In light of the recent rise of destruction and looting of cultural property, a need for formalized heritage protection has arisen. Increasingly popular in the debate has become the instrument of international assistance known as “safe havens.” These temporary refuges for at-risk cultural goods in a third country have recently been implemented by Switzerland, France, the United States, and the Association of Art Museum Directors. We assess the contributions and shortcomings of these four regimes using a comparative approach. Mainly, we find that, despite variations in their scope and structure, none of the models accounts entirely for today’s major difficulties in protecting endangered cultural properties. We draw recommendations for future safe haven states against the backdrop of the existing models and hope to see the instrument used in practice as a way to safely isolate cultural property from destructive conflicts.

This article considers the constant tension facing several national panels in their consideration of Nazi spoliation claims concerning cultural objects. It will argue that this tension results from a shift in paradigms in dealing with Nazi-related injustices—from a strictly legal paradigm to a new victim groups-oriented paradigm, where addressing and recognizing the suffering caused by the nature of past crimes is central. While these national panels originate from this new paradigm and embody the new venues found for dealing with Nazi-looted art claims, this paradigm change at the same time presents these panels with a predicament. It seems impossible to abandon the legalist paradigm completely when remedying historical injustices in the specific category of cultural objects. Through a comparison between the Dutch and United Kingdom (UK) systems, this article will illustrate from both an institutional and substantive perspective that these panels seem to oscillate between policy-based, morality-driven proceedings (new paradigm) and a legal emphasis on individual ownership issues and restitution in kind (old paradigm). This article addresses this tension in order to provide insights on how we could conceptually approach and understand current restitution cases concerning Nazi-looted art in the Netherlands and the UK.

Many molecular anthropologists no longer incorporate a field component into their research; rather, they rely on analyzing existing data sets and/or on collaborating with field researchers to obtain samples for analysis. This trend in molecular anthropology, combined with the aggressive agenda of the Genographic Project, has an important implication for the future of the discipline. If Native American communities are exposed to genetic ancestry research largely through the Genographic Project, they are less likely to see that there are multiple ways for Native American communities to interact with genetic researchers. Molecular anthropologists are in a position to offer an alternative approach to research by pursuing enduring and mutually beneficial collaborative projects with Native American communities.

Although cultural heritage management is an inherently retrospective discipline, there is a need for strategic forward thinking. Too many valuable heritage places have been lost because they are not recognized and assessed in time. As cultural heritage management begins to examine modern structures and sites, this paper takes strategic thinking in cultural heritage management one step further and addresses the management of artifactual material created by our closest relatives, the great apes. Given the increasing understanding that chimpanzees have cultures and traditions in tool use, there is a need to recognize their heritage value in reference to human evolution.

Expanding the concept of nonhuman heritage into the future, it is now also time to explore how to deal with the artifacts that the first artificial intelligence (AI)-imbued, self-reflecting robots will create. By extension, which artifacts will be kept along the way? The contemplation of the role of nonhuman heritage will ultimately foster a reappraisal of human heritage. The article outlines some of the conceptual issues that must be addressed if our heritage is to have an ethical future.*Institute of Land, Water and Society. Email: e-mail dspennemann@csu.edu.au

Private ownership and cultural heritage protection are two interests in continuing tension. The traditional conception of property right is based on an absolute individual right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, interference in this right may restrict its exercise and impose charges on the owner, such as classification measures and conservation easements. This paper formulates a hypothesis about an increased protection of cultural heritage along with that of private ownership.

Against the background of a complex constitutional allocation of cultural powers, Belgian law provides a pertinent illustration of this development. At the one hand, Belgian governments have been adopting more extensive legislation protecting cultural heritage. On the other hand, Belgian courts, traditionally reluctant to recognize any compensation right when the protective measure only restricts the ownership, gradually appear to undertake a more thorough analysis of the fair balance between the conflicting interests, notably in favor of the owner.

The authors gauge the merits of a new model of cultural heritage protection.

In the art field the centuries-old concepts of property and state immunity are interwoven in an ambivalent relationship. Immunity rules may constitute a shield for the works of art that have been temporarily sent abroad for exhibition purposes. The obverse of the same coin is that the same rules may thwart the legal actions filed by individuals against foreign states to retrieve art objects lost in the past as a result or in connection with grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This article examines this conundrum and argues that the relationship between property rights and immunity rules should be reconceptualised and aligned with the values and priorities of the international community, such as the protection of human rights, the reparation of massive and violent crimes and the respect for cultural heritage.

The return of captured French archives—not art—ignited debate in the Russian Duma in the spring of 1994, leading to the passage of the 1998 Federal Law “On Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.” Yet, a decade since the law was signed, there have been five cases of captured archives from the Second World War returned to Western European countries, as explained in the recent book, Returned from Russia. The aim of this article is to examine major factors involved in the restitution of archives from Russia, and why amid the politics of restitution the return of archives has been more successful than art.

