United States Senate Finally Ratifies the 1954 Hague Convention

On September 25th, the Senate gave its advice and consent and ratified the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The treaty was submitted to the Senate by President Clinton in 1999. You can read the statement submitted by the Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and other heritage advocacy groups here.

Pictured here is a "Blue Shield" in Austria I pulled from Flickr. The text reads:

"Protected by the convention of The Hague, dated 14 May 1954, for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. (BGBI. No. 58 3rd April 1964)."

I'm a bit surprised the ratification has not made any papers yet. Though a Presidential election and a world banking collapse certainly are taking their share of headlines; part of the reason may be that the Hague Convention was designed to prevent the kind of theft and widescale destruction which took place in World War II, as Larry Rothfield correctly points out.

As Rothfield notes:

A new and quite distinct danger has emerged in the half-century since the 1954 Convention, however. It comes not from military action, but from military inaction in the face of looting by civilians, fueled by the global market for antiquities that has boomed over the last few decades. While Hague leads the military to [focus] on avoiding harm, it imposes no requirement to actively protect cultural sites against the harm that comes from the breakdown in law and order and the concomitant surge in market-driven looting. The obligations it imposes on occupying powers, in fact, seem designed to limit the responsibility of occupiers for securing cultural property, with such responsibility applying only to "cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by military operations," only when national authorities are unable to protect it, and even then only so far as possible. Since looting by civilians is not damage inflicted by military operations, Iraq's archaeological sites are fair game and no necessary concern of the US military, which may in fact point to Hague as putting it off the hook for whatever goes wrong.

That succinctly points out the main flaws in the Hague framework. However Rothfield notes, and I wholeheartedly agree that the flaws in the Hague Convention certainly do not make ratification meaningless.

It officially adopts what had up to now been customary international law, and may help to aid and support the efforts of organizations like Blue Shield and others. Ultimately, the difficulty international treaties and lawmakers have had in regulating the rules of conflict to prevent the looting and destruction of sites may indicate how difficult it is to regulate armed conflict -- and may perhaps be a powerful reason to avoid the use of force at all cost. As the Hague Testimony endorsed by heritage advocacy groups notes, adoption of the Convention "is a crucial step toward improving our foreign relations by sending a strong signal to all nations that the United States values their cultural heritage."

Conference: The Fate of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict

The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is sponsoring an interesting and timely event on cultural property during armed conflict:

Protecting the Past: The Fate of Cultural Property in times of Armed Conflict

WHEN:
April 24, 2008
1:30pm - 4:30pm Program
4:30pm - 5:30pm Reception

WHERE:
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Board Room, 2nd floor
1785 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20052

COST:
There isn't a cost to attend this event, but pre-registration is required, as space is limited

Register Online to Attend "Protecting the Past"

PROGRAM:

Panel I - Looking Back: Lessons Learned from Past Conflicts
Individual presentations, followed by questions.

Lynn H. Nicholas, Independent researcher of Nazi era social and
cultural policy and author of "Rape of Europa," will discuss Nazi and World
War II art looting, wartime preservation measures and post-War restitution.

Robert M. Edsel, Author of the non-fiction book, "Rescuing Da
Vinci," co-producer of the documentary film, "The Rape of Europa," and
Founder and President of the Monuments Men Foundation for the Preservation
of Art, will discuss the role of the WWII Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives
troops in protecting, preserving and restituting looted art.

András J. Riedlmayer, Harvard University, will discuss the
destruction of cultural property during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.

Hays Parks, U.S. Department of Defense, will discuss the history of
and U.S. position toward the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Thomas R. Kline - Panel Chair, Attorney, Andrews Kurth LLP, and
Assistant Professorial Lecturer, GWU, Museum Studies Program.


Panel II - Looking Forward: Applying the Lessons Learned.
Round table discussion, followed by questions to members of both panels.

Corine Wegener, President, U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield;
Associate Curator, Architecture, Design, Decorative Arts, Craft, and
Sculpture at The Minneapolis Institute of Arts and Major (retired) in the
U.S. Army Reserve, will discuss looting and destruction of cultural property
at the Iraq National Museum and recovery efforts and also the role of the
Blue Shield in protecting cultural property in future conflicts.

John Russell, Professor, Massachusetts College of Art, and former
Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Culture, Coalition Provisional
Authority, will discuss damage done to cultural heritage during the Iraq War
and efforts toward cooperation between the U.S. military and cultural
heritage professionals of different nationalities.

Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General for
Law of War Matters and Army Colonel (Ret.), will discuss current attitudes
of the U.S. military toward the Hague Convention and obligations to preserve
cultural heritage during armed conflict.

Patty Gerstenblith - Panel Chair, Professor, DePaul College of Law,
and President, Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation.

Chicago, Cuno and Iraq

Tom Hundley has a very long piece in yesterday's Chicago Tribune on antiquities looting, Iraq, and Jim Cuno's arguments (with slideshow). It's an interesting read, as it summarizes nicely some of the problems with antiquities looting in Iraq, which he argues began in the difficult economic times after the first Iraq War.

At the close of the war in 1991, as Saddam fought off insurrections from the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, the U.S. government imposed a no-fly zone over large swaths of Iraq. This, along with strict UN trade sanctions, created a kind of perfect storm. With the weakened Baghdad regime unable to control large parts of the country, impoverished Iraqi villagers—often with the blessing of village elders—turned to the only source of income available to them: scavenging the hundreds of archeological sites that dot the landscape between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

In some areas, the trade in looted antiquities accounted for almost 85 percent of local economic activity. Meanwhile, a weak U.S. economy at the end of George H. W. Bush's presidency was encouraging the truly rich to look for alternatives to stocks and bonds. Art and antiquities fit the bill. As supply obligingly met demand, the market for Mesopotamian antiquities blossomed. Within months of the war's end, a treasure trove of Mesopotamian antiquities began to show up in the gilded display rooms of auction houses in London and New York, no questions asked.

