8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

1/24

Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural PropertyAuthor(s): John Henry MerrymanReviewed work(s):Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 831-853Published by: American Society of International LawStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2202065 .

Accessed: 23/04/2012 19:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The American Journal of International Law.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asilhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2202065?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2202065?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asil

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

2/24

TWO WAYS OF THINKING ABOUTCULTURAL PROPERTYByJohnHenryMerryman*

One way of thinking bout culturalproperty-i.e., objects of artistic,archaeological, ethnologicalor historical nterest'-is as componentsof acommon humanculture,whatever heirplacesoforiginorpresent ocation,independentofproperty ights r national urisdiction.That is the attitude* SweitzerProfessor f Law and Cooperating Professornthe Department fArt,StanfordUniversity. his article s partof a work n progresson "culturalproperty"undertakenwiththegenerous supportof theJohnSimonGuggenheimMemorial Foundation. I am grateful oProfessors homas Campbell,Detlev Ch. Dicke, AlbertE. Elsen,Marc Franklin, ierre Laliveand P. J. O'Keefe for criticismsnd suggestions.Errors of fact, udgment and taste are ofcoursemine.1 Any comprehensive efinition fculturalpropertywould have to include suchobjectsandmuch more. Thus, the UNESCO Conventionon theMeans of Prohibiting nd Preventing heIllicit mport,Exportand TransferofOwnershipof CulturalProperty f 1970, infranote 6,defines ulturalpropertynArticle1 to include:

(a) Rare collections nd specimensoffauna, flora,minerals nd anatomy, nd objectsofpaleontological nterest;(b) property elating ohistory,ncluding hehistoryf science nd technologyndmilitaryand socialhistory . .;(c) productsofarchaeologicalexcavations(d) elementsof artistic r historicalmonuments r archaeologicalsites which have beendismembered;(e) antiquitiesmore than one hundred yearsold, such as inscriptions,oins and engravedseals;(f) objectsofethnological nterest;(g) property fartisticnterest. . .(h) rare manuscripts nd incunabula,old books, documents and publicationsof specialinterest . .;(i) postage,revenue and similar tamps . .(j) archives, ncluding ound, photographic nd cinematographic rchives;(k) articles f furnituremore than one hundred yearsold and old musical nstruments.

In somenations, ulturalobjectsand environmental reasures includingnatural nd artificiallandscapesand ecological areas, plus, n cities,urban structures nd panoramas)are treated sfundamentallyelatedto each other. See T. ALIBRANDI & P. FERRI, I BENI CULTURALI E AM-BIENTALI (1985). Cf.UNESCO Convention or he Protection f the World Cultural nd NaturalHeritage,Nov. 16, 1972, UNESCO Doc. 17/C/106 (1972). For a discussionof folklore sculturalproperty,ee Glassie,Archaeologynd Folklore: ommon nxieties,ommon opes, nHIS-TORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL THINGS 23 (L. Ferguson ed.1977).The entire uestionof the properdefinition f cultural roperty or egal and policypurposesis a large and unruly ne thatfortunately eed not be pursued here. Works of art and archae-ological and ethnological objects surely qualify under any definition;museums acquire anddisplay hem, cholars tudy hem, ollectors ollect them and dealers sell them. National lawsand international onventionsprovide for their preservation nd regulate trade in them.Astrong nternational onsensus upports heir nclusion n any definition f culturalproperty.

831

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

3/24

832 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80embodied in theConventionforthe Protection f CulturalPropertyn theEventof Armed Conflictof May 14, 1954 (hereinafter Hague 1954"),2whichculminates development n the international aw of war that beganin the mid-l9th century.Another wayof thinking bout cultural property s as part of a nationalculturalheritage.This givesnations special nterest,mplies heattributionof national haracter o objects, ndependently f their ocationor ownership,and legitimizes ationalexportcontrols nd demandsfor he "repatriation"of culturalproperty.As a corollary f thiswayofthinking,he worlddividesitself nto source nations nd marketnations.3 n source nations, he supplyof desirable cultural property xceeds the internal demand. Nations likeMexico, Egypt,Greece and India are obvious examples. They are rich inculturalartifacts eyond any conceivable local use. In marketnations,thedemand exceeds the supply.France, Germany, apan, the Scandinavian na-tions, witzerland nd theUnitedStates re examples.4Demand inthe mar-ket nation encourages export from ource nations. When, as is often butnot always) the case, the source nation is relativelypoor and the marketnation wealthy, n unrestrictedmarket will encourage the net export ofculturalproperty.Despite theirenthusiasmforother kindsof export trade, most sourcenations vigorously ppose the export of culturalobjects.5Almost everyna-tionalgovernment theUnited States and Switzerland re theprincipal x-ceptions)treats ulturalobjectswithin ts urisdiction s partsofa "nationalculturalheritage."Nationallawsprohibit r limit xport, nd internationalagreements upport hese nationalrestraintsn trade. This wayofthinkingabout culturalproperty s embodied in the Convention on the Means ofProhibitingnd Preventing he llicit mport,Exportand TransferofOwn-ershipofCulturalProperty fNovember14, 1970 (hereinafterUNESCO

2 249 UNTS 240. The conference hatproduced Hague 1954 was called by UNESCO, soit is right o think f the Convention s to some extent a UNESCO product. The differencesbetween Hague 1954 and UNESCO 1970 that re described nthis rticleflow o some extentfromthe differentubjectmatters f the two Conventions,but they lso reflect he changesthathave takenplace inUNESCO's membership, tructure, rogram nd ideology ince 1954.3 L. PROTT & P. O'KEEFE, NATIONAL LEGAL CONTROL OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN CULTURALPROPERTY 2 (UNESCO 1983), include a third ategoryof "transit ountries" which, houghusefulforother purposes, s not relevanthere.' The readerwillnotneed tobe reminded hat nationcan be both a source ofand a marketfor ultural roperty. orexample, here s a strongmarket broadforworks fNorthAmericanIndian cultures, ven thoughCanada and the United States are thought f primarily s marketnations. Conversely, here are wealthy ollectorsof foreign s well as national culturalobjectsinmost source nations.

5 The questionwhynations rohibit heexport fcultural ropertys an unexpectedly omplexand interestingne that willtreat nanother article. On the surface, t seems that there areseveral evelsof motivation: omanticByronism seeMerryman, hinkingbout he lginMarbles,83 MICH. L. REv. 1880, 1903-05 (1985)); the notion of "national cultural patrimony" ndrelatedpolitical/symbolicses of cultural roperty;ackofthe cultural xpertise nd organizationtodeal with ulturalproperty s a resource, ikeotherresources, o be managed and exploited;entrenched nterestshat llegally, utprofitably,xploit ultural roperty ndfavor erpetuationofthe statusquo; and so on.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

4/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 8331970"),6 which s the keystone f a networkof nationaland internationalattempts o deal withthe "illicit"international rafficn smuggledand/orstolenculturalobjects.Whileboth Conventionspurportto protectculturalproperty, heygivethe term"protection"differentmeanings nd embody differentnd some-what dissonant ets of values. In part,the divergenceflowsnaturally romthediverse subjectmatters f the two Conventions,one dealing withpro-tectionof culturalproperty rom he acts of belligerentsn timeofwar,theotherwith nternational rafficn cultural objects. But the differencesnoutlook that are of interesthere are fundamental, ranscending uch dis-tinctions. describethesedifferencesnd exploretheir mplications orthenationaland international olicyand law of culturalproperty.

HAGUE 1954 AND CULTURAL INTERNATIONALISMHague 1954 is a direct descendantof the work of FrancisLieber, "themanwho shaped and laid the cornerstone n whichthe lawsof war,as wenow find hem, re based."7Lieber,a German emigreprofessort ColumbiaCollege in NewYork,had assistedHenryWagerHalleck,General-in-Chiefof the Union Armies, n definingguerrillawarfare.At Halleck's request,Lieber prepareda proposed "code ofconductbybelligerent orces n war"

to apply to the conduct of the Union forces n the AmericanCivil War.Issued by the Union command as General Orders No. 100 on April 24,1863, the Instructions or theGovernanceof Armies of the United Statesin theField or Lieber Code contains157 articles.Articles34-36 deal withprotection f culturalproperty nd provide:34. As a generalrule,the property elongingto churches, o hos-pitals, or other establishments f an exclusively haritablecharacter,to establishments f education,or foundationsfor the promotionofknowledge,whether ublicschools,universities,cademiesof earningorobservatories,museums f the fine rts, r of a scientific haracter-suchproperty snot to be consideredpublicproperty . . but itmaybe taxed or used whenthepublicservice may require it.35. Classicalworksofart, ibraries, cientific ollections, r preciseinstruments,uch as astronomical elescopes, s wellas hospitals,mustbe securedagainst all avoidable injury, venwhenthey re containedin fortified laces whilstbesieged or bombarded.

