Manlio Frigo - National systems of protection of cultural heritage: cooperation at national and international levels


Published on

Fight against illicit traffic of cultural property in South-East Europe.
Gaziantep, Turkey, 19-21 November 2012

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Manlio Frigo - National systems of protection of cultural heritage: cooperation at national and international levels

  2. 2. Illicit Traffic, an attempt of definition Importation, exportation or transfer of goods in violation of national or international law rules aimed at ensuring: the protection of the ownership of cultural property; the conservation of its integrity; the conservation of the links with a State or a territorial community. 2
  3. 3. Remarks The notion of illicit traffic concerns: 1. stolen cultural property 2. cultural property illicitly exported (in violation of the relevant national legislation) 3. cultural property lawfully exported but not re-imported within the due date in the territory of the State of origin; The illicit character is determined : 1. by the domestic applicable law 2. by international law 3
  4. 4. The national level: domestic legislations’ approach• 1. Restrictive legislations v. Liberal legislations;• 2. Impact of law rules concerning the movement of goods:• possession vaut titre principle• nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet principle• 3. Impact of conflict of law rules (private int. law) :• law applicable to the contract• law applicable to the property rights (ius in re)→ (lex rei sitae) 4
  5. 5. Restitution: the application of ordinaryrules on movement of goods and itsunsatisfactory performance/1 • Application of the lex rei sitae: different outcomes in similar situations: 5
  6. 6. Tribunale Torino, 1982Rep. Ecuador c. Danusso
  7. 7. Cass. 1995,French Ministry of Culture v. De Contessini
  8. 8. Restitution: the application of ordinary rules on movement of goods and its unsatisfactory performance/2• Purchase a non domino: different outcomes in similar situations, common law Countries case law:• Winckworth v. Christie (1980, QBD);• Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon (1981, Eastern D.C., New York);• Islamic Republic Iran v. Berend (2007, QBD);• Islamic Republic Iran v. Barakat (2007, CA); 9
  9. 9. The European Union level Regulation 116/2009 (formerly 3911/92) on the Export of Cultural Goods: aimed at ensuring that export of cultural goods from the EU territory are subject to uniform controls; Directive 93/7 on the Return of Cultural Objects Unlawfully Removed from the Territory of a Member State: establishes a restitution procedure for cultural objects. 10
  10. 10. The 1970 UNESCO Convention Consistency with national legislations of the States Parties; The convention is basically conceived as an instrument bound to spread its effects at a dipl0matic level; Non self-executing character of its rules (Italian Court of Cass. 24 Nov. 1995 - Cour d’Appel Paris 5 avril 2004, Cour de Cass., 20 September 2006, République fed. de Nigéria c. de Montbrison); Difficulties in granting judicial restitution when the applicable law gives protection to the bona fide purchaser (France, article 2279 c.c., Italy, article 1153 c.c.). 11
  11. 11. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention• Restitution of stolen cultural objects to the owner (articles 1.a, 3, 4);• Return of cultural objects illicitly removed to the State (articles 1.b, 5, 6);• Reversal of the burden of proof of good faith;• The proof of «due diligence» when acquiring the object gives right to payment of «fair and reasonable compensation» (articles 4, 6). 12
  12. 12. The combined multiple action• Multilateral International Conventions (UNESCO, UNIDROIT); Role of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation• European Union law rules;• Police cooperation (data banks, inventories);• Bilateral International Conventions/contractual agreements;• National Legislations;• Codes of Ethics. 13
  13. 13. The combined multiple action Bilateral Conventions : (articles 9, 15 1970 UNESCO Convention) U.S.-Peru 1997, amended 2002 U.S.-Canada 1997 U.S.-Bolivia, 2001, renewed 2007 U.S.-Italy, 2001, renewed 2006 U.S. –Nicaragua,2000,renewed 2005 U.S.-Cyprus ,2002 Switzerland-Peru, 2006 Switzerland-Italy, 2006 Switzerland, Greece, 2006 Cambodia, Thailand, 2000 Italy-China, 2006 France-South Korea, 2010 Germany-Turkey, 2011 14
  14. 14. The combined multiple action• National Legislations:• Italian Landscape and Cultural Heritage Code (Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, n° 42), article 67: possibility of loans to foreign museums, in application of cultural agreements, for a 4 years period;• British Statute 2009 [Holocaust-Return of Cultural Heritage-Act] made it possible the deaccessioning upon approval by the Spoliation Advisory Panel→2010 Return to the Archdiocese of Benevento of a missal of the XII century . 15
  15. 15. The combined multiple action Codes of Ethics: ICOM Code of Ethics, 2004 (International Council of Museums); CINOA Code of Ethics (International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers), 2006; Guidelines on Loans of Antiquities and Ancient Art,AAMD, 2006 (Association of Art Museum Directors); International Code of Ethics for Archivists, ICA, 1996 (Internationa Council on Archives); 16
  16. 16. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION• UNIDROIT→ Questionnaire 2012• EU→3 Reports on application Directive 93/7• UNESCO→2012 Report of Secretariat on implementation 1979 UNESCO Convention 17
  17. 17. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION• UNESCO, some statistics:• 27 reports in 1978 - 48 reports in 2011• 1978= 38 ratifications – 2011=120 ratifications• Reports include third States• 44,7% in 1978 – 37,5% in 2011 18
  18. 18. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION• 1. Implementation in the national legal system and organization of services• 2. Inventories and identification• 3. Measures taken to prevent illicit excavations• 4. Measure taken to control export and import of cultural property• 5. Implementation through bilateral agreements• 6. Educational means and raising of public awareness• 7. Cooperation with other international agencies 19
  19. 19. 1. Inventories and identification• Are there generally accepted criteria/standards?• How many States can refer to a system of classification, inventory, identification of items forming part of the cultural heritage? 20
  20. 20. 2. Measures taken to prevent illicit excavations• Some domestic legislations consider that cultural objects not yet discovered lies with the public authorities;• Expert Committee on State Ownership of Cultural Heritage appointed by UNESCO & UNIDROIT→Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Property (2011). 21
  21. 21. 3. Measure taken to control export and import of cultural property• Project by the ILA Cultural Heritage Law Committee↓• Reports on Export control systems at national level (2012) 22
  22. 22. 4. Cooperation with other international agencies• INTERPOL• UNESCO Resolution June 2012→UNIDROIT 23
  24. 24. Red figure duck askosCLEVELAND 25
  25. 25. Campanian bird askosCLEVELAND 26
  27. 27. CONCLUSIONS• Agreements/contracts of cultural cooperation:• Use of the alternative instruments for the settlement of disputes;• No implications from the diplomatic viewpoint;• No assumptions of responsibility;• Statement of the good faith principle in the implementation of the agreements;• Statement of ethical principles. 28
  28. 28. Thank you for your attention