The article then goes on to summarize James Cuno's views, and gives a very superficial discussion of national patrimony laws. He writes incorrectly I think that the Hague and UNESCO Conventions are the foundation for national patrimony laws. I think that's a questionable assertion, as many patrimony laws were established long before these.

It is worth noting that there is a gross factual inaccuracy in the piece. Despite what the article says, the U.S. has ratified the 1954 Hague Convention. Perhaps Hundley should have spent a bit more time talking with Patty Gerstenblith, whom he quotes in the piece, or even Larry Rothfield -- another Chicagoan -- who has written a recent work on the looting in Iraq.

More War, More Looting

Jason bringing Pelias the Golden Fleece

From Jason and his argonauts to Thomas Bruce, seventh Earl of Elgin, cultural takings are nothing new. So argues Richard J. Evans—Professor of History at Wolfson College, Cambridge, and Chair of the U.K. Spoliation Advisory Panel—in a terrific long-read that argues the looting of heritage during wartime continue despite attempts to police conflict.

It is a beautifully written historical summary of wartime looting, which puts the ancient world, modern unrest, and World War II in historical context. I really recommend giving the entire piece a read, but here are some highlights:

The history of [looting] goes back far indeed, beginning perhaps with Jason and the Argonauts looting the Golden Fleece; and it continued with the Romans’ habit of looting art from conquered cities in order to parade it through the streets of Rome in the ceremonial procession of the Roman triumph before putting it on display in the Forum.

. . .

ELGIN’S ACTIONS reflected his belief that educated Englishmen were the true heirs of classical civilization, whose legacy permeated the minds of educated elites across Europe. This influence was nowhere greater than in revolutionary France, where Napoleon’s victorious armies began concluding a series of treaties with conquered states across Europe, notably the Treaty of Tolentino, signed by the pope in 1797, that allowed them to appropriate artworks to stock the Louvre Museum, founded in 1793.

. . .

It is vital to learn the lessons of the Second World War and put effective arrangements in place in advance of future fighting to rescue and restore cultural objects and prevent looting. Such arrangements were not made in Iraq in 2003, and the devastation was vast. The international community cannot prevent looting and destruction in the course of civil unrest, but it can take steps to minimize it in cases of interstate conflicts. Above all, the art and museum world needs to be more vigilant in monitoring the trade in looted goods in the wake of conflicts such as those in Iraq or Afghanistan, and law-enforcement agencies need to step in with sanctions against those who encourage—or benefit—from it. In a globalized world, every state has, as the Hague Convention urged more than a century ago, a duty to act as the trustee of the culture of all nations, not just its own.

1. Richard J. Evans, Art in the Time of War, The National Interest, May-June 2011, http://nationalinterest.org/article/art-the-time-war-5163 (last visited Apr 19, 2011).

Did UN Troops Violate the 1954 Hague Convention?

I am just catching up on this story, but it strikes me as particularly troubling. 6,000 year-old paintings of animal and human figures have been spray-painted over by UN peacekeepers in the Western Sahara. The UN personnel with the Minurso mission in the Western Saraha signed and dated their work, and in some cases revealed their identities. As the Times reported back in January:

One Croatian peacekeeper scrawled “Petar CroArmy” across a rock face. Extensive traces of pigment from rock painting are visible underneath. Another left behind Cyrillic graffiti, and “Evgeny” from Russia scribbled AUI, the code for the Minurso base at Aguanit. “Mahmoud” from Egypt left his mark at Rekeiz Lemgasem, and “Ibrahim” wrote his name and number over a prehistoric painting of a giraffe. “Issa”, a Kenyan major who signed his name and wrote the date, had just completed a UN course, Ethics in Peacekeeping, documents show.

The Middle East Online reported that Morocco's director of national heritage has accused the UN forces of graffiti on ancient sites, but also the theft of cave paintings, desecrating graves, and removing engraved paving stones.

Such disregard for important heritage of course implicates the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. To add to the difficulty, the head of the UN mission in Western Sahara (Minurso), seems to have bungled an apology, and served to incite more unrest between the groups he should be monitoring.

I'd really recommend those interested to have a look at what David Nishimura has to say on this, as I picked up the story from him. He notes the parallels with the coverage of the theft of objects from the Iraqi Museum, and the part coalition forces may have played in the looting of the museum in Baghdad. However he notes "the greatest damage in Iraq has been indirect, a consequence of civil disorder, rather than the direct result of military action. The vandalism in the Sahara is particularly shocking due to its deliberateness and the identity of those responsible, along with the complete lack of mitigating circumstances."

I think that's exactly right, and this story has received very little media attention in the West, particularly in the United States. There was a lot of legitimate outrage at the actions of the US military on the heels of the looting of the Baghdad Museum, however the actions of these UN forces deserves an equal measure of outrage in my view, and the troops responsible should be subjected to criminal penalties for looting and vandalizing these sites. Sadly, I think this reveals just how ineffective the international legal regime has been in protecting sites during armed conflict.

I know by monitoring the url logs that this site attracts some interest of journalists, notably when some of my ideas may prove useful for a story, which is great. However rather than writing the same story about Marion True for example, why not broaden coverage to encompass the full nature and extent of the antiquities problem?

Did Marion True Ever Catch a Looter or Dealer?

One of the stolen Mosaics at issue in the case

Some folks on the internet are not too pleased about the letter I collaborated on with Noah Charney re-examining Hugh Eakin's review of Chasing Aphrodite. A pointed response by David Gill here, and another critic wonders "whether anything done by Marion True herself actually led to the capture and conviction of a single looter of archaeological sites, or advanced any "Research into Crimes against Art"?

