Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/s0940739121000394
{"title":"JCP volume 28 issue 2 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s0940739121000394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739121000394","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":" ","pages":"b1 - b1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48986245","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000230
R. Joyce
Abstract The publication of a book in 2020 that argues against repatriation, on the grounds that it is incompatible with the necessary objectivity required for the production of scientific knowledge, raises issues that most scholars consider long settled. Rather than engage in a detailed review, this commentary revisits the reasons why claims of contributing to universal knowledge are insufficient to justify exploitation of the physical remains, and cultural property, of people who object to specific lines of research and reminds readers that academic freedom is a mitigated freedom that is rooted in responsibilities and norms agreed on within disciplines, all of which today accept repatriation as part of the necessary redress of legacies of exploitation.
{"title":"Science, objectivity, and academic freedom in the twenty-first century","authors":"R. Joyce","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000230","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The publication of a book in 2020 that argues against repatriation, on the grounds that it is incompatible with the necessary objectivity required for the production of scientific knowledge, raises issues that most scholars consider long settled. Rather than engage in a detailed review, this commentary revisits the reasons why claims of contributing to universal knowledge are insufficient to justify exploitation of the physical remains, and cultural property, of people who object to specific lines of research and reminds readers that academic freedom is a mitigated freedom that is rooted in responsibilities and norms agreed on within disciplines, all of which today accept repatriation as part of the necessary redress of legacies of exploitation.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"193 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44471093","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000199
Kamil Zeidler, A. Guss
On 4–5 February 2021, an international conference entitled “What Prospects for ‘Orphan Works’? Reflection on Cultural Goods without Provenance” took place, which was organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage at the University of Geneva, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), and the Foundation Gandur pour l’Art. The conference was held remotely via Zoom. Welcoming speakers and participants, Yves Fluckiger (rector of the University of Geneva) highlighted that the event gathered world-class specialists in the field of art, art history, archeology, law, and economics, who face the problem of orphan works on a daily basis. Short speeches were also presented by Sami Kanaan (the mayor of Geneva), Jean Claude Gandur (Foundation Gandur pour l’Art), Marina Schneider (UNIDROIT), Marc-André Renold (the University of Geneva), and Isabelle Tassignon (Foundation Gandur pour l’Art).
2021年2月4日至5日，联合国教育、科学及文化组织（教科文组织）保护文化遗产国际法主席在日内瓦大学组织了一次题为“‘孤儿作品’的前景如何？对无出处文化产品的反思”的国际会议，国际统一私法协会（私法协会）和艺术基金会。会议通过Zoom远程举行。Yves Fluckiger（日内瓦大学校长）对演讲者和参与者表示欢迎，他强调，此次活动汇集了艺术、艺术史、考古学、法律和经济学领域的世界级专家，他们每天都面临着孤儿作品的问题。Sami Kanaan（日内瓦市长）、Jean-Claude Gandur（Gandur pour l’Art基金会）、Marina Schneider（UNIDROIT）、Marc AndréRenold（日内瓦大学）和Isabelle Tassinon（Ganduur pour l‘Art基金会。
{"title":"“What Prospects for ‘Orphan Works’? Reflection on Cultural Goods without Provenance,” University of Geneva, 4–5 February 2021","authors":"Kamil Zeidler, A. Guss","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000199","url":null,"abstract":"On 4–5 February 2021, an international conference entitled “What Prospects for ‘Orphan Works’? Reflection on Cultural Goods without Provenance” took place, which was organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage at the University of Geneva, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), and the Foundation Gandur pour l’Art. The conference was held remotely via Zoom. Welcoming speakers and participants, Yves Fluckiger (rector of the University of Geneva) highlighted that the event gathered world-class specialists in the field of art, art history, archeology, law, and economics, who face the problem of orphan works on a daily basis. Short speeches were also presented by Sami Kanaan (the mayor of Geneva), Jean Claude Gandur (Foundation Gandur pour l’Art), Marina Schneider (UNIDROIT), Marc-André Renold (the University of Geneva), and Isabelle Tassignon (Foundation Gandur pour l’Art).","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"329 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47124399","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S094073912100014X
M. Gerner