6823 UNTS 231, reprintedn 10 ILM 289 (1971).7Taylor, Foreword,n THE LAW OF WAR: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, at xv (L. Friedman

ed. 1972) [hereinafter cited as Friedman]; cf R. HARTIGAN, LIEBER'S CODE AND THE LAW OFWAR (1983).Lieber,of course,was not the first o argue forprotection f culturalproperty romdamageor seizurebybelligerents. olybiusofAthens, Greekhistorian f the 3d-2d century .C., isfrequentlyuoted as theearliest uch advocate. See De Visscher,La Protectionnternationaleesobjets'art tdesmonumentsistoriques2me artie),6 REVUE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DELtGISLATION COMPAR?E (3d ser.) 246, 247 (1935), translatednd republisheds De Visscher,Internationalrotectionf WorksfArt nd HistoricMonuments, U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, Docu-MENTS AND STATE PAPERS 821, 823 (1949) (quoting Polybius).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

5/24

834 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 8036. If such worksof art, libraries, ollections,or instruments e-longing to a hostile nation or government an be removed without

injury, he ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them tobe seized and removedforthe benefit f thesaid nation.The ultimateownership s to be settledbytheensuing treaty fpeace.In no case shalltheybe soldor given way, fcaptured by the armiesofthe United States,nor shalltheyever be privately ppropriated,orwantonly estroyed r injured.8

The Lieber Code was thefirstttempt o state a comprehensive ody ofprinciplesgoverning he conduct of belligerents n enemy territory.ts in-fluencecan be traced through numberof succeedingefforts. hus, at aninternational onference f 15 states alled by the RussianGovernment ndheld in Brussels n 1874, the "Declaration of Brussels" was promulgated(butneveradopted as an international onventionbecause of theresistanceof GreatBritain).Article8, of a total of 56 articles, tates:

The property fparishes communes),or establishments evoted toreligion,charity, ducation, arts and sciences,although belonging totheState, hallbe treated s private roperty. very eizure,destructionof,or wilful amage to,suchestablishments, istoricalmonuments, rworksof art or science,shall be prosecuted by the competent uthor-ities.'In 1880 theprestigious nstitute f InternationalLaw (an organizationofscholarsof international aw) includeda similarprovision Article 56) in its"Manual of theLaws and CustomsofWar."'0 In 1899, again at the nitiativeof the Russian Government, conference of 26 nations was convened atThe Hague. This importantonference roduceda numberof nternationalagreements, ncluding he ConventionwithRespecttotheLawsand CustomsofWar on Land (Hague II, 1899) and a setof RegulationsRespectingtheLaws and Customs ofWar on Land in 60 articles, fwhichArticle56 dealswiththeprotection f culturalpropertyn similar erms.11Such provisions ppear with ncreasing requencynthepresent entury.In 1907,atthe nitiative f theUnitedStates PresidentTheodore Roosevelt)and, again, ofRussia,anotherimportant onferencewas convened at TheHague, attendedby44 nations.The Conventionon Laws and CustomsofWar on Land (Hague IV, 1907) adopted at thatconferencehas a set ofappended Regulations Respectingthe Laws and CustomsofWar on Land,of whichArticle56 provides n similar ermsfortheprotection fculturalproperty.'2 he same 1907 conferenceproduced theConventionConcern-ingBombardmentbyNaval Forces inTime ofWar (Hague IX), whichpro-

8 Friedman, upra note 7, at 165; R. HARTIGAN, supra note 7, at 51-52.9Friedman, upra note 7, at 195.10RESOLUTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 36-37 (J.B. Scott ed. 1916)." For the Convention,July 9, 1899, see 32 Stat. 1803, TS No. 403, reprintednFriedman,supranote 7, at 234.12 For theConvention,Oct. 18, 1907, see 36 Stat.2277, TS No. 539, reprintednFriedman,supranote 7, at 323.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

6/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 835vides in Article 5 forthe protectionof "historicmonuments,""art" and"science."'" In 1923 anotherHague conferenceproducedtheHague Rulesof AirWarfarewhichwerenever doptedbythepowers oncerned).Articles25 and 26 provideforthe protection f culturalproperty.'4Hague IV, 1907, and related conventionswere the governinggeneralinternationalegislation n the conductofbelligerents ntil he endofWorldWar II. On thewhole, theseconventionsmerely estated arlierprovisionsconcerningculturalproperty.Althoughthe language varied from one toanother, he basic structure fprotection emainedthe same: subjectto anoverriding oncessionto military ecessity,whichwillbe discussedbelow,culturalobjectswereprotected. ndividualsresponsibleforoffensesgainstcultural ropertywere to be punishedbytheauthoritiesf their wnnations.The Lieber Code and itsprogeny ll dealtcomprehensively ith he ob-ligations fbelligerents; heprotection fculturalpropertywasmerely neamongmany opics. n the 1930s,however, nternationalnterest urnedtothepreparation fa convention ealingsolelywith he protection fculturalproperty n time ofwar. In 1935 the 21 AmericannationspromulgatedTreatyon the ProtectionofArtistic nd Scientific nstitutionsnd Monu-ments,now generallyreferred o as the Roerich Pact.'5 As the first nter-nationalconvention ntirely evoted totheprotection fculturalproperty,thisdocumentshistoricallymportant, ut t snow,for llpractical urposes,superseded. n 1939 theGovernments fBelgium,Spain, theUnitedStates,Greece and theNetherlands,undertheauspicesoftheLeague ofNations,issued a DraftDeclaration and a Draft InternationalConventionfor theProtectionof Monuments and Works of Art in Time of War.'6 Like theRoerichPact, theseLeague efforts ere quickly vertakenby theeventsofWorldWar II, bychanges nthetechnology, actics nd strategyfwarfareand the new concept of "total war," and by the offenses gainstculturalproperty eliberatelynd systematicallyommitted y theNazis. Bythe endof World War II, the governingrules concerningprotectionof culturalpropertygainstbelligerentcts had clearlybecomeinadequate. Two majorlegal events thenoccurred: the Nuremberg Trials and the promulgation,under theauspicesoftheUnitedNationsEducational, cientificnd CulturalOrganization,ofHague 1954.AlfredRosenberg,one oftheprincipal ccused Nazis at theNurembergTrials, was among otherthingshead of the infamousEinsatzstab SpecialStaff)Rosenberg.The Einsatzstabwas chargedwith ootingGerman-occu-pied countriesof culturalproperty,n assignment hat t ruthlessly, ora-

Oct. 18,1907, 36 Stat.2351, TS No. 542.14 Friedman, upranote 7, at 441.5 Apr. 15, 1935, 49 Stat.3267, TS No. 899, 167 LNTS 279. Roerich wasa Russianpainter,poet and activist n behalf fcultural reservationwhoalso lived nFinland,Britain, he UnitedStatesand India, where he died in 1947. His draft f a proposed convention nd hisdesignfora banner-"the Banner of Peace" (reproduced with heTreaty nTS No. 899)-were in argepart adopted by the parties to the convention. See E. ALEXANDROV, THE ROERICH PACT ANDTHE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS AND TREASURES (Sofia 1978).16 1.U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, DOCUMENTS AND STATE PAPERS 859 (1949).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

7/24

836 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80ciously nd efficientlyxecuted. Rosenberg's indictment nd the evidenceintroduced at his trial detailed his (and the Einsatzstab's)offenses gainstculturalproperty.'7Rosenberg was found guilty f these and manyother)offenses nd was hanged. The innovationhere, as elsewhere n the Nurem-berg Trials, was that other nations mposed responsibility n an individualofficial f the offending elligerent ower for cts againstculturalpropertycommitted n itsname. The Lieber Code and its progeny had a differentbasis: such offenses iolated nternationalaw,butoffendingersonnelwereto be disciplined, fat all, by theirowngovernments.'8Hague 1954, the first niversalconventionto deal solely withthe pro-tection f cultural roperty,ppears to ncorporate heprinciple f ndividualinternational esponsibility,ffirmed t Nuremberg, n Article 28: "TheHigh Contracting arties undertake o take,within he framework ftheirordinary riminal urisdiction, ll necessary teps to prosecute and imposepenal or disciplinary anctions upon those persons, ofwhatever ationality,who commit r order tobe committed breachofthepresentConvention"(emphasis dded). This languageseemsto authorize, ndeedtooblige,nationsthat cquire personal urisdiction fpersons ccused of Hague 1954 violationsto try hem.A moresignificant ovelty fHague 1954, however, s that tprovidesarationalefor he nternational rotection f culturalproperty. he languageof the Preamble is for thisreasonalone memorable:

Beingconvincedthatdamage to culturalproperty elongingto anypeople whatsoevermeansdamage to the culturalheritageof all man-kind,since each people makes itscontribution o the cultureof theworld;17See materialsollectednJ.MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS1-43ffi1979-); S.WILLIAMS,HE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PROTECTION OF MOVABLECULTURAL PROPERTY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY 23-29 (1978).18 Infact,heprinciplehat ndividualsccused f other inds f)war rimesouldbe triedby he ffendedovernmentsadbeen cceptedong efore.eeR.WOETZEL, THE NUREMBERGTRIALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 17ff.1960). naddition,herewasrecent elevantvidencethat rials f ccusedwar riminalsytheir wnnationalourtswere neffectual.he Treatyof VersaillesrovidednArticle 28 thatGermans ccused fwarcrimeswouldbe tried ymilitaryribunalsfthevictorious llies. npursuancefthis rovision, list f 896 allegedwar riminals,ncluding ighly lacedofficers,as ubmittedy theAllieswith hedemandthat hey eturnedverfor rial.

The German abinet trenuouslybjected othe demand, iting he oppositionftheGerman ublic. he Germans eported o theAllies hat herewould e an insurrectionif hey ried odeliver henames n the ist, ndarmy eaders aid heywould esume hewar f heAllies ressed hematter.

