UNIDROIT 1995: Tackling the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property Through Private Law Means – An Evaluation of the Appropriateness of the 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects to Cultural Property Theft in Comparat...

Since its adoption in 1995, the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects has been a subject of contention between states, art market stakeholders and academics alike. Criticised by some as a too theoretical instrument with little practical relevancy, the convention has – at the same time – been praised by others as an important instrument in tackling the illicit trafficking of cultural property. The present research aims at clarifying the on-going debate on the convention by evaluating the appropriateness of its regime to cultural property theft. In doing so, it investigates the inner workings of this instrument – and, more specifically, of its Chapter II – in addressing cultural property theft and the plunder of archaeological materials. To do so, the research delimits the scope of application of the convention; analyses the restitutionary regime of Chapter II and compares it to existing regimes applicable in six different states: Belgium, France, The Netherlands, New Jersey, California and New York; discusses the relevancy of Article 3 (2) in retrieving stolen artefacts; addresses matters relating to the application of the instated regime; and positions the convention in the existing international legal framework. As a matter of conclusion, this study finds that the convention is appropriate in tackling cultural property theft. Nonetheless, several recommendations are formulated for UNIDROIT or the UCAP’s consideration to further refine the regime laid down in Chapter II.

Publication year:2018

Keywords:cultural property theft, illicit trafficking cultural property, cultural heritage, unidroit convention, private law, stolen or illegally exported cultural objects, Directive 93/7/EEC, Directive 2014/60/EU, works of fine art, art replevin, revindication of art, return of stolen cultural object, archaeological theft, demo dat quod non habet, third-party protection, statutes of limitations, relative period, absolute period, cultural objects, cultural property

Accessibility:Open