Yes, she certainly did, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As anyone should know who claims to study looting of archaeology and heritage, Marion True was the hero of one of the most prominent antiquities cases of the last thirty years, AUTOCEPHALOUS GREEK-ORTHODOX CHURCH OF CYPRUS vs.GOLDBERG, 917 F. 2d 278 (7th Cir., 1990) (available here). The case involved an antiquities dealer, Peg Goldberg, as well as Michel van Rijn. A helpful summary of the case is available here from IFAR.  I discuss the case at some length in  an article where I argue the nation of origin's law should be applied more often in cross-border trafficking in pieces of cultural heritage.

But with respect to Marion True, she is the unabashed hero of the case. From the opinion by Chief Judge Alex Bauer:

Peg Goldberg’s efforts soon turned to just that: the resale of these valuable mosaics. She worked up sales brochures about them, and contacted several other dealers to help her find a buyer. Two of these dealers’ searches led them both to Dr. Marion True of the Getty Museum in California. When told of these mosaics and their likely origin, the aptly-named Dr. True explained to the dealers that she had a working relationship with the Republic of Cyprus and that she was duty-bound to contact Cypriot officials about them. Dr. True called Dr. Vassos Karageorghis, the Director of the Republic’s Department of Antiquities and one of the primary Cypriot officials involved in the worldwide search for the mosaics. Dr. Karageorghis verified that the Republic was in fact hunting for the mosaics that had been described to Dr. True, and he set in motion the investigative and legal machinery that ultimately resulted in the Republic learning that they were in Goldberg’s possession in Indianapolis.

(emphasis added)

The opinion is also widely cited because of a concurring opinion by Judge Cudahy embedding the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1970 UNESCO Convention into cultural heritage law, a precedent which has had a number of important effects.

Marion True is no saint, nobody would argue she is, but her story is more complicated than merely painting her as the endpoint for looted antiquities. She did so much more, as Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino explain in their book. Italian officials will tell you if asked that the case was brought against her because they had the evidence, not necessarily because she was the worst offender. And yes, she was instrumental in returning at least one looted object.  group of looted objects.

Iraqi Cultural Heritage

In today's Independent Robert Fisk has a special investigation on Iraqi cultural heritage. It's an interesting account, though it gives only one side of the argument. I'm not sure what the special investigation was, he seems to be relying in large measure on one Lebanese archaeologist. Here's an excerpt:

In a long and devastating appraisal to be published in December, Lebanese archaeologist Joanne Farchakh says that armies of looters have not spared "one metre of these Sumerian capitals that have been buried under the sand for thousands of years.

"They systematically destroyed the remains of this civilisation in their tireless search for sellable artefacts: ancient cities, covering an estimated surface area of 20 square kilometres, which – if properly excavated – could have provided extensive new information concerning the development of the human race.

"Humankind is losing its past for a cuneiform tablet or a sculpture or piece of jewellery that the dealer buys and pays for in cash in a country devastated by war. Humankind is losing its history for the pleasure of private collectors living safely in their luxurious houses and ordering specific objects for their collection."

Ms Farchakh, who helped with the original investigation into stolen treasures from the Baghdad Archaeological Museum in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, says Iraq may soon end up with no history.

"There are 10,000 archaeological sites in the country. In the Nassariyah area alone, there are about 840 Sumerian sites; they have all been systematically looted. Even when Alexander the Great destroyed a city, he would always build another. But now the robbers are destroying everything because they are going down to bedrock. What's new is that the looters are becoming more and more organised with, apparently, lots of money.

"Quite apart from this, military operations are damaging these sites forever. There's been a US base in Ur for five years and the walls are cracking because of the weight of military vehicles. It's like putting an archaeological site under a continuous earthquake."

I'm afraid I have a pessimistic view of conflict and cultural property. Conflict always leads to theft and destruction. The activities of the US military in and around some of these archaeological sites is indeed troubling as I've written about before. But I have a bit of skepticism about the looting of sites. Is this something that only began after the Invasion in 2003? I'm not sure about the answer to that question. But though the 1954 Hague Convention is mentioned briefly, no mention is made of the efforts of Marine Colonel Matthew Bogdanos, the import restrictions in the US and the UK on Iraqi objects, or any other efforts.

55 Card Pick-up (UPDATE)

The Pentagon will be sending 40,000 decks of cards to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is an attempt to raise awareness about the heritage of the two nations. Some may remember that there was another earlier deck of cards which showed the most wanted senior government officials.

Each card in the new deck shows a historic site or small antiquity. The goal is to show American troops that they should not pick up and take home artifacts. One would hope that such an education program had already been underway, but the troubling accounts at Babylon I talked about earlier reveal that is probably not the case.

A few of my favorite cards:

The seven of clubs shows the Ctesiphon Arch and says "This site has survived 17 centuries. Will it and others survive you?"

The five of clubs says "Drive around, not over, archaeological sites".

The two of hearts shows ruins at Samarra and says "Ninety-nine per cent of mankind's history can be understood through archaeology."

Exactly right. Of course the US Military could have shown more concrete regard for these sites by better protecting and avoiding them during the invasion, or by abiding by the tenets of the 1954 Hague Convention. But if these cards raise awareness and stop a few GI's from driving over millenia-old ruins they will have done their job. I would also expect them to be a major collectors item in the near future, and I'd like to have a deck myself.

UPDATE:

Mark Rose of the Archaeological Institute of America kindly informs me that the AIA have some pages documenting the destruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are excellent. They also have a troop lecture program for troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, which you can read about here. That strikes me as an excellent idea, regardless of your stance on cultural property internationalism or the invasion of Iraq.

One can while away a lot of good time on wikipedia just learning about places like Ctesiphon, and it really is a pity many of these places have been damaged and looted in recent decades, by both Iraqis and invading forces during the periods of conflict.