Friedman,upra ote7, at777. Itwas ventuallygreed hat heGermans ould onducthetrialsntheir wnhigh ourt, he ReichsgerichtnLeipzig, pplyingnternationalaw.TheAllies rovided drasticallyeduced ist f 45 names, nd the Germans greed otry 2 ofthem. ixwere ventuallyried ndconvicted;hey eceivedight entences,anging romfewmonthstoyearsnprison.Thosewhowere ventuallyimprisonedmmediatelyescaped.")For contemporaryccount nd evaluationf he rials,ee C. MULLINS, THE LEIPZIG TRIALS(1921).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

8/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 837Considering hat hepreservation ftheculturalheritage sofgreatimportancefor all peoples of the world and that t is important hatthisheritage houldreceive international rotection....

While it seems clear that such considerationsunderlaythe protectionofcultural property n Lieber's code and its successors,theirexpressioninHague 1954 is a significantnnovation.The quoted language, which hasbeen echoed in later internationalnstruments,'9s a charterforculturalinternationalism, ithprofound mplications or aw and policyconcerningthe nternationalrade nand repatriationf cultural roperty. he principleappears to apply,forexample, to theElginmarbles; they re a partof "theculturalheritageofall mankind." It follows hatpeople who are not Greekor Britishhave an interest n theirpreservation,ntegrity nd availabilityfor enjoyment nd study.20 he perennialdebate about the propriety ftheirremoval from Greece by Elgin. nd the currentproposals to returnthem to Athens become thebusinessof others besides Greeksand Britons.As the smogof Athens eats away themarble fabricof the Parthenon, ll ofmankindoses something rreplaceable.These mattersre discussedbelow.2'Hague 1954 containsone significantoncessionto nationalism: ike itspredecessors,t imits heprotection f culturalproperty y thedoctrineof"military ecessity."As stated nArticles14 and 15 oftheLieber Code:

19Such echoes can be found nthe anguageof the UNESCO RecommendationConcerningthe InternationalExchange of Cultural Propertyof Nov. 26, 1976, UNESCO Doc. IV.B.8,though usually combined withinsistenceon the centrality f national interests.Thus, thePreamble states: "Recalling thatcultural property onstitutes basic element of civilizationand national ulture," nd "Consideringthat a systematic olicy of exchanges among culturalinstitutions . . would . . . lead to a better use of the international ommunity's ulturalheritagewhich s the umof ll thenationalheritages"emphasis supplied). Article 2 of the rec-ommendation ontains lessnationalistictatement: Bearing in mindthat ll culturalpropertyforms art of the common heritageofmankind.. . ."20 For a discussionof the marblesand of preservation, ntegrity nd distribution/access sthe threemaincategoriesof international nterest n culturalproperty, ee Merryman, upranote 5, at 1916-21.21 Two colleagues have suggestedthat one can distinguish ultural objectsof merely ocal,national r regional nterest rom hoseof truly nternationalmportance. ague 1954 specificallyrejects ny such distinction, s thequoted provisionfrom he Preamble makes clear, equating"culturalproperty elonging oany people whatsoever"with the culturalheritage fallman-kind" because "each people makes ts contribution o the culture of theworld." Still, t doesnot seem unreasonable to supposethat ome objects reallyhave little r no importance eyondlocal or national borders: the bronze effigy f an obscure politicianexecuted by a mediocreartist f merely ocal reputation tandingna park na provincial own nBrazil, s one example;the LibertyBell, as another. Neither of these objectshas intrinsic alue, and the cultural m-portanceof each seems to be entirely pecific o the town in Brazil or to the United States,

respectively.Would the rest of the world be culturally mpoverishedby the destruction feither?Arguablynot,but there are twomajordifficulties:ne is that the effort o distinguishobjectsof ocal from hoseof nternational ignificance nters no-man's-land hat sshroudedin uncertainty nd strewnwith and mines. The LibertyBell, for example, is a symbolof theAmericanRevolution, great event n Westernhistory. oes it reallyringonlyfor Americans?The otherproblem s thatwhat eemsof ocal and minor nterest ow mayunexpectedly ssumemajor international mportance.The minorpoliticianmaybe reevaluated by scholarship, rthe artistmayhave gone on to greater things, eaving onlythis bronze as an example of animportant ormative tageinhiscareer.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

9/24

838 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 8014. Militarynecessity, s understoodby modern civilizednations,consists n the necessity fthosemeasureswhichare indispensableforsecuring he ends of war, ndwhich re lawful ccording othemodernlaw and usages of war.15. Militarynecessity . . allows of all destructionof property.22

Hague 1954 is not greatly ifferent. rticle4(2) provides hat he obligationto respect cultural property may be waived . . . in cases where militarynecessity mperatively equiressuch a waiver." In short,military ecessitycan ustify hedestruction f cultural property therwiseprotectedby theConvention.This principle,whose originhas been attributed o Prussianmilitarism-"la celebre conceptionprussiennede la Kriegsraison"23-was strongly e-bated at theconferencethatproduced Hague 1954 and was retained by adivided vote.24The criticismsre of severalkinds. One is thatthe conceptofmilitary ecessity s so indefinite nd thecircumstances f its use in thefield so fluidthat "necessity"too quicklyand easilyshades into "conven-ience." The problemwasanticipatedbyGeneral Eisenhower n a statementtothe Allied forces n December29, 1943: "[T]he phrase military ecessity'is sometimes used where it would be more truthful o speak of militaryconvenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cloakslacknessor indifference."25 ilitarynecessitywas one of the standardde-fensesused byaccused war criminals fterWorld Wars I and IL.26A relatedbut more subtle difficultys that, npractice,field ommanderscan be expectedtoplace othervalueshigher hanculturalpreservationndto translate hem nto "military ecessity."The conductof theAllied forcesin Europe in 1943-1945 providesvariousexamples. General Eisenhowerissued clear directions or he preservation fcultural ropertyn December

22 Friedman, upranote 7, at 161; R. HARTIGAN, upranote 7, at 48.23 Nahlik,La Protectionnternationaleesbiens ulturelsn cas de conflitrme', 20 RECUEIL DESCOURS 61, 87 (1967 I).24 Nahlik, d. at 128ff, describes he debatesand states hatthe UnitedStates,GreatBritainand Turkey nsisted n including n exceptionformilitary ecessity, hile heUSSR, Romania,Greece, Belgium,Ecuador and Spain were among those thatargued that such an exceptionwas "incompatible vec l'espritet les principes ssentielsde la Convention." It is ironicthattheUnited States,which nsisted n themilitary ecessity xception and, withGreat Britain,argued thatwithout t "plusieurspays ne se trouveraient lusen mesurede signer tde ratifierla Convention,"has not itself atifiedHague 1954. It is also significanthat he earlierRoerich

Pact, supra note 15, to which the United Stateswas a party, ontainedno military ecessityclause. The decisive vote on the Soviet motionto delete the military ecessity lause was 20opposed, 7 in favor nd 14 abstentions.d. at 131.25AMERICAN COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION AND SALVAGE OF ARTISTIC AND HISTORICMONUMENTS IN WAR AREAS, REPORT 48 (1946) [hereinafter ited as REPORT]. The Reportdescribes he workofthe Commission, reated n 1943, the field perationsoftheMonuments,Fine Arts, nd Archives ection MFA&A), and the treatment f culturalproperty uring ndafterhostilitiesnWorld War II.26 Dunbar, Military ecessitynWar Crimes rials,29 BRIT. Y.B. INT'L L. 442 (1952).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

10/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 83929, 1943 inItaly,27nd on May 26, 1944, as the Alliesbegantosweepacrossnorthern urope.28

General Eisenhower'sreference o theAbbeyof Monte Cassino, one ofthe oldest and mostrevered and honored sites n Europe, is unfortunateand revealing.The AlliesdestroyedMonteCassino,but therewas nomilitarynecessity f doing so. As theReport f the AmericanCommissionfor theProtection nd Salvage ofArtistic nd HistoricMonuments n War Areasstates:Although theGerman High Commandhad apparently ssuedordersthattroopswerenotto enter themonastery nderanycircumstances,therewere enemy observationposts and mortar nd otherdefensivepositions ll over the mountainaround the abbey, and to the Alliedarmiesthetoweringwallscrowning hemountainmaywellhavegrowninto a symbolof the oppositionagainst a victorious dvance. In anycase thesedefensivepositions nd theabbeywere blasted byartilleryand aerial bombardments nd theabbey wasvery argelydestroyednattackson February5, 8, and 11, culminatingn the aerial assaultofFebruary15.

Of the seventeenth-centuryhurchalmostnothingremained. Themonasticbuildings, ibrary, icturegallery, nd all structureswere re-duced to rubble.2927 Todaywe arefightingn a country hich ascontributedgreat ealto ourculturalinheritance,countryich nmonumentshichy heirreation elped ndnow ntheiroldage illustratehegrowthfthecivilizationhichsours.We arebound orespectthosemonumentss far s war llows.

