problem of inventories in museums and inventories of collections in light of the UNESCO normative legal framework in cultural conventions and soft law (UNESCO recommendations). The authors aim to present issues related to the implementation of the UNESCO 1970 Convention, UNESCO’s recommendations for museums, and the importance of the inventory of cultural property in the fight against illicit trafficking of movable objects. Given new challenges, including recent armed conflicts, the inventorying of cultural property is particularly important in this context. It also constitutes an essential element in the protection system at the national and international levels. UNESCO’s planned projects to provide further support for inventories, such as a practical guide on inventories and illicit trafficking of cultural property, are highly relevant and welcomed. W artykule przedstawiono zagadnienia inwentarzy w muzeach i inwentaryzacji kolekcji w świetle dorobku normatywnego UNESCO jako podmiotu wyznaczającego standardy zawarte w dokumentach wiążących i o charakterze soft law (zalecenia). Zaprezentowano kwestie związane z implementacją Konwencji UNESCO z 1970 r. dotyczącej środków zmierzających do zakazu i zapobiegania nielegalnemu przywozowi, wywozowi i przenoszeniu własności dóbr kultury, z rekomendacjami UNESCO dotyczącymi muzeów oraz ze znaczeniem ewidencjonowania dóbr kultury w walce z nielegalnym obrotem ruchomymi składnikami dziedzictwa kultury. Wobec nowych wyzwań, w tym ostatnich konfliktów zbrojnych, ewidencjonowanie dóbr kultury jest szczególnie ważne w walce z nielegalnym obrotem dobrami kultury i w systemie ochrony na poziomie krajowym i międzynarodowym. Istotne są planowane przez UNESCO nowe projekty dotyczące dalszego wspierania inwentaryzacji oraz praktycznego przewodnika na temat inwentarzy i nielegalnego handlu dobrami kultury.
{"title":"Zagadnienie inwentarzy w muzeach i inwentaryzacji kolekcji w świetle dorobku normatywnego UNESCO","authors":"Alicja Jagielska-Burduk, Joanna Markiewicz","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.002.16392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.22.002.16392","url":null,"abstract":"Museum inventories and inventorying of collections in light of the UNESCO legal framework Summary: This article presents the problem of inventories in museums and inventories of collections in light of the UNESCO normative legal framework in cultural conventions and soft law (UNESCO recommendations). The authors aim to present issues related to the implementation of the UNESCO 1970 Convention, UNESCO’s recommendations for museums, and the importance of the inventory of cultural property in the fight against illicit trafficking of movable objects. Given new challenges, including recent armed conflicts, the inventorying of cultural property is particularly important in this context. It also constitutes an essential element in the protection system at the national and international levels. UNESCO’s planned projects to provide further support for inventories, such as a practical guide on inventories and illicit trafficking of cultural property, are highly relevant and welcomed.\u0000\u0000W artykule przedstawiono zagadnienia inwentarzy w muzeach i inwentaryzacji kolekcji w świetle dorobku normatywnego UNESCO jako podmiotu wyznaczającego standardy zawarte w dokumentach wiążących i o charakterze soft law (zalecenia). Zaprezentowano kwestie związane z implementacją Konwencji UNESCO z 1970 r. dotyczącej środków zmierzających do zakazu i zapobiegania nielegalnemu przywozowi, wywozowi i przenoszeniu własności dóbr kultury, z rekomendacjami UNESCO dotyczącymi muzeów oraz ze znaczeniem ewidencjonowania dóbr kultury w walce z nielegalnym obrotem ruchomymi składnikami dziedzictwa kultury. Wobec nowych wyzwań, w tym ostatnich konfliktów zbrojnych, ewidencjonowanie dóbr kultury jest szczególnie ważne w walce z nielegalnym obrotem dobrami kultury i w systemie ochrony na poziomie krajowym i międzynarodowym. Istotne są planowane przez UNESCO nowe projekty dotyczące dalszego wspierania inwentaryzacji oraz praktycznego przewodnika na temat inwentarzy i nielegalnego handlu dobrami kultury.","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49250892","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：