This article presents the preliminary findings of a scoping study that Geneva Call is conducting to understand the existing dynamics between armed non-state actors (ANSAs) and cultural heritage. Geneva Call is a Swiss-based non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting the respect of international humanitarian law by ANSAs. The study centres on three case studies—Syria, Iraq, and Mali—on which information has been obtained through desk and field research, interviews with ANSAs operating in those countries, and with leading organizations committed to the protection of cultural heritage, globally or regionally. The article first maps the various attitudes of ANSAs toward cultural heritage, highlighting both positive and negative examples from current practices. Then it analyzes the response of specialized organizations to the impact of ANSAs on cultural heritage and their level of engagement with these actors on cultural heritage issues. Finally, the conclusion offers some tentative recommendations to enhance the respect of cultural heritage by ANSAs in non-international armed conflicts.

Cultural property is related to the evolution of a nation’s identity. It forms a vital link to the past, wherefrom the present and future may be nurtured and enriched. However, objects related to cultural heritage have been the target of looting and pilfering, resulting in loss to the country concerned. The situation is worsened where these objects have been removed during an era where there were no laws and regulations to control such removal. This article focuses on the loss of cultural property with reference to two specific modes of loss of particular concern to Sri Lanka—the removal of cultural property during the colonial era and the loss of cultural property during the more recent ethnic conflict. Through an analysis of the relevant laws and regulations, this article evaluates Sri Lanka’s rights to its cultural property and its efforts to regain, and preserve, its cultural heritage.

Since 2014, when the Caribbean Community officially launched its claim against former European colonial powers for reparations for slavery and native genocide, there has been a renewed interest in the question of cultural reparations and, more specifically, Caribbean cultural objects located in European museums. Yet information about such material remains scarce; there have been no formal claims for returns, and the legal status of Caribbean collections in European museums is anything but clear. This article aims to address these issues. First, we sketch the profile of Caribbean archaeological collections located in European museums to shed light on their nature and provenance. On this basis, we then move on to analyzing the legal status of such collections in light of international law, before discussing the broader political and ethical framework of returns and the role of cultural cooperation in reparatory justice for the Caribbean more generally.

The looting of antiquities from archaeological sites has received widespread coverage in the media. Concerns about the loss of heritage have resulted in international multilateral and bilateral agreements intended to prevent the illicit trade in looted antiquities. China has suffered from the looting of its archaeological sites for centuries, but the problem has been exacerbated in recent years because of the increased demand for Chinese antiquities and the consequent sharp increase in market prices. China has requested international assistance to combat the illicit trade in its heritage. It is strange therefore that one of China’s special administrative regions—Hong Kong—also one of the world’s major art markets, retains a “legal absurdity,”1 which may protect the buyer of stolen or looted goods from claims for the return of stolen items. This statutory provision may result in the bizarre outcome that goods stolen from a museum or looted from an archaeological site and then purchased from a shop or market in Hong Kong may be protected from claims for their return; this protection may apply even if the loser is the Chinese state.

According to the Austrian art historian Alois Riegl (1857–1905), cultural heritage possesses age value (Alterswert) based on the perception of an object’s visible traces of age. His 1903 essay “The Modern Cult of Monuments” became a classic, and age value has ever since been constitutive for cultural heritage. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that clever copies, reconstructions, and imaginative inventions can possess age value too. I therefore suggest “pastness” as a useful term for denoting the perception that a given object is “of the past.” Pastness is not immanent in an object but, rather, results from its appearance (for example, patina), its context (for example, in a museum), or its correspondence with preconceived expectations among the audience. In this article, I review the concept of pastness and discuss its implications for the global heritage sector. Age value emerges as being less universal than Riegl thought and was linked to a very particular intellectual and cultural context.