If wehave to choosebetween estroyingfamous uildingndsacrificingurownmen, hen urmen'sives ountnfinitelyore ndthebuildings ust o.But he hoiceisnot lwaysoclear-cutsthat.nmanyases hemonumentsanbe sparedwithoutnydetrimentooperational eeds.Nothinganstand gainst he rgumentfmilitarye-cessity. hat is an accepted rinciple.ut thephrase militaryecessity"ssometimesusedwhere twould e more ruthfulo peak fmilitaryonveniencereven fpersonalconvenience.do notwant tto cloak lacknessr ndifference.REPORT, supranote25, at48.28 Shortly ewill e fightingurway cross heContinentfEuropenbattles esignedtopreserveurcivilization.nevitably,nthepath four dvancewill e found istoricalmonumentsndculturalenters hichymbolizeotheworld llthatwearefightingopreserve.It sthe esponsibilityf veryommanderoprotectndrespectheseymbolsheneverpossible.In some ircumstanceshe uccess f themilitaryperationmay eprejudicedn ourreluctanceodestroyhese everedbjects. hen, satCassino,wherehe nemy eliedon ouremotionalttachmentso shield isdefense, he ives four men reparamount.So,wheremilitaryecessityictates,ommanders ay rder herequiredction venthought nvolvesestructiono somehonored ite.But here remany ircumstancesnwhich amage nddestructionrenotnecessaryandcannot e ustified.n suchcases, hrough heexercise frestraintnddiscipline,commanders ill reserve entersndobjects fhistoricalndculturalignificance.

Id. at 102.29 Id. at 67.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

11/24

840 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80The choice between savinghuman lives and saving rreplaceablemonu-ments s not an easy one. To use a classroom xample, uppose youcommand

a companyofsoldiers nthevicinity f the cathedralof Chartres.An enemyartillery potter n one of the towers s directingfire gainst you and yourmen and mustbe removed.You can bomb the cathedralwithout ndangeringyour men or you can order some of them to enter the cathedral and findand removethespotter.One or more ofthemenwould nthat ase probablybe killed. Do you bomb the cathedral? s this case of "military ecessity"?Studentstry o evade the issue, but whenforcedto choose, they generallystatethathumanlives are more important.Only a minority gree withSirHarold Nicolson:I am notamong thosewho feel thatreligious ites re, as such, of moreimportance han human lives . .; nor should I hesitate,were I a mil-itary ommander,to reduce some purelyhistorical uilding to rubbleif felt hatby doing so I could gain a tactical dvantage or diminishthe danger to whichmymen were exposed. Worksof major artisticvalue fall, however, nto a completelydifferent ategory. t is to mymindabsolutelydesirablethatsuchworks should be preservedfromdestruction, ven iftheir preservation ntailsthe sacrifice f humanlives. shouldassuredlybe prepared to be shot againsta wall if werecertain thatby such a sacrifice could preservethe Giotto frescoes;nor should I hesitateforan instant were sucha decision everopen tome) to save St. Mark's even if wereaware that by so doing I shouldbringdeath to mysons. . . . My attitude would be governed by aprinciplewhich s surely ncontrovertible. he irreplaceable s moreimportant hanthe replaceable,and the loss of even the mostvaluedhuman ife s ultimatelyessdisastrous hanthe oss of somethingwhichin no circumstances an everbe createdagain.30

The Monte Cassino example and many othersdescribed in the Reportillustrateboth the complexity f the fieldcommander's decision and thedepressingregularitywithwhich "honored objects" and "revered sites"were destroyedas the Allied armies advanced and the Allied air forcesbombed. We did enormousdamage to irreplaceableworks.A military e-cessity quation thatroutinelyvalues the possibility f loss of life higherthan thecertainty fdestruction f culturalpropertynecessarily roducesthatkind ofresult.Where theculturalpropertyn questionbelongs to theenemy,the equation tiltsfurther gainst preservation. n World War II,"military ecessity" ustified aturationbombing of towns containing rre-placeable cultural reasures nd "precision" bombingof factories nd yardsadjacent to greatmonumentsof human achievement,guaranteeingwide-spread damage and destruction.3'A thirdobjection s morefundamental, rguingthatmilitary ecessity sa relic of an age thattreatedaggressivewar as a legitimate nstrument f

" SirHaroldNicolson, arginalComments,PECTATOR, Feb.25, 1944, eprintednfull inJ.MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, supra ote17, t 1-85ff31Not tomentionnormousossofnoncombatantives. eeD. IRVING, THE DESTRUCTIONOF DRESDEN (1963);cfK.VONNEGUT, SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE; OR THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE(1969).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

12/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 841nationalpolicy-an age evoked by such- erms s us ad bellum, riegsraison,Kriegsbrauch,aisonde guerre, aisond'etat, nd so on. Why, uch critics sk,should a great culturalmonumentbe legally acrificed o the ends ofwar?What does itsay about our scale of values when weplace military bjectivesabove thepreservationf rreplaceable ulturalmonuments?32his criticismobviouslygains force from the presentcentury'soutlawingof aggressivewar33and from cceptance of theidea that culturalproperty elongs to allmankind,not merely o the nation of its situsor to thebelligerents.34Finally, he concession to military ecessity eems inconsistentwith thepremisesof Hague 1954: "the culturalheritageof all mankind" is put atthemercy ftherelatively arochial nterests f certainbelligerents.n aninternational onvention o whichnational states re parties, his s perhapsunsurprising nd may be unavoidable. Still, the matterwas vigorously is-cussedand the concessionto nationalism trongly pposed bymajornationsat theconference.Despite itsdeferencetomilitary ecessity, ague 1954 expresses everalimportant ropositions ffecting heinternational aw of culturalproperty.One is the cosmopolitannotionof a general interest n culturalproperty("the culturalheritageofall mankind"),apartfrom nynational nterest.35A second is that culturalpropertyhas special importance,ustifying peciallegalmeasures o ensure tspreservation.Another s the notionof ndividual

32 ee the discussion f the debate inNahlik, upranote23, at 128ff;and comparethe viewsof G. BEST, HUMANITY IN WARFARE passim1980), with those ofJ. BAKER & H. CROCKER, THELAWS OF LAND WARFARE CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BELLIGERENTS 149ff,209-13 (1919)." Beginningwiththe Kellogg-BriandPact of Aug. 27, 1928, 46 Stat. 2343, TS No. 796,94 LNTS 57, and followedbythe United NationsCharter,Article2, paragraph4, the llegalityof aggressivewarhas been generally ccepted among nations.One ofthe charges against themajor war criminals t Nurembergwas that heynitiated nd waged warsof aggression. harterof the InternationalMilitaryTribunal, Art. 6, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MILITARYTRIALS, U.S. DEP'T OF STATE PUB. No. 380, 2 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND CONFER-ENCE SERIES, 1 EUROPEAN AND BRITISH COMMONWEALTH 423 (1949).34Still, fmilitary ecessityan ustifyhedenial or limitationfthe constitutionallyuaranteedrights f individuals, s it sometimes oes inAmericanconstitutionalaw (Levine, TheDoctrineofMilitary ecessityn the ederalCourts, 9 MIL. L. REV. 3 (1980)), perhaps t is not surprisingthat we permit tto ustify he destruction fcultural reasures.3' There is growing nternational cceptance of a similar nterest f "all mankind" in thephysical nvironment,n space and in the seabed. Cf UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,openedforignatureec. 10, 1982,reprintednUNITED NATIONS, THE LAW OF THE SEA: UNITEDNATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UN Pub. Sales No. E.83.V.5), which pro-vides nthe Preamble that the area of the sea-bed and the ocean floor nd thesubsoil thereof. . . as well as its resources, re the common heritageof mankind," and in Article136 thatthe "Area and itsresources are the common heritageof mankind." Disagreementwiththeimplications f this oncept for ccess to and management f deep sea resourceswas a principalreason for the U.S. refusal, mong others, o accede to the LOS Convention.M. AKEHURST,A MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 281-82 (5th ed. 1984). For a discussionof theproposed applicationofthe "common heritage" conceptto Antarctica also opposed bythe United States), see D. SHAPLEY, THE SEVENTH CONTINENT: ANTARCTICA IN A RESOURCEAGE 160 (1985).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

13/24

842 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80responsibilityoroffenses gainst culturalproperty.The fourth sthe prin-ciple that urisdiction o try ffenses gainst culturalproperty snotlimitedto the government f the offender.36he firstnd second of thesepropo-sitions re expressed na variety f other nternational ctsand agreements(includingUNESCO 1970 and its clusterof related events nd documents,whichwillbe discussed below). One can therefore reat themas principlesofgeneral pplicability, ot imited o controlling heconductofbelligerentsin time ofwar or civil conflict.The third nd fourthpropositions,however,growingout of the LieberCode, the Hague 1899 and 1907 Conventions, he experiences of WorldWars I and II and the NurembergTrials,are morecloselytied to the nter-national aw of war. For example, theydo not at present pplyto the peace-timetrafficn smuggledor stolenculturalproperty.Like all major inter-national onventions, owever,Hague 1954 exerts n influencehat xtendsbeyond the obligations mposed on and accepted by its parties. t is a pieceof international egislation hatexemplifies n influentialwayof thinkingabout culturalproperty,which will call "cultural nternationalism."37 enow examine another way,exemplified y UNESCO 1970.