International Symposium on Nazi-looted art at the Peace Palace, Nov. 27

I have been forwarded some details about an international symposium: Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments. The symposium is taking place in the Peace Palace in the Hague, the Netherlands on 27 November 2012.

This symposium is being staged to mark the tenth anniversary of the Dutch Restitutions Committee, an independent committee that advises on claims relating to Nazi-looted art. The chairman of the Restitutions Committee is Willibrord Davids. During the symposium five European looted-art advisory committees, distinguished scholars, experts, representatives of museums, art dealers, auction houses and pressure groups will explore the question of how to reach a fair and just solution in disputes about Nazi-looted art. Attendees at the symposium will not only gain a good overview of the current state of affairs, but will also be able to share their thoughts about desirable developments in the future. Registration for the symposium is open to anyone with an interest. For more practical information about the main issues, the programme and the registration form please go to the Restitutions Committee’s website: http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/symposium_introduction.html.

Student Comment on Repatriation of Flemish art in French Museums

Paige Goodwin has a Student Comment in the recent Pennsylvania Law Review, Mapping The Limits Of Repatriable Cultural Heritage: A Case Study Of Stolen Flemish Art In French Museums, 157 Penn. L. Rev. 157 673 (2008). 

On June 20, 1939, Adolf Hitler called upon Hans Posse, one of his chief advisors, to establish the Sonderauftrag Linz (“Special Project Linz”)—a cultural complex in the Führer’s hometown. The showpiece of the propagandistic cultural center would be the Führermuseum, a grand museum housing the most revered European artwork from every century. By the end of the war, the Nazis had stolen more than 21,000 paintings, sculptures, and other art pieces for Hitler’s museum. Upon discovering the large-scale pillaging when the war ended, the Allies mounted a well-publicized campaign to return the stolen art to its rightful owners. For essentially the first time in history, the international art community launched a coordinated campaign to repatriate stolen art and revise museum acquisition policies. Beyond returning many of the stolen works, the postwar movement resulted in the 1954 Hague Convention, which conceived the art world’s newest buzzword: “cultural property.”


Nearly two centuries before Hitler’s art campaign, revolutionary and postrevolutionary French governments, particularly under Napoleon Bonaparte, oversaw many national political changes that implicated concepts of cultural property. Chief among these was the nationalization of the royal art collection at the Luxembourg Palace, later renamed the Musée Napoléon (and now known as the Louvre). Like Hitler, Napoleon envisioned a spectacular art museum bearing his name and charged French troops with confiscating art at home and in foreign conquests. Between 1794 and 1813, art shipments arrived in France nearly every year from Italy, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain. When the Musée Napoléon became too cramped with the spoils of war, Napoleon transferred art to regional museums throughout the country. Although the 1815 Treaty of Paris ended the war in Europe, most works stolen by the Napoleonic armies remain in the Louvre or in French regional museums today.

UNESCO Conventions for Non-Lawyers

Professors Lyndel V. Prott & Patrick O'Keefe will be organizing a one-week course on international heritage law at the University of Queensland in July.  Here are the details:

As a cultural professional, would you like detailed information on UNESCO’s heritage Conventions in an easily accessible way?

There will be a one-week intensive professional development course on the international legal standards and practices for heritage protection at the University of Queensland from 13-17 July 2010.  It will deal, among other things, with the

·        Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 and its Protocols 1954 and 1999

·        UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995

·        UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972

·        UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001

·        UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003

·        UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005

It will include information on how UNESCO Conventions are drafted, on the negotiations for particular instruments and on their implications for those administering them as well as on UNESCO Recommendations and Declarations, other relevant international law on heritage protection as well as Codes, Charters and Declarations.

Earlier courses at the Australian National University in Canberra and the University of Queensland in Brisbane have included anthropologists, archaeologists, an economist, journalists, a conservation expert, public servants working in the heritage area, a textile expert and other creative artists as well as museums staff.   The course is designed to be accessible across a wide range of professional skills and the interchange and different perspectives of the students is one of its strengths.  Students have come from Australia, China, Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, United States and Viet Nam.

Nemeth on strategic protection of cultural heritage

Does the citizen protection at the Cairo Museum
offer lessons for strategic protection of heritage?

Erik Nemeth makes an interesting point in a special contribution to the Chicago Tribune. Rather than just consider what museums or 'source nations' lose when objects are repatriated; why not consider the gain and strategic benefit returns can offer to the returning nation or museum. And what other benefits might occur during armed conflict if heritage sites are aggressively protected?

The political turbulence in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain has seen both looting of artifacts and destruction of monuments. Last year, citizens linked arms in front of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo with some success. This and other instances like it suggest potential for proactive protection of cultural artifacts, particularly in light of the U.S. ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention in 2009. Indeed, U.S. foreign policy can parlay risk to cultural property into diplomacy by insisting that military interventions, even when the U.S. is not engaged militarily, include a strategy for securing museums, monuments and sites of archaeological significance that along with tactical bombing avoids collateral damage. America might also assess objects that are likely targets for repatriation and consider offering their return as part of a strategy for relations with the nation of origin. If engaged in conflict — or even if not — an active interest in protecting the local cultural property would serve the purposes of garnering political goodwill and creating an opportunity for communication with the local government and potentially the insurgency.

1. Erik Nemeth, Repatriating part of Saddam statue could promote diplomacy, Chicago Tribune, June 7, 2012, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-07/news/ct-perspec-0607-artifacts-20120607_1_hiram-bingham-iii-artifacts-collateral-damage (last visited Jun 10, 2012).

Another Dutch Holocaust Claim

Four heirs of art dealer Nathan Katz have brought a claim for 227 works recovered in German at the end of World War II reports Marlise Simons in todays NY Times. Among the contested works is this painting by Salomon van Ruysdael, Horsefair at Valkenburg. The claim was made public Friday, just as the Dutch were moving to discourage new restitution claims.