Abstract Organ craftsmanship and music are inextricably linked with each other. In Germany, a particularly rich symbiosis between craftspeople, composers, and performing artists has evolved over the centuries. In recognizing the transmission of this intangible cultural know-how from generation to generation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) inscribed organ craftsmanship and music together in the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2017. This article elucidates how this inscription influences the perception and self-concept of organ craftsmanship and music, both in theoretic-intellectual and in virtual terms. Complementing the qualitative content analysis of literature and documents, narrative first-hand accounts/expert interviews with organ craftspeople/organ builders have been conducted and interpreted. Taking into account a dual nexus of cultural sustainability and intangible cultural heritage, sustainable value creation, substantial claims, multi-perspective visibility, and facilitative reassurance were analyzed and assessed vis-à-vis organ craftsmanship and music. Including organ craftsmanship and music in UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity demonstrates an appreciation for sustainable value creation related to the quadruple bottom-line of sustainability – that is, addressing economic, environmental, and societal aspects, including culture as a fully integrated dimension; claims substantial rights for safeguarding and invoking/activating heritage; enhances visibility of performing organists, assigned organ builders, frequent practitioners, and nominated organ experts; and enables reassurance of passion and self-positioning with organ craftsmanship and music.
{"title":"Her majesty, the queen of sounds: Cultural sustainability and heritage in organ craftsmanship and music","authors":"M. Gerner","doi":"10.1017/S094073912100014X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S094073912100014X","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Organ craftsmanship and music are inextricably linked with each other. In Germany, a particularly rich symbiosis between craftspeople, composers, and performing artists has evolved over the centuries. In recognizing the transmission of this intangible cultural know-how from generation to generation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) inscribed organ craftsmanship and music together in the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2017. This article elucidates how this inscription influences the perception and self-concept of organ craftsmanship and music, both in theoretic-intellectual and in virtual terms. Complementing the qualitative content analysis of literature and documents, narrative first-hand accounts/expert interviews with organ craftspeople/organ builders have been conducted and interpreted. Taking into account a dual nexus of cultural sustainability and intangible cultural heritage, sustainable value creation, substantial claims, multi-perspective visibility, and facilitative reassurance were analyzed and assessed vis-à-vis organ craftsmanship and music. Including organ craftsmanship and music in UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity demonstrates an appreciation for sustainable value creation related to the quadruple bottom-line of sustainability – that is, addressing economic, environmental, and societal aspects, including culture as a fully integrated dimension; claims substantial rights for safeguarding and invoking/activating heritage; enhances visibility of performing organists, assigned organ builders, frequent practitioners, and nominated organ experts; and enables reassurance of passion and self-positioning with organ craftsmanship and music.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"285 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47313227","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/s0940739121000382
A. Guss
{"title":"JCP volume 28 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"A. Guss","doi":"10.1017/s0940739121000382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739121000382","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"f1 - f6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44683447","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000205
Feyoena Crommelin, O. Tans
Abstract This article analyzes the debate between the proponents and opponents of artistic moral rights and, more specifically, the right of integrity as recognized in the Berne Convention, with the aid of agonistic political theory. Envisaging art as a site of antagonistic struggle, the right of integrity is conceived of as a state-backed mandate to claim an inviolable place for artistic work, founded on a Romantic notion of authorship. The plea against the entrenchment of this right is considered a counter-hegemonic response that challenges this notion in favor of an unfettered development of art and its surrounding discourse. As such, this debate seems to revolve around a conflict of alleged interests – those of artists, of art’s public, and of art itself. It is argued that insights into the discursive behavior of rights, and, by extension, into the effect of rights discourses on antagonistic struggle, are needed to foster this debate.