UNESCO 1970 AND CULTURAL NATIONALISMThe forerunners f the UNESCO 1970 Convention nclude: ResolutionXIV, Protection fMovable Monuments, f the Seventh nternational on-ference f AmericanStatesof 1933;38 threedraftnternational onventionsprepared by the League of Nations in 1933, 1936 and 1939, the last ofwhich was entitled Draft InternationalConvention for the ProtectionofNational CollectionsofArt and History;39nd the UNESCO Recommen-dationon the Meansof Prohibitingnd Preventing he llicitExport, mportand TransferofOwnershipofCultural Property f 1964.40

38 Hague 1954 also provides that the ordinary ourts-i.e., the courts that ordinarily rycriminal ffenses-should be used, ratherthan military ribunals r special tribunals reatedfor the purpose. One reason forthe Germans' resistance o the provision n the Treaty ofVersailles that alleged German war criminalsbe tried by the Allies was that Allied militarytribunalswouldtry hem.

"' "Supranationalism," meta-nationalism" r "cosmopolitanism"might, trictly peaking,be better than "internationalism," ince the idea is that humanity, ndependently f nationsand internationalrrangements,s the party n nterest.Use of"internationalism"n this ense,however,has become common enough and will do.38REPORT OF THE DELEGATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SEVENTH IN-TERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OFAMERICAN STATES, MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, DECEMBER 3-26, 1933, U.S. DEP'T OF STATE CONFERENCE SERIES No. 19, at 208 (1934).9Al1 three are set out in 1 U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, DOCUMENTS AND STATE PAPERS 865(1949).40 1 UNESCO, THE PROTECTION OF MOVABLE CULTURAL PROPERTY: COMPENDIUM OFLEGISLATIVE TEXTS 382 (1984) [hereinafter ited as COMPENDIUM]. Later relevant materialsinclude the Conventionon theProtection f Archaeological,Historical, nd ArtisticHeritageofthe Amercian Nations Conventionof San Salvador) of 1976, id. t 370; and theUNESCORecommendation or he Protection f MovableCultural Property f 1978, id. t 386. In 1985the Council ofEurope promulgated heEuropeanConvention n OffencesRelating oCulturalProperty,ETS No. 119,whichadds penal to the more usual civilenforcement f nationalcultural property retention laws.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

14/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 843The basic purpose of UNESCO 1970, as its title ndicates, s to inhibitthe "illicit" nternationalrade ncultural bjects.The parties greetoopposethe "impoverishment f the culturalheritage"of a nation through "illicitimport, xport and transfer f ownership" of culturalproperty Article 2),agree that rade ncultural bjectsexportedcontrary o the awof the nationof origin s "illicit" Article3), and agree to prevent he mportation f suchobjectsand facilitate heirreturn o source nations Articles7, 9 and 13).41As of thiswriting, 8 nationshave become partiesto UNESCO 1970. Ofthese, nly wo couldbe classified s major marketnations: heUnited Statesand Canada. None of the other marketnations, such as Belgium,France,Germany, apan, he Netherlands,heScandinaviannations nd Switzerland,are parties.42Most source nations, however, manyof themin the Third

World, are parties.The reason for thisdisparityies in the Convention'spurpose: to restrain he flowof cultural propertyfrom source nations bylimiting ts importation y marketnations. It is true that the Conventionapplies only to the "illicit" international rafficn cultural property,butsincemanysource nationshave policies that, n effect, rohibit ll exportofculturalproperty, hedistinctions to them s notsignificant.By ratifying NESCO 1970, a marketnationcommits tself o forgothefurther mportation f some kinds of cultural property romthose sourcenationsthat re parties.Whyshould it do so? The Preamble to the Conven-tionsets out a seriesofmore or lessrelatedpropositions hatstatethecaseforinternational ction,of which the core is the following: Consideringthat culturalproperty onstitutes ne of the basic elements of civilizationandnational ulture, nd that ts ruevalue can be appreciated nly nrelationtothefullestossiblenformationegardingts rigin, istoryndtraditionaletting"(emphasis dded). The concern sthatunauthorized, landestine xcavationsand removals are almostalwaysundocumented.A Mayan stele tornfroman undeveloped,undocumented site in the ungle of Belize and smuggledto Switzerlandto be sold becomes anonymous.Both it and the site havebeen deprivedofvaluablearchaeologicaland ethnological nformation hatwould have been preservedhad the removal been properly upervised nddocumented,or had the steleremained nplace.43

"' UNESCO 1970 imposes other obligations n the parties:to take stepsto ensure the pro-tectionof their own culturalproperty y settingup appropriate agencies, enacting aws andregulations, istingworksof major cultural mportance, upervising xcavations and througheducation and publicity Arts. 5, 12 and 14). In general, however,theseprovisions re muchless significantn the nternational iscussion nd activity nder the Convention.The principaleffortstoenlist he marketnations o support he restrictionsn export dopted bythe sourcenations.42 As this s written, rance is reported to be taking the necessary tepsto oin UNESCO1970, and the Federal Republic of Germany o be "actively nvestigating henotion." Letterof Apr. 22, 1986 fromProfessorP.J. O'Keefe, University fSydney, o the writer.ProfessorO'Keefe also reports hat Denmark s introducing egislation ursuant o becominga party, sis Australia." This concern s more fully eveloped in LEAGUE OF NATIONS, FINAL ACT OF THE INTER-NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EXCAVATIONS 1ff (1937); the UNESCO RecommendationCon-cerning he PreservationfProperty ndangeredby Publicor PrivateWorks f 1968, UNESCODoc. CFS.68/vi. 14x/AFSR; and the European Convention on the Protection f the Archae-ological Heritage, May 6, 1969, ETS No. 66, COMPENDIUM, supra note 40, at 365.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

15/24

844 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80This concern with de-contextualization" pplies withparticular orce oundocumented rchaeological objects. Others, such as workspreviously e-moved from heirsites,thoseremaining n their sites thathave been fully

documented, nd the very arge body of artworks nd artifactse.g., paint-ings, sculptures, eramics, ewelry, coins, weapons, manuscripts, tc.) thatare movablewithout ignificantoss ofinformation, bviouslyraiseno suchproblem. The quoted preambular provision applies in practice to only asmall, though extremely mportant, roportionof the total trade in stolenand illegally xportedculturalobjects.Recent international iscussions fculturalpropertyawand policyhavebeen carriedon ina special anguage.One of tscharacteristicssa tendencytoward uphemism.Thus, UNESCO 1970 is argely bout nationalretentionof culturalproperty, ut the term "retention" s seldomused. Instead,thedialogue isabout "protection" of culturalproperty-i.e., protection gainstremoval. For example, another clause of the Preamble states:"Consideringthat t sincumbent pon every tate toprotect he cultural ropertyxistingwithintsterritorygainstthedangersoftheft, landestine xcavation, ndillegalexport." One wayto read this anguage s that t mposes n obligationon sourcenations to care forculturalpropertyn theirnationalterritories,and Article5, paragraphs c) and (d) ofthe Convention re consistentwiththat nterpretation."

An alternative eading, however, s thatthese words ustifynational re-tentionof culturalproperty.That is indeed the prevailing nterpretationamongsourcenations; he notionthat hey re obligated by UNESCO 1970does not arise. When interpretedn this way, the quoted language of thePreamblemightbe paraphrasedas follows: Consideringthat t s rightforeveryState to retainculturalproperty xistingwithin tsterritorynd toprevent tstheft, landestine xcavation nd export." This intention smadeclear in Article2 of the Convention,whichstates: "The States Parties tothisConventionrecognizethat he llicitmport, xport nd transfer f own-ershipofculturalpropertys one of themaincauses of the mpoverishmentof the culturalheritageof thecountries foriginofsuchproperty.. . ."The emphasison nationalretentionof culturalproperty s legitimizedthroughoutUNESCO 1970 byuse of the term"illicit,"which s givenanexpansivemeaning.Article defines s "illicit" nytrade ncultural ropertythat"is effected ontrary o theprovisions dopted under thisConventionbythe States Parties thereto."Thus, ifGuatemala were to adopt legislationand administrativeractices hat, n effect, rohibited heexportof all pre-Columbianartifacts,s ithas done, then the exportof any pre-Columbianobject fromGuatemala would be "illicit" under UNESCO 1970. Severalsourcenations hat reparties oUNESCO 1970 have such aws. This featureof UNESCO 1970 has been called a "blank check" by interestsn market

4 Examples of nternationalnstrumentshat learly o seek to imposeobligations n nationsto protect ulturalproperty re: UNESCO RecommendationConcerningtheProtection, t aNationalLevel,of the Cultural nd NaturalHeritageof 1972, UNESCO Doc. 17/C/I 07 (Nov.15, 1972); and UNESCO Convention for the Protectionof the World Culturaland NaturalHeritageof 1972, 27 UST 37, TIAS No. 8226, 1037 UNTS 151.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

