relations to history and objects..."81  These ideas changed the perception of group and cultural identity by calling on nations to reexamine the relations that existed between the North and the South.  The result was the enactment of the 1970 UNESCO Convention governing the import, export, and transfer of cultural property.  It provided for the return of stolen cultural artifacts to their rightful owners or places of origin. The Convention benefits "source nations" (third-world nations possessing cultural objects) in that stolen objects that end up in Western markets are repatriated. It has definitely exemplified the shifting trend in state behavior that recognizes the rights of all nations to possess objects of their heritage.

Yet, repatriation has not been widespread, to say the least.  Museums of many European cities are still crowded with cultural objects expropriated from former colonies.   It does not seem likely that these objects will be returned since tourism is a prominent industry generating millions in proceeds. Even when the issue involves another European country, repatriation does not usually occur as in the case of the Elgin Marbles. Lord Elgin, a British diplomat removed marble decorations from the Parthenon in Athens and eventually sold them to the British Museum.  After countless pleas for repatriation by Greece, they remain on display at the museum. Similarly, French law prohibits the export of any cultural object older than 75 years old from French territory without a permit granted by a supervisory commission.  These objects do not in any way have to represent French heritage.

Admittedly, there are problems with the laws governing both protection and repatriation. In times of war, armies look for strategic importance of a target, not its cultural significance.  Soldiers plunder and sell their loot for a profit. Scavengers continue to raid archaeological sites throughout the "third world" and sell their spoils on illegitimate markets.  On its face, any critic of cultural property legislation can look at the inefficacy of such laws.  Such critics also denounce all international law as inefficient since there is no overarching authority to enforce it.   They claim that in spite of the law, states continue to transgress.  To them the author says, despite the law, people continue to steal and kill.  The important thing to get out of this analysis is not how inadequate the international regime is in addressing cultural property protection or repatriation or that states act only out of their interests in devising cultural property legislation.  Rather, the point is to witness progress and the development of benign rules and institutions instilling a higher purpose in international politics.

This paper presented several arguments on the issue of why the change in state practice occurred and laws were devised. Notwithstanding, the author argues that the Enlightenment ideology of universalism influenced states to protect cultural property. The emergence of the common heritage of mankind doctrine fostered in states a sense of respect for objects of cultural significance, regardless of their origin.  They entered into agreements to protect these objects for future generations.  Although national identity and state interests played a part in the decision, the common heritage doctrine presented states with a

higher moral purpose in their actions.  The Kantian federation and the Hegelian universal community are behind the emergence of the body of international law that calls on states to look beyond their interests, and to a higher good. It is important to not only look at the faults, but also to the intended goals of such legislation.  In most cases, the goals tend to be positive and humanitarian­quite a change from Richelieu's Europe and Machiavellian ethics.  This shows progress on the part of the international community.

End Notes

1Hugo Grotius, De Iure Paedae Commentarius (Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty), Volume I, a Translation of the Original Manuscript of 1604 by Gwaldys L. Williams (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950) 43.

2Institutional expropriation differs from isolate expropriation, a practice that refers to operations by scavenger thieves who steal property for personal gain.

3Wilhelm Treue, Art Plunder: The Fate of Works of Art in War and Unrest (New York: The John Day Company, 1961) 13.

4Treue 8.

5Grotius 33.

6Grotius 44.

7G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon, 1942) par. 324.

8Barry B. Hughes, Continuity and Change in World Politics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994) 61.

9Wayne Sandholtz, "Rules, Reasons and International Institutions," (International Studies Association, San Diego, April 1996) 21.

10A. Rigo Sureda, The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination: A Study of United Nations Practice (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1973) 17.

11Giuseppe Mazzini, "The Duties of Man," in The Nationalism Reader, ed. Omar Dahbour and Micheline R. Ishay (New Jersey: Humanities Press International, 1995) 95.

12John Moustakas, "Group Rights in Cultural Property: Justifying Strict Inalienability," Cornell Law Review 74:6 (1989): 1185.

13Grotius 48.

14Grotius 51.

15Grotius 52.

16Laurence Berns, "Thomas Hobbes," in History of

back.gif (287 bytes) back.gif (221 bytes)

Page 9


Alexander Frid - The Common Heritage Doctrine and... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]