{"title":"How to manage cultural space: An agonistic analysis of artistic moral rights","authors":"Feyoena Crommelin, O. Tans","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000205","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the debate between the proponents and opponents of artistic moral rights and, more specifically, the right of integrity as recognized in the Berne Convention, with the aid of agonistic political theory. Envisaging art as a site of antagonistic struggle, the right of integrity is conceived of as a state-backed mandate to claim an inviolable place for artistic work, founded on a Romantic notion of authorship. The plea against the entrenchment of this right is considered a counter-hegemonic response that challenges this notion in favor of an unfettered development of art and its surrounding discourse. As such, this debate seems to revolve around a conflict of alleged interests – those of artists, of art’s public, and of art itself. It is argued that insights into the discursive behavior of rights, and, by extension, into the effect of rights discourses on antagonistic struggle, are needed to foster this debate.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"311 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48928799","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000187
Pierre Losson
Cynthia Scott’s book Cultural Diplomacy and the Heritage of Empire represents an important addition to the burgeoning literature on returns and restitution of cultural heritage objects. Its first great contribution is to focus in depth on a case study that has seldom been explored elsewhere: the negotiations over the return of cultural heritage objects and archives to Indonesia from the Netherlands, a process that took approximately three decades following Indonesia’s independence in 1949. Overall, the scholarly literature has preferred to examine cases in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the unresolved Greek claim over the Parthenon Marbles, currently held in the British Museum. More recently, international attention has shifted toward other high-profile disputes – in particular, over the Benin Bronzes held in several Westernmuseums and claimed by Nigeria. Comparatively, studies focusing on other geographical areas remain few and far apart; even more comprehensive studies such as Jeanette Greenfield’s classic volume barely mention the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations.1 For readers, such as this reviewer, unfamiliar with either Dutch or Indonesian history, Scott provides clear and detailed information to contextualize her argument. The objects that were at stake in these negotiations included, among others, war booty from Dutch military expeditions against kingdoms in Lombok and Bali in the nineteenth century; religious and cultural objects brought back to theNetherlands by army officers or employees of the Dutch East India Company (or the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie [VOC] in Dutch, the trading corporation that served as one of the main tools of the Dutch colonial domination over the Indonesian archipelago) and held in the public collections of Dutch ethnological museums, among them a famous Prajñāpāramitā statue from the Singasari era; and important archives of the early Indonesian republican period – the so-called Djokja Archive – taken by the Dutch just before their departure in 1949. Scott’s case study is also interesting because the return negotiations dealt with an array of archaeological and cultural materials taken over an expansive period of time, while many other return disputes concern one specific object or group of similar objects. The second, andmost important, contribution of Scott’s study is her approach to the topic of returns. Rather than focusing on the colonial context that led to the constitution of these collections (a past she evokes but does not delve on) or the legal dimension of the returns, Scott prefers to consider the return of cultural objects as a political process – namely, the establishment of new cultural relations between a major European colonial metropolis and one of its former colonies after independence. Return negotiations thus become a proxy for navigating the tumultuous process of inventing new diplomatic relations in the postcolonial period. As the author signals, the long duration of the negotiati