16/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 845nations; he nationof origin sgiven hepowerto define illicit"as itpleases.Dealers, collectors nd museums nmarketnationshave no opportunity oparticipate n thatdecision. That is why egislation mplementingUnitedStates dherencetoUNESCO 1970 took10years oenact.45 ealer,collectorand museum nterests ought,with ome success,to limit he effect n thetrade ncultural ropertyhatwould follow f he UnitedStates utomaticallyacquiesced in theretentive oliciesof some sourcenations.46Since the promulgation f UNESCO 1970, the attention fsource nationshas turned to what is now generallycalled "repatriation":the returnofculturalobjectsto nationsof origin or to the nationswhose people includethe culturaldescendantsof thosewho made the objects; or to thenationswhoseterritoryncludes heir riginal ites rthe sitesfromwhich heywerelastremoved). Beginning n 1973, the United NationsGeneral Assemblyadopteda seriesofresolutions allingfor he restitution f culturalpropertytocountries forigin.47n 1978 UNESCO established he ntergovernmentalCommitteeforPromoting he ReturnofCulturalProperty o itsCountriesof Originor its Restitutionn Case of IllicitAppropriation,48nd in 1983the Counc-il f Europe ParliamentaryAssembly dopted a ResolutiononReturnof Works of Art.49 he premisesoftherepatriationmovement rea logicalextensionofthosethatunderlieUNESCO 1970: culturalpropertybelongs in the source country;works thatnow reside abroad in museumsand collections re wrongfullyhere theresultofplunder,removalbyco-lonial powers,theft, llegal export or exploitation)and should be "repa-triated.""o

A COMPARISON OF HAGUE 1954 AND UNESCO 1970We have seen that the Hague 1954 Preamble speaks of "the culturalheritageof all mankind." UNESCO 1970, however, n its Preamble and" TheUnited tates atifiedNESCO 1970 n 1972butreservedts bligationsnder he

Conventionntil he nactmentyCongressf mplementingegislation.he resultf numberof effortsndmuchnegotiation,he Conventionn Cultural ropertymplementationctwas nactedn1983 s Pub.L. No.97-446,96Stat. 351 codifiedt 19 U.S.C.??2601-2613(West upp.1986)).46The provisionsf UNESCO 1970 weremoderatedytheparticipationf the UnitedStatesn tsdrafting.ator,AnEssayon the nternationalrade nArt,34 STAN. L. REV. 275,370 (1982),republisheds THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ART 94 (1982).Their ffectserefurtherimitedntheUnited tates yreservationsndunderstandingsttachedoU.S. rati-ficationftheConventionn 1972.J.MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, supranote17, t2-180ff heprovisionsf heCulturalropertymplementationct,upranote 5, furtherimit he ffectsof UNESCO 1970intheUnited tates y requiringn independent .S. investigationnddeterminationf thegravityfthe allegedlyllicit rafficefore ction s takenunder heConvention." For discussionf hese esolutionsndother omponentsf herepatriationovement,seeNafziger,heNew nternationalrameworkortheReturn, estitution,r ForfeiturefCulturalProperty,5 N.Y.U.J.NT'L L. & POL.789 (1983).48 See id.4' Eur.Parl. Ass.,TextsAdopted ythe Assembly,5thOrdinaryess.,pt. 2 (Sept.26-Oct.6),Res. No. 808 (1983).

50 I will iscusshe epatriationovementndthe ssumptionshat nderlieseof he erm"repatriation"n more etail n anotherrticle.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

17/24

846 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80throughout, mphasizesthe interests f states nthe"national culturalher-itage." Hague 1954 seeks to preservecultural propertyfrom damage ordestruction. UNESCO 1970 supports retention of cultural propertybysource nations.These differentmphases-one cosmopolitan, he otherna-tionalist; one protective,the other retentive-characterize two ways ofthinking bout culturalproperty. referto them as "cultural nternation-alism" and "cultural nationalism."At this writing, ultural nationalismdominatesthe field; t provides thereigning ssumptions nd termsof dis-course nUNESCO and other nternational rganizations,nnationalforumsand in the literature n culturalproperty.5'lIn some cases the two approaches reinforce ach other,but theymay lsolead in differentnd inconsistent irections.Thus, indiscussing heGreekdemand forreturnof the Elgin marblesfromEngland, the case is easy ifonly the assumptions nd termsof culturalnationalism pply: themarblesareGreek,belong nGreeceand shouldbe returned o Greece. But f ulturalinternationalisms ntroduced nto hediscussion, hequestionbecomesmuchmorecomplexand interesting.52he sameistrueofalmost nyotherprom-inent ulturalproperty laim: e.g., should Mexico return he MayanCodex,stolen by a Mexican (a lawyer!) rom he Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris,toFrance?53The differencesetween ultural ationalism nd internationalismecomeparticularly ignificantn cases ofwhat mightbe called "destructive eten-tion" or "covetous neglect." For example, Peru retainsworksof earliercultures hat, ccording o newspaper eports,tdoesnot adequately onserveor display.54f endangeredworksweremoved to some other nation,theymightbe betterpreserved, tudied and displayed nd morewidelyviewedand enjoyed.To the culturalnationalist,he destruction f nationalculturalproperty hrough nadequate care is regrettable, ut might e preferable oits "loss" through export. To a cultural internationalist, he export ofthreatened rtifacts romPeru to some safer nvironmentwould be clearlypreferable o theirdestruction hroughneglect fretained. For example,iftheywere in Switzerland,Germany, he United States or some otherrela-tivelywealthy ationwith developed communityf museums nd collectorsknowledgeable about and respectful f such works, they could be betterpreserved. By preventing he transfer f fragileworksto a locus of higherprotectionwhile inadequately preserving hem at home, Peru endangers

5 The leading works nclude: P. O'KEEFE & L. PROTT, supra note 3; Niec, Legislative odelsof rotectionfCultural roperty,7 HASTINGS L. J. 1089 (1976); B. BURNHAM,THE PROTECTIONOF CULTURAL PROPERTY (1974); K. MEYER, THE PLUNDERED PAST (1973).52See Merryman, upra note 5.

53 According to newspaper reports, he Mexican Governmentnow has the Codex and hasrefused o return t to Paris, laiming hat t was stolenfromMexico in the 19thcentury.Riding,Between rance and Mexico, CulturalCrisis, nt'l Herald Tribune, Aug. 31, 1982, at 1; SanFrancisco Chron., Aug. 19, 1982, at 41.54 Compare eruWagesCampaign oHalt Trade n StolenTreasures, .Y. Times, Oct. 4, 1981,at 23; with chumacher,Peru's Rich Antiquities rumblingn Museums,N.Y. Times, Aug. 15,1983, ?C, at 14, col. 1.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

18/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 847mankind'sculturalheritage;hence "destructiveretention"or "covetousneglect."Culturalnationalism nd internationalismlso diverge n theirresponsesto thepracticeofhoarding culturalobjects, a practice that,while not nec-essarilydamaging to the articles retained,serves no discernibledomesticpurpose otherthan asserting he rightto keep them.55 hus, multiple x-amples of artifacts f earliercivilizations eportedly re retainedby somenations althoughsuch works re more thanadequatelyrepresented n do-mesticmuseums nd collections nd are merelywarehoused,uncataloged,uninventoriednd unavailablefordisplay r for tudy y domestic r foreignscholars.Foreignmuseums hat ackexamplesof suchobjectswould willinglyacquire, tudy nddisplay andconserve) hem.Foreigndealers nd collectorswould gladlybuythem.Cultural nationalismfindsno fault with the nationthat hoards unusedobjects nthisway,despite heexistence fforeignmarkets or hem.Culturalinternationalism,owever,urgesthatobjectsofthatkindbe made availableabroad by sale, exchange or loan. In this way,the achievements f earlierculturesof the source nation could be exhibited to a wideraudience, theinterest f foreignersn seeing and studying uch works their "commonculturalheritage") ould be accommodated, nd the demand that scurrentlymetthroughthe illicitmarketcould be partially atisfied y an open andlicit rade nculturalproperty. t iswidelybelieved that numberofsourcenations ndiscriminatelyetainduplicatesofobjectsbeyond any conceivabledomesticneed,whilerefusingo make them vailabletomuseums, ollectorsand dealers abroad.56They forbid xportbutputmuch ofwhattheyretainto no use. In thisway, theyfailto spread theirculture,theyfailto exploitsuch objects as a valuable resource fortrade and theycontributeto thecultural mpoverishmentfpeople in otherpartsofthe world.57A furtherriticismf retentive ulturalnationalism sthatbyprohibitingor undulyrestricting licit rade nculturalproperty,ourcenations ssure

5 I willdiscuss hepossiblemotivationsor uchhoardingn a separaterticle;f.note5supra.56Considerthefollowinganguage romhe UNESCO RecommendationoncerningheInternationalxchange fCultural roperty,upranote19:Consideringhatmany ulturalnstitutions,hateverheir inancialesources,ossessseveral denticalr similarpecimensf ultural bjects f ndisputableualitynd originwhichre amply ocumented,nd that ome f thesetems, hich reof onlyminor rsecondarymportanceor hese nstitutionsecause f heir lurality,ould e welcomedas valuable ccessionsy nstitutionsnother ountries. .

