Whose Cultural Objects? Introducing Heritage Title for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Abstract

Cultural objects have a special, protected, status because of their intangible ‘heritage’ value to people, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the first days of international law and, today, there is an extensive legal framework to protect cultural objects and to prohibit looting. Despite this, for as long as demand exists and profits are high, cultural objects continue to be looted, smuggled and traded. At some point, their character tends to change from protected heritage in an original setting to valuable art and commodity in the hands of new possessors. In this new setting, the legal status of such objects most likely will be a matter of ownership and the private law regime in the country where they happen to end up. This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and people, distinct from ownership, and is informed by international cultural heritage and human rights law norms. The proposition is that, whilst ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, legal tools are lacking to address heritage interests and identity values that are acknowledged in international law. Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solve title issues over contested cultural objects. The notion of ‘heritage title’ in a human rights law approach can act as a bridge in that regard.

The repatriation of African heritage: shutting the door on the imperialist narrative

“…However, it appears to be underutilised by states possibly because of the political nature of a demand for restitution by one state to another and the nonretroactive nature of the conventions. 145 Optimistically, the text of the UNIDROIT convention a private law convention could accommodate the claims of African peoples for the restitution of African cultural heritage.…”

Looted artifacts and museums' perpetuation of imperialism and racism: Implications for the importance of preserving cultural heritage

“…Societies have long fought diligently to protect and preserve its cultural heritage for educational purposes, historical research and the longing to reinforce a sense of identity particularly in times of war and conflict. Further, more local communities need to have a sense of ownership of their heritage; this reaffirms their worth as a community, their ways of going about things, and their culture (Campfens, 2020). This lens at the community level speaks to the well‐being of communities when they are strong in knowing and able to articulate their cultural heritage—this tradition is passed down through generations building strong families and communities.…”

AIKoGAM: An AI-driven Knowledge Graph of the Antiquities Market: Toward Automatised Methods to Identify Illicit Trafficking Networks

“…Parallelly, the debate surrounding the antiquities ownership, market and cultural rights persists (Campfens 2020;Cuno 2012;Hixenbaugh 2019), with efforts to involve art market representatives in decision-making processes.…”