These restitution disputes are ill-suited to an adversarial litigation process with one winner and one loser as is the current situation in the United States. Professor Norman Palmer has persuasively made this case in the UK, while Jennifer Anglim Kreder has proposed an interesting idea. She makes a great case for an International Tribunal for dealing with Nazi-Looted Art. It's forthcoming in the Brooklyn Law Review, an early version is up on SSRN. In the Netherlands the claims are studied by the Restitution Commission which advises the government on the return of objects lost or stolen when the Germans invaded in WWII.

Here's an excerpt of the NYT story:

Although the Dutch government in exile had decreed that citizens could not trade with the enemy, many Dutch art dealers, both Jews and non-Jews, sold works to eager German collectors, who circulated wish lists in the first few years of the war. Dutch traditional painting was sought after, because the Nazis did not consider it “degenerate” art.

After the war the Dutch government returned 28 paintings that the Katz brothers had claimed. Among them was Rembrandt’s “Portrait of a Man,” believed to have been used to buy their mother’s freedom.

Evelien Campfens, a member of the Restitution Commission in The Hague, said the claim of the Katz heirs would “be a complex case, with many different aspects to it: it will take time.” She said that the Katz brothers were important dealers involved in many transactions, and that many important paintings had passed through their hands.

Bitterman on Settling Cultural Property Disputes

Amy Bitterman has posted on SSRN an article discussing the role of settlement in cultural property disptutes:


In the past, collectors and museums often stonewalled claimant countries seeking repatriation of looted artwork, relying on lengthy and costly litigation to discourage developing countries from pursuing cultural repatriation claims. Although some laws were in place concerning the import and export of such pieces, for the most part the market in antiquities was unregulated. However, recent events have led to a number of important changes in this area of law. While in the past, most claimants of stolen antiquities were developing countries with limited resources, recent decisions by the governments of Greece and Italy to pursue criminal prosecutions of dealers and curators have changed the legal landscape. In addition, the mass looting of archaeological sites and museums in Iraq resulted in the US adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention, and reforms in British law governing replevin cases. Other recent changes in this area that have significant legal ramifications include the adoption in 2008 of new acquisition guidelines by the Association of Art Museum Directors and a 2009 accord between the United States and China.

Using a hypothetical drawn from a number of cases and typical scenarios involving stolen art, the article discusses the pros and cons of a variety of potential resolutions in light of these developments and the unique considerations of art recovery cases. The author argues that the settlement process is particularly useful in cultural heritage disputes given that the parties often have mutual interests in preservation and excavation; thus, the winner take all approach of litigation may not be the best approach to resolving ownership claims.

Upcoming Conferences

Next week in London the American Bar Association will be holding its fall international meeting. On Thursday, from 4-5.30 there will be a panel discussion on the International Movement of Art & Cultural Property:

Customs/Trade
Public International Law

Museums around the globe confront numerous obstacles in dealing with claims made on the art works and cultural objects in their collections. In some cases, works may have been placed on loan years ago and a museum may not know the current owner or may be presented with a claim to restore the works to the lender. Museums must also safeguard the ownership rights of victims of theft, including nations whose antiquities have been illegally excavated and removed and Holocaust victims and their heirs whose art properties were stolen during World War II. Finally, works on loan may be claimed to satisfy judgments received against the owner. In the United States, the ability of museums to remove art works from their collections through deaccessioning depends on laws that vary from state to state. The problem is more complicated in countries where museums are prohibited by law to remove any works from their collections. This panel will address issues of deaccessioning, long-term loans, and return guarantees for works on international loan and consider policies that may lead to greater cooperation in this complicated area of international law.

Co-Sponsoring Committees:
Europe Committee International Commercial Transactions, Franchising, and Distribution Committee, International Intellectual Property Committee , Information Services, Technology, and Data Protection Committee, Immigration and Naturalization Law Committee, and Financial Products and Services Committee

Program Chair:
Cristian DeFrancia, Legal Adviser, Iran - United States Claims Tribunal, The Hague, Netherlands

Moderator:
Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Chief Prosecutor, Grafton County, Concord, New Hampshire

Speakers:
Lawrence M. Shindell, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ARIS Corporation, Milwaukee, WI
Norman Palmer, Rowe & Maw Professor of Commercial Law, Faculty of Laws, University College, London, England
Patty Gerstenblith, Professor, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL
Bonnie Czegledi, Founder, Czegledi Art Law, Toronto, Canada

A likely topic for discussion may be the new consultation paper on Draft Regulations for the Museums and Galleries of Information for the Purposes of Immunity from Seizure Under Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Another conference will be taking place at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign April 24-25, 2008. It looks beyond the law at how heritage is constructed, and sounds fascinating. Here are the details:

CONTESTED CULTURAL HERITAGE IN A GLOBAL WORLD

Thursday and Friday, April 24-25, 2008
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Program

Spurlock Museum and the Collaborative for Cultural Heritage and Museum Practices (CHAMP) have organized a major conference on "Contested Cultural Heritage" to be held at the Museum on Friday, April 25, 2008. Dr. Donny George Youkhanna, former Director of the Iraq National Museum and now Visiting Professor at the State University of New York-Stony Brook, will deliver the keynote address of the conference ("Mayhem in Mesopotamia" on April 24).

The conference brings together an international group of scholars to discuss how forces of religion and nationalism may act to heighten inter-group tension around heritage claims, even to the point of causing the destruction of ancient and historic sites. Among the cases to be considered are the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan; Christian and Muslim conflict resolution at a major mosque in Cordoba, Spain; different views and practices toward the indigenous past among Native Americans and the archaeologists who study their ancestors; the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles debate; Egypt's demand for the return of the Bust of Nefertiti; heritage frictions implicated in the recent Balkans War; Peru's attempt to repatriate the Machu Picchu collections from Yale University; and the aggressive marking of Protestant and Catholic identities in Belfast, Northern Ireland through wall art. A roundtable discussion at the end of the conference seeks to chart new directions for implementing policies that lessen the negative dimensions of cultural heritage and further awareness of its value for a larger public, thereby promoting site preservation as well as social/political harmony.