Other rovisionsfthisnterestingNESCO Recommendationrgenations o exchangeul-tural ropertyithnstitutionsnother ationsnd reclearlyimed tthehoardingendencydescribednthetext.As a recommendation,t mposes o legalobligationnd,out of tunewith he ominantetentiveationalism,ashadno discerniblempact nsource ation ractice.5 Aneminentolleague as uggestedhat he xpressionculturalmpoverishmentfpeoplein other arts f theworld" s specious nd/or xcessive. erhaps. n reflection,owever,thinkt svalid nd, though ramatic,ccurate.fthenotion f a common uman ulturalheritages akeneriously,nd f ccess othe bjects hat omposet snecessaryo ts njoyment,asmany elieve,henhoardingas the ffectdescribe.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

19/24

848 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80the existenceof an active,profitable nd corruptingblack market.58His-torically, he tighter he export control n the source nation, the strongerhas been the pressure to form an illicitmarket. Source nations generallytake thecontrary pproach, citing heexistenceofthe illicitmarket s evi-dence of the need for nternational ontrols. The Preamble of UNESCO1970 incorporates he source nations' argument:the entireConvention sbased on thepremisethat the illicit raffican be significantlyeduced byadoptingmoreextensive egal controls.Opposite assumptions re at work:to thesource nations nd UNESCO, the existenceof the llicit rade ustifiesfurther egal controls.To the critic, he extensionof legal controlsmakesmore of thetrafficllegal and thus,perversely,makes theargumentof thesource nations and UNESCO self-inflating: ore controlsproduce moreillegal trade,whichcalls formore controls, nd so it escalates.There is ample empirical vidence thatretentive awshave not effectivelylimited he trade n culturalproperty, ut have merely etermined heformthattrafficakesand the routes t follows.There is little eason to supposethat he llicit raffic illcease as longas theworld'speopleshave an appetitefor access to representative ollectionsof works fromthe great variety fhuman cultures.That appetite is the source of the demand for culturalobjects.The demand is substantial nd, it appears, growing.59If t strue that he demandfor ultural bjects guarantees hat omellicittraffic illoccur,thenthearguments or ontrolled egalization f the trafficbecome mpressive. or example,Mayan ites nMexico and CentralAmericacurrentlyre mistreated y huaqueroswho, out of ignoranceand theneedto act covertlynd inhaste,do unnecessary amage both to whatthey akeand to whatthey eave. Their activities, eing surreptitious,re not docu-

58SeediscussionnBator,upranote46, at317 ("Ten easy essonsn how ocreate blackmarket");Merrymanith lsen,HotArt:A Reexaminationf the llegal International rade inCulturalObjects, .ARTS MGMT. & L.,No. 3, Fall1982, t 5, 16.59 One neednot pprove fthe raffic,r of ome fthepeoplewho arryton avaricious

dealers,orrupt olice ndcustomsfficials,thicallynsensitiveollectors,ynicallycquisitivemuseumrofessionals),oobservets xistencendcommentn ts mplications.till, blanketcondemnationf thosewhoparticipatenthe raffic ay e tooeasy: llegal xcavations ayreveal mportantorkshatwould therwiseemain idden; muggling ay aveworks hatwould therwisee destroyedhroughovetous eglect;he awsprohibitingxportmaybesenselesslyverinclusive;tc.Art ealers recommonlylamed ot nly or ealing nowinglyn llegallybtainedulturalobjects utfor ncouraging,nstigating,nd even it s sometimeslleged) lanningnd fundingillegal xcavationsnd smuggling.n aroused rthistorian ascomplainedo me thatbywritingooks n antiquitiesn importantewYorkdealerhasencouragedhedemand or,and hence he llegal raden, ultural bjects. he roleof dealersnthe llegal rafficanbeseen ncontrastingays. neview sthat hedealermerelyervesnalreadyxistingemand.The other lames hedealers or reatingnd nurturinghedemand. omecombinationfboth ffectsndoubtedlyxists,ut t sdifficult,f ne ooks t thehistoryfthegreat rivateandpublic ollections,olaymajorblamefor reationf thedemand t thefeet fdealers.Dealersbring he culturalrtifactnd the collector r museum ogethernd undoubtedlyencouragehedemand or heir wn ervicesnd inventories.ut thebasicdemandhas tsown xistence,rowingutofpeople'snterestn ndcuriositybout hehuman ast, urturedbyeducation,cholarship,nd thewhole pparatusf museumsnd exhibitions.ealers reaneasy arget, ut heyre not he ource f theproblem.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

20/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 849mented; onsequently,he objects hey emovebecome anonymous, eprivedby theact of removalof much of their value as cultural records. Would itbe better f uchactivitieswere conductedopenly,with he huaqueros,oinglegallywhatwas formerlyllegal, upervisedbyprofessionals?60n thisway,unnecessaryphysicaldamage could be avoided and the work of removaldocumented. At present, he moneypaid for llegally emovedworksgoesin parttothe huaquerosut, n argepart, o bribepolice and customs fficialsand to makeprofits or the criminal ntrepreneurs,ocal and foreign,whoconduct thetraffic.Would itbe better ftheincome from ulturalpropertysold abroad were available in thenation of originto supportthe workof itsarchaeologists, nthropologistsnd other professionals,s well as theworkof supervisedhuaqueros? bjects that merelyreplicateworks alreadyade-quatelyrepresented nthe sourcenation re expensiveto storeproperly ndconstitute valuable, but unexploited, resource for international rade.Would it be better f uchobjectswere sold and theproceedsused to enricharchaeological,ethnographic nd museum activitiesn thenation of origin?Some nations withstrongly etentivepolicies clearly ack the resourcesor the present nclination o care adequately fortheirextensivestocks ofculturalobjects. To the cultural nternationalistand to manycultural na-tionalists),his s tragic.Such objectscould be sold to museums,dealers orcollectors ble and willing o care forthem. One waythat cultural objectscanmoveto the ocus ofhighest robableprotectionsthrough hemarket.The plausibleassumption s that thosewho are prepared to pay the mostare the most likelyto do whatever s needed to protecttheir nvestment.Yet the UNESCO Convention nd national etentiveawsprevent hemarketfromworking n thisway. They impedeor directly ppose the market ndthus ndangerculturalproperty.61t isnotnecessary, owever, osellpiecesofthenation's culturalheritage norder to exploit t. Such objectscould betradedto foreignmuseumsfor worksthat would enrich theability f eachnationto expose itsown citizens oworksfromother cultures.They couldbe depositedon long-termoan in foreign nstitutionsble and willing ocare for nd displaythem.

A ONE-SIDED DIALOGUEI have emphasizedthe criticismsf retentive ulturalnationalism ortworeasons.One is that find hese criticisms ersuasive.The more important

60 Seethe escriptionf xperimentsith histrategyn taly ndGermanynJ.MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, supranote17, t2-112ff61 The UNESCO RecommendationoncerningheInternationalxchange f CulturalPropertyf 1976, upranote 19,expresses clear ntimarketias n tsPreamble,tating:[T]he nternationalirculationf ulturalropertys tillargelyependentn the ctivitiesof self-seekingartiesnd so tends o eadtospeculation hich auses heprice f suchpropertyorise,makingt naccessibleo poorer ountriesnd institutionshile t thesame ime ncouraginghe pread f llicitrading.

The recommendationnly upportsxchanges etweennstitutions,ejectingales nd anyformf ransactionith ollectorsnddealers. he marketrgumentsobviouslycontroversialone and, nany ase,needsmuch uller iscussion,hich will rovide nanother lace.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

21/24

850 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80reason, however, s that n the 1970s and 1980s, the dialogue about culturalpropertyhas become one-sided.Retentivenationalism s strongly nd con-fidently epresented nd supportively eceived wherever nternational ul-turalproperty olicy s made.The structure nd contextof such discussions,at international rganizations nd conferences,s congenialto presentationof the position mbodiedinUNESCO 1970, whilethe nterests epresentedin Hague 1954 have no prominent r convenientvoice. The internationalagencies that mightbe expected to represent he more cosmopolitan, esspurelynationalist, iew on culturalproperty uestions-the United NationsGeneral Assembly nd UNESCO in particular-are instead dominatedbynations dedicated to the retention nd repatriationof cultural property.First World-Third World and capitalist-socialistoliticscombine with ro-manticByronism62ostifle he energeticpresentation fthe viewsofmarketnations. As a result,the voice of cultural nternationalisms seldom heardand less oftenheeded in the arenas in whichculturalpolicy smade.The danger is that UNESCO 1970, with ts exclusiveemphasis on na-tionalism, illfurtheregitimizeuestionablenationalist olicieswhile tiflingcultural nternationalism. he onlyhint ofrecognition f these realities nUNESCO 1970 occurs na pallidand generally gnoredclauseinthe Pream-ble describing he benefits fthe nternationalnterchange fculturalprop-erty: Considering thatthe nterchange f culturalproperty mong nationsfor cientific,ultural nd educationalpurposes ncreasestheknowledgeofthecivilization fMan, enrichesthe cultural ifeofall peoples and inspiresmutual espect ndappreciationmongnations."The rest fthe Convention,including he Preamble,provides unqualified upportforretentive ulturalnationalism.63In the United States,a major cultural propertymarketnation, the tideruns strongly gainst the forces of cultural nternationalism. he UnitedStateshas never become a party o Hague 1954.64 It has, however,ratifiedUNESCO 1970 and enacted mplementingegislation nder t.65 he UnitedStateshasalso supported heretentive ationalist osition hrough bilateraltreatywithMexico,66 xecutiveagreementswith Peru67 nd Guatemala,68

62 The element of romance in cultural nationalism nd the influence f Byron n creatingand nurturing t are discussed n Merryman, upra note 5, at 1903-05.63 To UNESCO's credit, some efforts t a broader, less exclusivelynationalistic pproachhave been made in some of tsrecommendations, reviously ited n this rticle. ee n particularthe RecommendationConcerning he nternational xchange ofCulturalProperty, upranote19. That instrument's ormal tatus s a mere recommendation,however,combined with tsantimarket ias, deprives t of any practicalforce.64 For an exchange of correspondence etting ut the official easonsfor U.S. refusal o sign