辛西娅·斯科特（Cynthia Scott）的《文化外交与帝国遗产》（Cultural Diplomacy and the Heritage of Empire）一书是对新兴的文化遗产归还文献的重要补充。它的第一个重大贡献是深入关注一个在其他地方很少探索的案例研究：关于从荷兰向印度尼西亚归还文化遗产和档案的谈判，这一过程在1949年印度尼西亚独立后花了大约30年的时间。总的来说，学术文献更倾向于研究盎格鲁-撒克逊世界的案例，特别是希腊对目前保存在大英博物馆的帕特农神庙大理石的未决索赔。最近，国际社会的注意力转移到了其他备受关注的争议上，尤其是在尼日利亚声称拥有主权的几家西方博物馆中展出的贝宁青铜器。相比之下，侧重于其他地理区域的研究仍然很少，而且相距甚远；更全面的研究，如珍妮特·格林菲尔德的经典著作，几乎没有提到荷兰-印尼谈判。1对于像这位评论家这样不熟悉荷兰或印尼历史的读者来说，斯科特提供了清晰而详细的信息，将她的论点置于背景中。这些谈判的利害关系对象包括19世纪荷兰对龙目岛和巴厘岛王国的军事远征所得的战利品；荷兰东印度公司（或荷兰的Vereenigde Oostdische Compagnie[VOC]，该贸易公司是荷兰殖民统治印度尼西亚群岛的主要工具之一）的军官或雇员带回荷兰并被荷兰民族学博物馆公开收藏的宗教和文化物品，其中包括新加坡时代著名的Prajñāpāramitā雕像；以及荷兰在1949年离开前拍摄的印尼共和国早期的重要档案，即所谓的焦贾档案。斯科特的案例研究也很有趣，因为归还谈判涉及一系列在很长一段时间内被拿走的考古和文化材料，而许多其他归还争议涉及一个特定的物体或一组类似的物体。斯科特研究的第二个也是最重要的贡献是她对回报主题的研究。斯科特更喜欢将文物归还视为一个政治过程，而不是关注导致这些藏品构成的殖民背景（她唤起了过去，但没有深入研究）或归还的法律层面，独立后，欧洲一个主要的殖民地大都市与其前殖民地之间建立了新的文化关系。因此，回归谈判成为后殖民时期创造新外交关系的动荡进程的代表。正如作者所表示的那样，长达30多年的谈判“表明，这比仅仅对印度尼西亚关于后殖民文化财产归还的主张作出法律或道德回应更为危险”（18）。基于对荷兰政府几个附属机构档案的历史分析，本书令人信服地描述了荷兰外交如何交替考虑归还档案和
{"title":"Review of Cynthia Scott, Cultural Diplomacy and the Heritage of Empire: Negotiating Post-Colonial Returns. 202 pp. Routledge, 2020.","authors":"Pierre Losson","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000187","url":null,"abstract":"Cynthia Scott’s book Cultural Diplomacy and the Heritage of Empire represents an important addition to the burgeoning literature on returns and restitution of cultural heritage objects. Its first great contribution is to focus in depth on a case study that has seldom been explored elsewhere: the negotiations over the return of cultural heritage objects and archives to Indonesia from the Netherlands, a process that took approximately three decades following Indonesia’s independence in 1949. Overall, the scholarly literature has preferred to examine cases in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the unresolved Greek claim over the Parthenon Marbles, currently held in the British Museum. More recently, international attention has shifted toward other high-profile disputes – in particular, over the Benin Bronzes held in several Westernmuseums and claimed by Nigeria. Comparatively, studies focusing on other geographical areas remain few and far apart; even more comprehensive studies such as Jeanette Greenfield’s classic volume barely mention the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations.1 For readers, such as this reviewer, unfamiliar with either Dutch or Indonesian history, Scott provides clear and detailed information to contextualize her argument. The objects that were at stake in these negotiations included, among others, war booty from Dutch military expeditions against kingdoms in Lombok and Bali in the nineteenth century; religious and cultural objects brought back to theNetherlands by army officers or employees of the Dutch East India Company (or the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie [VOC] in Dutch, the trading corporation that served as one of the main tools of the Dutch colonial domination over the Indonesian archipelago) and held in the public collections of Dutch ethnological museums, among them a famous Prajñāpāramitā statue from the Singasari era; and important archives of the early Indonesian republican period – the so-called Djokja Archive – taken by the Dutch just before their departure in 1949. Scott’s case study is also interesting because the return negotiations dealt with an array of archaeological and cultural materials taken over an expansive period of time, while many other return disputes concern one specific object or group of similar objects. The second, andmost important, contribution of Scott’s study is her approach to the topic of returns. Rather than focusing on the colonial context that led to the constitution of these collections (a past she evokes but does not delve on) or the legal dimension of the returns, Scott prefers to consider the return of cultural objects as a political process – namely, the establishment of new cultural relations between a major European colonial metropolis and one of its former colonies after independence. Return negotiations thus become a proxy for navigating the tumultuous process of inventing new diplomatic relations in the postcolonial period. As the author signals, the long duration of the negotiati","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"325 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45824427","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000175
C. Liuzza
Abstract This article examines the process of text-based negotiations surrounding the documents of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It focuses on revisions to the Operational Guidelines of the Convention and utilizes ethnographic observation and textual examination to show how alternative, and often the most controversial, proposals are silenced through the practice of consensus. It expands anthropological perspectives on the inner workings of intergovernmental institutions and adds to the literature on heritage regimes by providing examples from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) most prestigious intergovernmental committee. Ultimately, the article enhances our understanding of the political tensions and practical limitations of policymaking within intergovernmental organizations in the United Nations, including UNESCO.