Workshop on the Human Dimension of Cultural Heritage

A colleague in Florence has passed along this event at the European University Institute in Florence, this Friday December 18th. Looks to be a terrific event this week:

The Human Dimension of Cultural Heritage

Workshop organized by Professor Francioni

in cooperation with Professors T. Scovazzi and L. Pineschi

European University Institute, Florence

18 December 2009, Sala Europa (Villa Schifanoia)

• 10.00 Welcome to the participants and introduction to the workshop by Professors Francesco Francioni, Laura Pineschi, and Tullio Scovazzi
• 10.10-11.00
  
• Francesco Francioni (European University Institute), The Contribution of International Law to the Development of a Human Dimension of Cultural Heritage
• Tullio Scovazzi (Università di Milano-Bicocca), Recent Developments in the Fields of Intangible and Underwater Cultural Heritage
• Ana Vrdoljak (University of Western Australia), Illicit Traffic of Cultural Objects and Human Rights
• Coffee break
• 11.15-12.00
• Federico Lenzerini (Università di Siena), Indigenous Peoples Cultural Rights vs. Cultural Heritage”: A Hard-to-Settle Tension?
• Alessandro Chechi (European University Institute), Cultural Cooperation: A Revolutionary Tool for the Safeguarding of the Common Heritage of Humankind?
• Uladzislau Belavusau (European University Institute), Freedom of Expression, Art and Pornography
• General discussion
• 12.15-13.00
• Patrizia Vigni (Università di Siena), Claims To Discovered Shipwrecks: Restitution, Return or Something Else?
• Valentina S. Vadi (Maastricht University), The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Investment Law
• Nicola Ferri (Università di Milano-Bicocca), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage According to the General Assembly Resolution
• General Discussion
• Lunch Break
• 14.30-15.15
• Adriana Bessa Rodrigues (European University Institute), No Culture, NoHeritage: The International Regime on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing and Potential Threats to the Preservation of Local Cultures
• Sabrina Urbinati (Università di Milano-Bicocca), (on intangibile heritage)
• Mery Ciacci (European University Institute), The EU Ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: New Challenges and New Implications for the EU
• General discussion
• 15.30-16.30
• Riccardo Pavoni (Università di Siena), Developing Individual Criminal Responsibility for Wartime Offences against Cultural Property: The Italian Measures Implementing the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention
• Micaela Frulli (Università di Firenze), International Criminal Law to the Protection of Cultural Heritage
• Robert Peters (European University Institute), Defining Common Grounds in the Trophy Art Debate between Germany and Russia
• Andrzej Jakubowski (European University Institute), Human and Cultural Heritage Aspects of State Succession: The Case of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• General discussion and final remarks by Professors Francesco Francioni, Laura Pineschi, and Tullio Scovazzi

Vanishing Heritage in the Cradle of Civilization

Things are looking increasingly grim in Iraq these days, with the US considering arming Sunni groups that once attacked coalition forces. Soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, western journalists visited the Iraqi Museum in Baghdad and reported incorrectly that 170,000 objects were stolen from the museum. More careful reporting soon accurately placed that number far lower, and current estimates seem to indicate that a still alarming 3,000 objects are still missing, with about 47 main exhibition artifacts missing.

Thus I always maintain a healthy bit of skepticism when articles come out detailing the loss of archaeological context and heritage in Iraq. The article last Friday by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian titled "In Iraq's four-year looting frenzy, the allies have become the vandals"even viewed skeptically reveals some very troubling things about the way archaeological sites are treated by coalition forces.

The catalyst for the discussion was a presentation by Abbas al-Hussaini, the head of Iraq's board of antiquities and heritage to the British Museum. He detailed a number of disturbing things. The former head of the antiquities board in Iraq, Donny George, left for a teaching position in New York, fearing for his life. Today the national museum "is not open but shut... Its doors are bricked up, it is surrounded by concrete walls and its exhibits are sandbagged. Even the staff cannot get inside." A 10th century caravenserai of Khan al-Raba was used to explode captured weapons. Looters are better armed than the Iraqi forces seeking to protect the ancient monuments. Two 4,000 year-old cities, Isin and Shurnpak, have been demolished by looting pits. The 11 teams Hussaini has organized travel the countryside attempting to retrieve any artifacts the looters have left behind. Even muslim sites are subject to destruction, with a number of bombings of mosques from the 10th and 11th centuries

When I was in Istanbul in May, I saw some of the glazed bricks from the Ishtar gate leading to Babylon, and they are stunning. The lion image above was very impressive. For me then perhaps the most disturbing claims detail the destruction taking place at the ancient city of Babylon:

Hussaini confirmed a report... on America's conversion of Nebuchadnezzar's great city of Babylon into the hanging gardens of Halliburton. This meant a 150-hectare camp for 2,000 troops. In the process the 2,500-year-old brick pavement to the Ishtar Gate was smashed by tanks and the gate itself damaged. The archaeology-rich subsoil was bulldozed to fill sandbags, and large areas covered in compacted gravel for helipads and car parks. Babylon is being rendered archaeologically barren.

Despite some unnecessary snarking by Jenkins here, the destruction at Babylon is a grave tragedy. He does conveniently overlook some facts though. The coalition forces only seem to be continuing the destruction and disdain Saddam Hussein had for the site when he was in power. This slide show taken by US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Daniel O'Connell in 2003 shows the ancient city, the unfortunate modern reconstruction by Hussein on top of the archaeological site, and the modern palace he built where marines first stayed. The colonel in charge of the site apologized last year, and UNESCO officials are even considering developing the place into a tourist attraction at some point.

