China's increased interaction with the global community has led to significant changes in art and artistic expression. The China art market is expanding by leaps and bounds, and artists are subject to an increasingly broad range of influences. Not least of these are the discourses of artistic criticism, with targets that range from international financial institutions to domestic policies. Art in China has for millennia been used as a vehicle for political criticism. Among early examples are the bamboo and landscape paintings of the Yuan dynasty that conveyed a sense of whimsical alienation from the affairs of formal society—implicitly a critique of Mongol rule. During the revolutionary period prior to 1949, the Communist insurgency encouraged painters like Shi Lu to enliven popular resistance to Japanese imperialism and against China's Goumindang rulers.

Two court decisions highlight divergent opinions as to what constitutes a “substantial burden” on the practice of traditional indigenous religions in the United States. One decision, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively defines the term in such a way as to discriminate against indigenous religious practices; the other, by a district court in the 10th Circuit based on other holdings by that circuit court, gives much more latitude for protecting such practices and the landscapes they often involve.

Whether from climate change, mass tourism, or decay of historical objects, cultural heritage researchers in Europe face many challenges. Common priorities became apparent at a conference about the EU project NET-HERITAGE on 24 March in Brussels. And among these and other important issues raised by the 170 participants were the economic and social value of cultural heritage for Europe.

Directed by Professor Dr. Kurt Siehr, Professor Dr. Wolfgang Ernst, and Dr. Andrea F. G. Raschèr, the seminar exposed the legal fundaments of art auctions and provided an overview of some underlying problems currently faced by practitioners and legal scholars. The seminar was followed by a panel discussion called the “Boon and Bane of Auction Houses for the Art Market,” gathering directors of auction houses as well as art market and art law experts.

The International Journal of Cultural Property is a peer-reviewed journal which publishes papers and other materials representing a broad set of perspectives on problems relating to cultural property, cultural heritage, and related issues. Contributions are welcome from the wide variety of fields implicated in the debates—law, anthropology, public policy, archaeology, art history, preservation, museum-, tourism-, and heritage studies—and from a variety of perspectives and interests—indigenous, Western, and non-Western; academic, professional and amateur; consumers and producers—to promote meaningful discussion of the complexities, competing values, and other concerns that form the environment within which these disputes exist.

Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, universities and nongovernmental organizations, as well as UNESCO, have held innumerable meetings, workshops, and conferences on the subject of illicit traffic by. The “Illicit Traffic in Cultural Objects: Law Ethics and the Realities” workshop, however, is distinguished by two important elements. First, it emphasizes the importance of the issue for Asian and Pacific countries. Although there have been some meetings focused on the region of Asia—such as the meeting in Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka, in 2003; one in Bangkok in 2004; and one specifically including oceanic countries in Brisbane in 1996—these are few compared to meetings held on illicit traffic in Europe and North America. The second aspect is the range of expertise of the participants. Though we are used to seeing dealers, archaeologists, and lawyers debate the subject, this workshop included on-the-ground managers, an expert in systems of detection, as well as specialists in particular fields such as underwater heritage, postconflict restoration. and criminology.

Protocols in international law seem to be proliferating. Examples of official protocols at international law abound, from the 1967 Stockholm Protocol Regarding Developing Countries (amending the Berne Convention on copyright), to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, to the recent Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing in 2010. But what exactly is a “protocol” compared to other international legal instruments, such as declarations and treaties? And why does there seem to be a flurry of new protocols today, in domains as vast as intellectual property and indigenous people's rights? On 19 August a new “working group” convened at the New York University School of Law to begin to study protocols, especially with an eye toward their use as a tool to protect indigenous cultural property—hence, the term “cultural protocols.” The working group is the brainchild of Dr. Jane Anderson of the University of Massachusetts and Professor Barton Beebe of the New York University School of Law.

In October 2011 the Cultural Heritage Law Committee of the International Law Association, under the chairmanship of Professor James Nafziger, met in Kohunlich, Quintana Roo, Mexico. The purpose of the meeting was to fuse culture with working sessions over a period of four days. The meeting took place amid fascinating Mayan ruins and the Kalakmul biosphere reserve near the Belizean border. It proved to be a great and successful venture.

Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War (ed.). Report 2009. The Hague: 2010. 88 pp. No ISBN or ISSN. No price. This is the last annual report of the Dutch Advisory Committee on Restitution. The report informs the public of 16 applications in which the return of art objects have been demanded in 2009. In about 50% of cases, the objects were returned. The applications of the other 50% were rejected.

The Unidroit Convention of 24 June 1995 on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects entered into force for Greece.

Alivizatou, Marilena, “Intangible Heritage and Erasure: Rethinking Cultural Preservation and Contemporary Museum Practice” 37