The article first successively examines the major factors involved, namely, foreign political pressure; the underlying support of international law, both in specific instruments and historical archival practice; the circumstances and Soviet aims of archival plunder; the present contrast with Soviet political ideology and alignments; the fact that Russian archivists were more willing to return their loot than museum directors; and that archival returns were easier to conform to the 1998 law, because the receiving countries were willing to offer the “compensation” Russian archivists were demanding. Country by country, first in Western Europe starting with France and now Austria and Greece, archives have been going home, but so far only a few symbolic files from Germany have been returned. A final section of the article briefly singles out the captured records from several other countries remaining in Moscow, including many Jewish records, even some representing Holocaust losses.

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.

The panel began with an acknowledgment that we were assembled in the traditional territory of the Blood Nation. The panelists were then introduced and, in alphabetical order, gave their initial opening comments.

This article analyses the historical and political background of the Russian law on cultural property displaced to the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War (April 1998, with amendments in 2000). Following the 1990–1991 revelations about the extensive cultural treasures captured by Soviet authorities at the end of the Second World War, there was hope abroad for restitution, with a series of bilateral agreements with the countries of origin, but in spring 1994 the Duma blocked further restitution. We follow the fierce debates, the Constitutional Court ruling (1999), the amended law (July 2000), and its implementation under the Ministry of Culture.

We show the wide-scale Russian support of the law, with its concept of “compensatory restitution” that virtually nationalizes the spoils of war, with only scant provisions for restitution to those who fought against the Nazi regime and those victimized by it. What explanation emerges involves the manipulation of historical memory by the Stalinist regime, as the cultural trophies assume symbolic importance in the “myth and memory” of “victory” in the Great Patriotic War. Restitution to legal owners is to be considered only in exchange for equally substantial compensation for wartime loss and suffering of the population at large.

The Protected Objects Amendment Act (POA) was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, so New Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the 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. This represents a significant delay after the drafting of these two conventions. This article explores why New Zealand has taken so long to give domestic effect to these conventions and examines the manner in which they have been given domestic legal effect in the POA. The article also focuses on issues of Māori cultural property, the practical implementation of the POA, and the cultural heritage climate in New Zealand.

An ongoing debate on the protection of traditional knowledge was prompted by the United Nations General Assembly declaration of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples in 1995 and the declaration of the Second International Decade in 2004. These two declarations challenged governments and the international community to address, nationally and internationally, issues that affect indigenous communities. One such issue is the protection of traditional knowledge. The three key international multilateral forums that are debating traditional knowledge issues are the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Using a political economy framework, this study analyzes the policymaking processes and mandates of the three multilateral forums in order to highlight stakeholders' levels of involvement in these processes. The study found that the multilateral forums' power structures, mandates, and decision-making processes disadvantage indigenous peoples and hinder their full participation in the forums' processes. The study recommends establishing a forum that would take into account indigenous peoples' worldviews; otherwise policy outcomes from these discussions will probably disadvantage indigenous peoples.

This article examines the way property rights can be applied to DNA from ancient sources. In particular, it examines the ways in which the legal classification of a source as a “cultural artifact” can influence the assignment of property rights over genetic information. I explore the discrepancy between the legal ability to own ancient dead bodies but not nonancient dead bodies, illustrating how dead bodies with a perceived cultural value are legally distinct from those which are not considered to have cultural value. Second, I address the way such cultural preservation laws fail to influence ownership rights over genetic information. Finally, I propose a model for the best way to deal with genetic information from ancient sources, based on the policies of the International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank.

This commentary debunks the poor scholarship in Repatriation and Erasing the Past by Elizabeth Weiss and James Springer. We show that modern bioarchaeological practice with Indigenous remains places ethics, partnership, and collaboration at the fore and that the authors’ misconstructed dichotomous fallacy between “objective science” and Indigenous knowledge and repatriation hinders the very argument they are espousing. We demonstrate that bioarchaeology, when conducted in collaboration with stakeholders, enriches research, with concepts and methodologies brought forward to address common questions, and builds a richer historical and archaeological context. As anthropologists, we need to acknowledge anti-Indigenous (and anti-Black) ideology and the insidious trauma and civil rights violations that have been afflicted and re-afflicted through Indigenous remains being illegally or unethically obtained, curated, transferred, and used for research and teaching in museums and universities. If we could go so far as to say that anything good has come out of this book, it has been the stimulation in countering these beliefs and developing and strengthening ethical approaches and standards in our field.

This article examines the international legal regime that governs cultural commodities by providing an up-to-date stocktaking in the field. In doing so, this paper focuses on the music industry, both as the general backdrop and as a context in which to observe the evolution of the current regulatory regime. It includes a review of the history of the commoditization process of musical goods, the requisite legislative and judicial decisions, the international regulatory environment, and a tripartite case study. By reviewing various approaches and examining several recent arenas where the issues have been implicated, the author demonstrates that, in its current form, the international copyright regime is not sufficiently supportive of diversity in cultural property.