Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T23:48:59.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Caring and Sharing'' Alternative: Recent Progress in the International Law Association to Develop Draft Cultural Material Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2005

Robert K. Paterson
Robert K. Paterson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, and Rapporteur, Committee on Cultural Heritage Law, International Law Association. Email: paterson@law.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasingly those concerned with cultural property favor an approach that focuses on protection and shared access over unequivocal demands for return to places of origin or insistence on retention by museums and other institutions. This article starts by describing the International Law Association and discussing its role, along with that of other nongovernmental organizations, in connection with the development of cultural heritage principles and instruments. It then outlines the intent behind “Draft Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material” presently being developed by the Committee on Cultural Heritage Law of the International Law Association. The Committee favors a nonadversarial and collaborative approach to issues surrounding the return of cultural material to its place or people of origin. This article describes and discusses the draft principles being developed by the Committee. Its hope is that a set of principles could be developed that would form the basis for expediting the resolution of a variety of cultural property disputes. These principles are at an early stage in their development and the Committee welcomes suggestions for changes and additions to the draft principles as they now stand.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 62 - 77
Copyright
© 2005 International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barringer, Tim, and Tom Flynn. Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
Bator, Paul M. “An Essay on the International Trade in Art.” Stanford Law Review 34 (1982): 275–384.Google Scholar
Blom, Joost. “Laying Claim to Long-Lost Art: The Hoge RAAD of the Netherlands and the Question of Limitation Periods.” International Journal of Cultural Property 9 (2000): 138–150.Google Scholar
Carter, Nancy C. “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Law, Analysis and Context.” International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (1999): 285–306.Google Scholar
Coggins, Clemency C. “United States Cultural Property Legislation: Observations of a Combatant.” International Journal of Cultural Property 7 (1998): 52–68.Google Scholar
Corbey, Raymond. Tribal Art Traffic: A Chronicle of Taste, Trade and Desire in Colonial and Post Colonial Times. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute, 2000.
Feliciano, Hector. The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World's Greatest Works of Art. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
McKeown, C. Thomothy, and Sherry Hutt. “In the Smaller Scope of Conscience: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Twelve Years After.” University of California at Los Angeles Journal of Environment Law and Policy 21 (2002–2003): 153–212.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. “Thinking About the Elgin Marbles.” Michigan Law Review 83 (1985): 1881–1924.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. “Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property.” American Journal of International Law 80 (1986): 831–53.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A.R., and Rebecca J. Dobkins. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in its First Decade.” International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (1999): 77–107.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A.R., and Robert K. Paterson. “A Blueprint for the Development of Cultural Heritage Law.” Art Antiquity and Law 9 (2004): 77–107.Google Scholar
Nicholas, Lynn H. The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. London: Macmillan, 1994.
O'Keefe, Patrick J. Trade in Antiquities: Reducing Destruction and Theft. London: Archetype, 1997.
Palmer, Norman. “Museums and the Holocaust: The Futility of Litigation.” Art, Antiquity and Law 5 (2000): 233–50.Google Scholar
Paterson, Robert K. “The Legal Dynamics of Cultural Property Export Controls: Ortiz Revisited.” University of British Columbia Law Review Special Issue (1995): 241–258.Google Scholar
Paterson, Robert K. “Protecting Taonga: The Cultural Heritage of the New Zealand Maori.” International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (1999): 108–32.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Benoît. “The Case of the Treasures of L'Ange Gardien: An Overview.” International Journal of Cultural Property 2 (1993): 371–82.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law, 1997.
Siehr, Kurt. International Art Trade and the Law, 1993.
Siehr, Kurt “International Law Association Committee on Cultural Heritage, Helsinki, 12–17 August 1996.” International Journal of Cultural Property 6 (1997): 142–43.
Simpson, Moira. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London: Routledge, 1996, revised 2001.
Tapsell, Paul. “Partnership in Museums: A Tribal Maori Response to Repatriation.” In The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert, and Paul Turnbull, 284–92. London: Routledge, 2002.