It seems very unfortunate that coalition forces, in the face of the looting of so many sites, should have blundered so badly at Babylon, which is in one of the most secure regions of Iraq. The Geneva Convention dictates that forces should treat opposing cultural heritage with care. Also, though the US and UK have failed to implement the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict(because it might restrict their ability to use nuclear arms), they notionally abide by its tenets.

The US is doing a good job of policing its antiquities market, as a Fox News cameraman was arrested for smuggling Iraqi antiquities into the country recently. The UK also has legislation preventing the import of Iraqi antiquities. Jenkins gets a final jab in at the Department of Culture Media and Sport which seems far more concerned with the upcoming London Olympics than the illicit cultural property market. I wonder if the £400,000 recently spent on the unfortunate mascot would have been better served policing the antiquities market. The Met's Art and Antiquities squad has only 3 full time investigators, and is in jeopardy of further budget cuts. But only so much can be done when provenance or a title history is not routinely given during transactions. As long as the market is hidden from view, looters will continue to find purchasers for their ill-gotten gains.

Are the Black Hills Cultural Property?

That was the provocative question posed by Melissa Tatum at the AALS Annual Meeting here in New Orleans last weekend. First, a little background.  The Black Hills are a beautiful but small mountain range extending from South Dakota into Wyoming.  Today the region is home to Mount Rushmore, numerous National monuments, the in-progress Crazy Horse Memorial, and the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.  But of course before 19th century Americans moved to the area, it was the home of indigenous groups; first the Cheyenne, and later the Lakota.

Apologies for any mistakes in this history, but as I understand it in 1868, the United States signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie, which essentially gave the Lakota nation ownership of the Black Hills.  This treaty was signed after the Lakota defeated U.S. forces.  Soon after though this treaty was violated until it was eventually revoked.  Tatum noted that the city of Deadwood was founded at this time, and references the recent HBO show.  "Deadwood" was set in the 1870's, and was based on the real life people and events of the town's early history.  The town began as a mining camp, in an area outside of the law.  The very founding of the camp was illegal, as the land was owned by the Lakota people.  The show examines this lawlessness in a number of ways.  In the real Deadwood, it was the discovery of gold which brought miners to the area.  This led to armed conflict (including Custer's defeat) which culminated in 1877 when the Federal governemnt seized control of the Black Hills for good.  

In 1980, the Sioux nation won a hard fought court victory.  United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).  The Supreme Court upheld an award for the value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years of interest.  However the Sioux have refused to accept this sum, and instead want the return of the land. 

Against this background, Tatum asked whether existing Cultural Property law might provide a remedy allowing the Sioux to secure the return of the land itself.  In so doing, she moved the conversation beyond the typical repatriation request and instead challenged some of the basing foundations of cultural property law itself.  She argued property should be amended to offer legal definitions which are more culture-specific.  Tatum also asked whether the Black Hills might fit within some of the definitions of cultural property as provided in the 1954 Hague Convention, and various UNESCO conventions, including the 1970 Convention.  She offered as one solution, the potential for multiple cultures to use and enjoy public lands.  This is the current model in many Federal land management systems. 

Tatum put cultural property scholarship into concrete terms, pointing out why the Sioux should be entitled to some remedy, and offering a pointed critique of the current flaws in cultural property law.  I'm very much looking forward to the final paper. 

Ratifications

In July the Netherlands accepted the 1970 UNESCO Convention and it will enter into force on the 17th of October, 2009.

Also, Italy has ratified the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 

Personal Note

I am pleased to announce that my PhD thesis has been completed, successfully defended, corrected and printed. It's titled "Preventing and Repairing These Losses: The Legal Response of the United States and the United Kingdom to the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property". I think I should have perhaps chosen a more succinct title.

It feels great to be finished, and it was a lot of hard work with some tough decisions, but it wouldn't have been possible without a lot of help and support from my colleagues here in Aberdeen and Joni (aka "my funder"). I'm sorry to say much of that support was undermined by our French Spaniel and serial abuser pictured here.

I've included the table of contents below. I'm still not sure if I want to try and publish it, which would mean a lot more work, and I suppose part of that will depend on where I land in the coming months. I started this little blog as a way to stay productive, even when I couldn't quite get things going on the thesis. I've found it invaluable, and for anyone who writes I think a blog is a great way to keep in the habit of writing.

I'm not sure where we will end up at this point, I plan to continue research into cultural heritage issues, or at least a related field which will allow me to continue the work I've been doing. I had what I thought was a good shot at a couple of postdoctoral funding opportunities which would have allowed me to look in some real depth at repatriation, but unfortunately those fell through. On a happier note I am involved with a really exciting project with some people which will create a really great cultural heritage resource, which I'll talk about in much more depth here in the coming months.

Posting will likely be very light for the next few weeks, as we're heading back to the States to catch up with family and friends.