Hague 1954, seeJ. MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, supra note 17, at 1-75-1-77.65 See note 45 supra.66 Treaty of Cooperation Providingforthe Recovery nd Return of Stolen Archaeological,Historical nd Cultural Properties, uly 17, 1970, United States-Mexico,22 UST 494, TIASNo. 7088, 791 UNTS 313.67 Agreement or he Recovery nd Returnof Stolen Archaeological,Historical nd CulturalProperties, ept. 15, 1981, United States-Peru, TIAS No. 10136.68 Agreement or he Recovery nd ReturnofStolen Archaeological,Historical nd CulturalProperties,May 21, 1984, United States-Guatemala not yetpublished).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

22/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 851legislation ontrollinghe mportation fpre-Columbianmonumental culp-ture and murals,69 xecutiveaction,70 ggressiveadministrativection bytheU.S. Customs ervice71and criminal rosecution f smugglers.72ndeed,the UnitedStates togetherwithCanada) is of all culturalpropertymarketnations he most tronglyommitted, othin declaration nd action,to theenforcementfother nations'retentiveaws and policies,73 hough tfreelypermits heexportof culturalproperty rom tsown nationalterritory.74This paradoxicalpolicybegan in the late 1960s, when the United Statesdecidedtoparticipaten draftingwhat ventually ecame UNESCO 1970.75Until then,the nationalpolicyhad been consistent:worksof art and otherculturalproperty ould be freelymportedwithout uty nd could be freelyexported.The UnitedStateswas committed o freetrade in culturalprop-erty.Works tolen broad and broughtntotheUnited States ould of coursebe recoveredby theirowners n civil actionsbefore stateor federal courts,as had long been the rule in all nations.76The noveltywas the gradual

69 Pub. L. No. 92-587, 86 Stat. 1297 (1972) (codified t 19 U.S.C. ??2091-2095 (1982)).70See discussion f "The BostonRaphael" inJ. MERRYMAN& A. ELSEN, supranote 17, at2-7ff7' Fitzpatrick, Wayward ourse: heLawless ustomsolicy ozvardultural roperty,5N.Y.U.J.INT'L L. & POL. 857 (1983). Proposed legislation hat would limitCustomsService activitiesis at thiswriting eforeCongressbutappears unlikely o pass.72 United Statesv. McClain, 593 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Hollinshead,495 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1974). Both cases were prosecutionsundera U.S. statutepunishingtransportationf stolen propertyn interstate r foreign ommerce.McClain had illegally e-moved potsand beads fromMexico; Hollinsheadhad illegally emoved a stele from Mayansite,Machiquila, n Guatemala. Both had broughtthe objects into theUnited Statesforsale.In both cases,the courtstreated heremovals n violation f the foreignawsas "thefts"undertheU.S. statute nd upheld the convictions.73 Merryman,nternationalrtLaw: FromCulturalNationalismo CommonulturalHeritage,15 N.Y.UJ. INT'L L. & POL. 757 (1983).74 Freedom of exportofculturalproperty rom he United Stateswas significantlyimitedforthe first ime n 1979 by ?470ee of theArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionAct,Pub. L.No. 96-95, 93 Stat. 721, 724 (codifiedat 16 U.S.C. ?470aa-47011 (1982)), which,however,appliesonly oobjects llegally akenfrom public ands and Indianlands"-i.e., tolandsunderfederalownership r protectiveurisdiction.75 For a brief xplanationof the reasonsfor U.S. involvementnthe project that ulminatedin UNESCO 1970, see Bator,supra note 46, at 370.76 A recent example is Kunstsammlungenu Weimar v. Elicofon,678 F.2d 1150 (2d Cir.1982) (twoDurer portraitstolen ttheend of WorldWar II orderedreturned o East Germany).Such actionsare of course subjectto thenormally pplicable rulesprotecting ood faithpur-chasers nd torules imitinghe timewithinwhich ctionsto recoverpropertymaybe brought.The Internationalnstitute or the Unification f PrivateLaw in Rome is currentlytudyingproposalsthatgood faith urchasers f culturalproperty houldreceive ess protection han s

normally iven themunderthe awsof mostEuropean nations.The proposalswould bringtheEuropeanrulescloser neffectothose ntheUnitedStates,which re generallyessprotectiveof bona fidepurchasers nd thusmoreprotective fowners.There is a briefdescription ftheInstitute'swork on thistopic n 1986 REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT COMPAR? 130-31.As to limitation f actions, bill entitled The CulturalPropertyRepose Act" isat thiswritingbefore heUnitedStatesCongress. fenacted, twouldsharply educe theperiodof the pplicablestatuteof limitationsn actionsbroughtby foreign wners to recover stolenculturalobjects.It appearsunlikely o pass.A similar ill passed bythe New York legislaturewas vetoed bytheGovernoron July28, 1986. N.Y. Times, July29, 1986, at 21.

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

23/24

852 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 80introduction, ver a period beginning round 1970, of a growingnumberand variety f restrictionsn the mportationf cultural ropertynresponseto the retentive oliciesof source nations.Despite the occasionally uccessfulefforts f collector,dealer and museum nterests o moderate thisresponse,the generaldirectionnthe United Stateshas been one of support or ulturalnationalism.

CONCLUSIONBoth waysof thinking bout culturalproperty re insome measure valid.There are broad areas inwhich hey perateto reinforce ach other'svalues.Those are the easy cases. The interestingnes arise when the two ways of

thinkingead in different irections.Then distinctions ave to be made,questionsrequire refinementnd it becomes necessary o choose. Thus, anycultural nternationalist ould oppose the removalofmonumental culpturesfromMayan sites where physicaldamage or the loss of artistic ntegrityrcultural nformation ould probablyresult,whether he removal was illegalor waslegally, ut ncompetently,one.77The same culturalnternationalist,however, might wish that Mexico would sell or trade or lend some of itsreputedly arge hoard of unused Chac-Mols,ots and otherobjects to foreigncollectors78 nd museums,and he mightbe impatientwith the argumentthatmuseums nothernationsnotonly houldforgobuilding uchcollectionsbut should actively ssistMexico in suppressing he "illicit" trade in thoseobjects. In principle, ny nternationalist ouldagree thatpaintings houldnot be stolenfromtalianchurches or ale to foreign or domestic) ollectorsor museums.But if painting srottingnthe churchfrom ack of resourcesto care for t,and thepriest ells tformoneyto repairthe roof and in thehope that the purchaserwillgive the paintingthe care it needs, then theproblem begins to look different.79ven the most dedicated cultural na-tionalistwillfind omethingudicrous nthe nsistence hat Matissepaintingthathappenedto be acquired byan Italiancollectorhad becomean essentialpartof the Italian culturalheritage.80More fundamentally,hebasis ofculturalnationalism nd thevalidity fitspremises eem to requirereexamination.n a worldorganized ntonation-77 Although, fthe site s a neglected one and the removal aves works hatwould otherwisecrumbleaway,a crude and undocumented ob of removalmight tillbe preferablefrom hecultural nternationalist oint of view.78 A distinguished olleague has questioned the desirability f permitting uch works o fallinto the hands of collectorsbecause theywillnot be availableforpublic viewing nd study, ndthe opportunity o monitorthe quality of care they receive is limited.These are important

considerations, ut ifthe alternatives to leave them na place wherethey re unavailable forviewing nd study and receive no attentionfrom qualifiedconservators, collector may bepreferable.Eventually,manyworksof museum quality n the hands of privatecollectorsfindtheirway to museums.79SeeStewart,TwoCheersforheTombaroli, EWREPUBLIC, Apr. 28, 1973, at 21 ("perpiacere,rubatelo!"); una, TheProtectionf heCulturalHeritage: n talianPerspective,nUNITED NATIONSSOCIAL DEFENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE PROTECTION OF THE ARTISTIC AND ARCHAEO-LOGICAL HERITAGE 164 1976).80Jeanneret . Vichy,693 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1982).

8/2/2019 I'Law and Art History

24/24

1986] THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY 853states nd ina system f international aw inwhichthe state s the principalplayer, n emphasis n nationalismsunderstandable. ut the worldchanges,and with t the centrality f the state.A concern forhumanity's ulturalheritage sconsistent ith heemergence f nternationalaws nd institutionsprotectinghuman rights.8'A slighter mphasis on cultural nationalism sconsistentwith he relativedeclineofnational overeignty hat haracterizesmodern nternationalaw. In the contemporary orld,both ways f thinkingabout culturalpropertyhave their egitimate laces. Both have somethingimportant o- ontribute o the formation fpolicy, ocally,nationally ndinternationally,oncerning ieces of humanity'smaterial ulture.But wherechoiceshave to be made between the two waysofthinking,henthe valuesof cultural nternationalism-preservation,ntegritynd distribution/ac-cess 2seem to carry greater weight.The firm,nsistent resentationofthosevalues ndiscussions bout trade nand repatriationfcultural ropertywill n the longerrunservethe interests f all mankind.

81 SeeUNESCO, CULTURAL RIGHTS ASHUMAN RIGHTS, STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS ON CUL-TURAL POLICIES No. 3 (1970).82 SeeMerryman, upra note 5, at 1916-2 1.