{"title":"The making and UN-making of consensus: Institutional inertia in the UNESCO World Heritage Committee","authors":"C. Liuzza","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000175","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the process of text-based negotiations surrounding the documents of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It focuses on revisions to the Operational Guidelines of the Convention and utilizes ethnographic observation and textual examination to show how alternative, and often the most controversial, proposals are silenced through the practice of consensus. It expands anthropological perspectives on the inner workings of intergovernmental institutions and adds to the literature on heritage regimes by providing examples from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) most prestigious intergovernmental committee. Ultimately, the article enhances our understanding of the political tensions and practical limitations of policymaking within intergovernmental organizations in the United Nations, including UNESCO.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"261 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56872423","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 : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739121000138
N. Zambrana-Tévar
Abstract The case of the illicit export of a Picasso painting by its owner and its confiscation and recovery by French and Spanish authorities provides an interesting example of the complexities of the transnational criminal, civil, and administrative law protection of national cultural heritage and of the ongoing efforts to achieve useful legal instruments at the European level, which foster and harmonize the current and often informal mechanisms of cooperation and judicial assistance among the different domestic enforcing agencies. It also attempts to show how Spanish authorities have made a legitimate, but possibly overreaching, use of existing European Union law in order to recover and appropriate a valuable work of art.
{"title":"Head of a Young Woman: The thrilling recovery of a flying Picasso","authors":"N. Zambrana-Tévar","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000138","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The case of the illicit export of a Picasso painting by its owner and its confiscation and recovery by French and Spanish authorities provides an interesting example of the complexities of the transnational criminal, civil, and administrative law protection of national cultural heritage and of the ongoing efforts to achieve useful legal instruments at the European level, which foster and harmonize the current and often informal mechanisms of cooperation and judicial assistance among the different domestic enforcing agencies. It also attempts to show how Spanish authorities have made a legitimate, but possibly overreaching, use of existing European Union law in order to recover and appropriate a valuable work of art.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"175 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47494599","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 : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1017/S0940739120000284
K. Lingard, N. Stoianoff, Evana Wright, Sarah Wright
Abstract This article examines the extent to which a recent law reform initiative in New South Wales (NSW), Australia—the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 (NSW)—advances the general principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The examination reveals some improvements on the current legal framework and some concerning proposals that distance the NSW government from the UNDRIP principles. Key concerns include a proposed transfer of administrative responsibility to Aboriginal bodies with no corresponding guarantee of funding; the continued vesting of key decision-making powers in government; inept provisions for the protection of secret knowledge; and lower penalties for harming cultural heritage than for related offences in existing environmental and planning legislation. Given the bill’s weaknesses, the article explores pragmatic alternatives to better advance the UNDRIP principles.
{"title":"Are we there yet? A review of proposed Aboriginal cultural heritage laws in New South Wales, Australia","authors":"K. Lingard, N. Stoianoff, Evana Wright, Sarah Wright","doi":"10.1017/S0940739120000284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739120000284","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the extent to which a recent law reform initiative in New South Wales (NSW), Australia—the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 (NSW)—advances the general principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The examination reveals some improvements on the current legal framework and some concerning proposals that distance the NSW government from the UNDRIP principles. Key concerns include a proposed transfer of administrative responsibility to Aboriginal bodies with no corresponding guarantee of funding; the continued vesting of key decision-making powers in government; inept provisions for the protection of secret knowledge; and lower penalties for harming cultural heritage than for related offences in existing environmental and planning legislation. Given the bill’s weaknesses, the article explores pragmatic alternatives to better advance the UNDRIP principles.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"107 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0940739120000284","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43278303","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：