The international legal discourse on the topic of state succession in cultural property has long been dominated by the concept of territoriality—the territorial provenance (origin) of cultural assets. This traditional reasoning was essentially rooted in the idea of the European nation-state. In the last 50 years, the principle of territoriality has also become accommodated within the framework of the preservation of cultural heritage. Yet such territorial and protective approaches do not take into account the value of cultural heritage for society, that is, groups and individuals that have created or maintained a given heritage. This article attempts to explore the potential clash between the principles of territoriality and human rights, with respect to state succession in cultural heritage matters. In this context, it deals with some recent ongoing interstate negotiations on the allocation of and access to cultural property with respect to post–World War II developments in state succession among Poland, Germany, and Ukraine.

In Italy, churches, chapels, and monasteries are often rich in precious artifacts. However, these religious buildings cannot be easily protected from theft because either they have no antitheft measures or they are abandoned. This article examines the problematic state of the holy heritage in the Italian territory from a legal perspective. In particular, it looks at Italian legislation and the international instruments entered into by the Italian State. The article argues that this protective legal regime is affected by various shortcomings and loopholes that mostly relate to the implementation of existing legal standards. Notably, it appears that these problems originate from the fact that most of the holy heritage situated in Italy belongs to the Catholic Church, and at the same time, it constitutes the historical and artistic patrimony of the Italian State. The article calls for a more efficient management of such precious vestiges by the stakeholders involved and for a revision of the domestic legislation with a view of properly incorporating the achievements of international cultural heritage law.

South Carolina’s tidal rice fields are significant historic and cultural landscapes. A critical piece of the cultural significance is continuity in the process of using the land. This essay provides an overview of how collaboration among historic preservationists, archaeologists, biologists, federal and state agencies, consultants, and plantation managers resulted in new methods of permitting work in historic tidal rice fields and new understandings of rice fields as significant historic properties.

The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq entered force in 2005, placing such “national treasures” as “antiquities, archeological sites, cultural buildings, manuscripts, and coins” under federal jurisdiction to be “managed in cooperation with the regions and governorates.” This provision may not immediately appear significant or controversial, but it is both. Federalism remains a heated and even deadly issue in Iraq, which is still balancing authority between its capital and other parts of the country. The Constitution’s handling of heritage—like its comparable treatment of oil and gas—therefore raises many questions. The answers to these have massive implications, as they not only determine who governs culture in Iraq but also could void much existing domestic law and unravel the country’s entire heritage management system. This study thus aims to clarify the Constitution’s treatment of antiquities and archaeology, resolving who controls one of Iraq’s most important historic, cultural, and economic resources.

In February 2013 Christos Tsirogiannis linked a fragmentary Athenian red-figured cup from the collection formed by Dietrich von Bothmer, former chairman of Greek and Roman Art at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, to a tondo in the Villa Giulia, Rome. The Rome fragment was attributed to the Euaion painter. Bothmer had acquired several fragments attributed to this same painter, and some had been donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Other fragments from this hand were acquired by the San Antonio Museum of Art and the Princeton University Art Museum. In January 2012 it was announced that some fragments from the Bothmer collection would be returned to Italy, because they fitted vases that had already been repatriated from North American collections. The Euaion painter fragments are considered against the phenomenon of collecting and donating fractured pots.