Chapter 1: Introduction.. 1

I. The Aims. 1

II. Foundational Issues and Terminology. 3

A. Illicit Cultural Property. 3

B. Source and Market Nations. 3

C. Provenance. 4

III. The Nature and Extent of the Illicit Trade. 6

A. Art 8

B. Antiquities. 9

IV. Laying the Theoretical Framework. 10

A. Values Inherent in Cultural Property Policy. 10

1. Preserving the Object 11

2. Preserving Archaeological Context 12

3. Preserving the National Patrimony. 13

4. International Movement 14

5. Accessibility. 15

B. Cultural Heritage or Cultural Property?. 16

C. How Sympathetic Facts Distort Cultural Property Law.. 17

V. The Scope of this Work. 21

Chapter 2: Regulating Cultural Property at the Source.. 22

I. Introduction: How to Prevent the Illicit Trade at Its Source?. 22

II. Regulation in Source Nations. 23

A. The Typical Approach: Guatemala. 24

B. Other Examples. 27

1. Peru. 27

2. Mexico. 28

3. Nigeria. 29

C. China. 30

D. Italy. 36

E. Cultural Property Strategies in Developing Nations. 39

1. Nationalizing Cultural Property. 39

2. Efficacy of Export Restrictions. 42

3. What can a Source Nation do when an Object has been Exported?. 46

4. Combating the Illicit Trade v. Bare Retentionism... 47

III. Domestic Regulation of Cultural Property in Market States. 50

A. Domestic Regulation in the United States. 52

1. Initial Federal Efforts. 53

2. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 54

3. The National Historic Preservation Act 56

4. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 58

5. The Law of Finds. 60

B. Domestic Regulation in the United Kingdom... 63

1. Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 63

2. Treasure Trove and the Portable Antiquities Scheme. 65

3. Scotland. 69

4. Limited Export Restrictions: The Waverley Criteria. 74

IV. Summary: What are the Key Components to Effective Domestic Regulation?. 78

Chapter 3: Public International Law and Cultural Property.. 80

I. Introduction: Public International Law and Cultural Property. 80

A. Origins of the Protection of Cultural Property. 81

II. Attempts to Forge a Workable International Framework. 84

A. 1954 Hague Convention. 84

1. Defining Cultural Property in the Convention. 86

2. Shortcomings of the Convention. 87

3. The First Protocol 88

4. The Second Protocol 89

III. The 1970 UNESCO Convention. 92

A. Individual Articles. 93

1. Problems with Interpretation: Articles 3 and 6. 93

2. The “Heart” of the Convention: Article 7. 95

3. Defining the Scope of Protection. 97

B. Impact of the Convention. 97

C. Implementation and Bilateral Agreements. 100

1. Implementation of the UNESCO Convention in the US. 100

2. Switzerland. 105

3. Implementation in the UK.. 106

IV. A Case for the Reform of UNESCO.. 108

A. The Perceived Bias in UNESCO Undermines its Efforts. 109

B. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. 113

C. The 2001 UNESCO Convention For the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. 114

V. Summary. 115

Chapter 4: Conflict of Laws in Cultural Property Disputes. 117

I. Introduction: The Problem When the Claims of Two Relative Innocents Collide. 117

II. Manifestations of the Conflict 120

A. Entrustment v. Theft or Wrongful Dispossession. 121

B. When the Conflict Involves Statutes of Limitations. 123

C. When Tort Rules Conflict 127

D. When Movable Property Rules Conflict 129

E. The Consequences of the Choice of Law Challenge in Art and Antiquities Litigation. 131

III. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. 135

A. What UNIDROIT Got Right 136

1. Compensation for the Diligent 136

2. Highlighting Due Diligence. 137

3. Limited Right of Return. 139

B. Two Weaknesses Prohibit Widespread Implementation. 140

IV. The General Choice of Law Inquiry and Alternatives. 141

A. The General Rule: Lex Rei Sitae. 141

B. Renvoi 142

C. Lex Originis. 147

V. Summary. 149

Chapter 5: Market Regulation of Cultural Property in the UK.. 151

I. Introduction. 151

II. Recent Reform in the UK.. 151

A. The Select Committee Inquiry. 152

B. The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel 153

C. After Five Years, What Result?. 155

III. UK Restrictions on the International Movement of Cultural Property. 156

A. Customs Powers. 157

B. EU Legislation Governing Cultural Property. 158

C. Accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. 161

D. Public Laws of Foreign States. 161

1. Nationalization and Export Restrictions. 162

2. Stigmatizing Illegally Exported Objects. 163

3. The Recent Iranian Claims: Unpacking Public Laws and Unclear Nationalization. 164

4. Why Not Enforce Public Laws?. 168

IV. The Treatment of Cultural Property in the Law of England and Wales. 170

A. Criminal Law.. 170

1. Theft Act (1968) 170

2. Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. 172

B. Private Litigation. 176

1. Contract 177

2. Tort 180

3. Restitution. 182

4. Limitations Rules. 183

V. The Scots Law Treatment of Cultural Property. 186

A. Criminal Law.. 188

1. Common Law Theft 188

2. Reset and Criminal Activity Outside the UK.. 190

3. The Draft Culture (Scotland) Bill 194

B. Private Claims. 194

1. Ownership and Possession. 195

2. Restitution. 196

3. Spuilzie. 200

4. How Might Restitution and Spuilzie Apply. 202

5. Contract and Delict 203

6. Limitations Periods. 204

VI. Summary. 206

Chapter 6: Market Regulation of Cultural Property in the United States. 207

I. Introduction. 207

II. Federal Criminal Regulation. 208

A. National Stolen Property Act Prosecutions under the McClain Doctrine. 209

1. The McClain Cases. 211

2. United States v. Schultz. 214

B. Federal Criminal Forfeitures. 217

1. A History of Forfeiture. 218

2. The Litigation Surrounding Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally. 222

3. One Oil Painting Entitled Femme En Blanc by Pablo Picasso. 224

C. US Customs Regulations. 226

D. The Cultural Property Implementation Act 231

III. Civil Remedies. 232

A. The Substantive Claims. 233

B. Limitations Rules. 236

1. Adverse Possession. 237

2. Demand and Refusal 239

3. The Discovery Rule. 241

4. Laches. 243

C. Cultural Property and the UCC.. 244

IV. Summary. 246

Chapter 7: In Conclusion: A Way Forward.. 247

I. In Summary. 247

Appendix I: The 1970 UNESCO Convention.. 250

Appendix II: 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.. 256

Appendix III: The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. 262

Appendix IV: The National Stolen Property Act.. 264

Appendix V: The Cultural Property Implementation Act.. 266

Bibliography.. 279

Cases Cited.. 286

Table of Legislation