Category: Writing

My Piece on Property and Heritage

When writers discuss stolen art, repatriation or looting one of the threshold problems is how to classify these objects: either as property or as heritage. It seems to me both concepts are distinct, and in a piece which is now available from the Penn. State Law Review, I’ve argued both should be separated. Here’s the abstract:

This piece takes up the competing concepts of property and heritage. Recent scholarship views property as a series of connections and obligations – rather than the traditional power to control, transfer or exclude. This new view of property may be safeguarding resources for future generations, but also imposes onerous obligations based on concerns over environmental protection, the protection of cultural resources, group rights, and even rights to digital property. Yet these obligations can also be imposed on subsequent generations, and certain obligations are imposed now based on the actions of past generations.
This article examines the multigenerational aspects of property via a body of law which should be called heritage law. Heritage law now governs a wide range of activities some of which include: preventing destruction of works of art, preventing the theft of art and antiquities, preventing the illegal excavation of antiquities, preventing the mutilation and destruction of ancient structures and sites, creating a means for preserving sites and monuments, and even righting past wrongs. This piece justifies the new conceptualization in two ways. First, by showing that properly distinguishing property and heritage will allow us to better protect heritage with a richer, fuller understanding of the concept. And second by demonstrating how current definitions lead to imprecise analysis, which may produce troubling legal conclusions. 

A growing body of heritage law has extended the limitations periods for certain cultural disputes. This has shifted the calculus for the long-term control of real, movable, and even digital property. This can be acutely seen with respect to cultural repatriation claims – specifically the claims of claimants to works of art forcibly taken during World War II; or the claims by Peru to certain anthropological objects now in the possession of Yale University which were removed by Hiram Bingham in the early part of the 20th Century.

You can download the whole article here. I’d be most interested to hear any comments at derek.fincham “at” gmail.com

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Bitterman on Settling Cultural Property Disputes

Amy Bitterman has posted on SSRN an article discussing the role of settlement in cultural property disptutes:

In the past, collectors and museums often stonewalled claimant countries seeking repatriation of looted artwork, relying on lengthy and costly litigation to discourage developing countries from pursuing cultural repatriation claims. Although some laws were in place concerning the import and export of such pieces, for the most part the market in antiquities was unregulated. However, recent events have led to a number of important changes in this area of law. While in the past, most claimants of stolen antiquities were developing countries with limited resources, recent decisions by the governments of Greece and Italy to pursue criminal prosecutions of dealers and curators have changed the legal landscape. In addition, the mass looting of archaeological sites and museums in Iraq resulted in the US adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention, and reforms in British law governing replevin cases. Other recent changes in this area that have significant legal ramifications include the adoption in 2008 of new acquisition guidelines by the Association of Art Museum Directors and a 2009 accord between the United States and China.

Using a hypothetical drawn from a number of cases and typical scenarios involving stolen art, the article discusses the pros and cons of a variety of potential resolutions in light of these developments and the unique considerations of art recovery cases. The author argues that the settlement process is particularly useful in cultural heritage disputes given that the parties often have mutual interests in preservation and excavation; thus, the winner take all approach of litigation may not be the best approach to resolving ownership claims.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Urice on Holocaust Art Restitution

Van Gogh, View of Asylum and Church at St. Remy

Stephen Urice, Associate Prof. of Law at the University of Miami has posted Elizabeth Taylor’s Van Gogh: An Alternative Route to Restitution of Holocaust Art?

The Third Reich confiscated, looted, or otherwise wrongly took vast numbers of works of art from public and private collections in Germany and in occupied countries. Holocaust victims were particular targets of this cultural property theft. For complex reasons, in most instances nearly fifty years elapsed between the end of World War II and the assertion of claims in U.S. courts for restitution of this stolen, “Holocaust art.” That time lapse creates an insurmountable burden for some plaintiffs’ efforts to recover their property: the current possessor’s assertion of a statute-of-limitations defense. This article describes an alternative route to restitution in those situations. Under federal law, stolen property is forfeitable if the government demonstrates an indictable offense under the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA). This kind of in rem civil forfeiture action is independent of, and does not require the government to undertake, a criminal prosecution under the NSPA. To prevail in a civil forfeiture action predicated on an NSPA violation, the government must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of an NSPA violation. In 1986, Congress amended the NSPA in ways that create an opportunity for the government to accomplish restitution in situations where a civil plaintiff would be time-barred under state law. First, Congress replaced the NSPA’s former requirement that the stolen goods be in interstate commerce with the requirement that the stolen goods have crossed a U.S. or state border. That change eliminated a defense predicated on goods having left interstate commerce by, for example, coming to rest. Second, Congress added “possession” of stolen goods as an enumerated offense. The effect of these amendments is to eliminate a defense based on the passage of time: The statute of limitations for possession of stolen goods commences to run only when the possessor divests herself of possession. Under federal forfeiture statutes the government has authority to return forfeited property to its original owners. Thus, federal law may permit the government to achieve for Holocaust victims what they, as civil plaintiffs, cannot accomplish themselves. The United States has adopted clearly articulated policies favoring restitution of Holocaust art. This paper argues that the United States could support those policies by pursuing this novel application of the NSPA. However, it also questions whether such cases are appropriate, given the rationales supporting statutes of limitations.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Nemeth on Antiquities (UPDATE w/ image)

Erik Nemeth has recently posted a number of interesting articles on SSRN examining ‘cultural security’ and the task of quantifying antiquities looting.

Cultural Security: From Concept to Engagement:

Recent armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and political violence in Egypt have revealed the strategic significance of cultural property. This paper assesses the role of historic sites and antiquities in foreign engagement. Over the past century, U.S. foreign policy has had successes and shortcomings in leveraging protection of cultural patrimony to strategic advantage. The contrast of successful policy on the protection of immovable cultural property, such as religious monuments, in armed conflict and missed opportunities for tactical intelligence on the trade in movable cultural property, such as antiquities trafficking, identifies potential for development of foreign policy.

Market Value of Culture: Quantifying the Risk of Antiquities Looting:

The traditionally clandestine nature of the art market poses challenges to assessing looting and trafficking in developing nations. In the absence of direct information on transactions in source nations, sales at auction provide a sense of the market value and trade volume of antiquities and primitive art. Auction houses openly publish results of auctions and enable access to sales archives through web sites. On-line access to sales archives creates a substantive pool of data on hammer prices from auctions around the world. Sales archives also contain detailed descriptions of the artworks. The description that accompanies an auction lot can identify the geographic origin of the artwork. Data mining of sales archives for hammer price and origin enables analysis of market value by source nation. The analysis assesses relative market value and, thereby, contributes to an assessment of relative risks of looting across developing nations.

Both short essays are highly recommended.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Did Marion True Ever Catch a Looter or Dealer?

One of the stolen Mosaics at issue in the case

Some folks on the internet are not too pleased about the letter I collaborated on with Noah Charney re-examining Hugh Eakin’s review of Chasing Aphrodite. A pointed response by David Gill here, and another critic wonders “whether anything done by Marion True herself actually led to the capture and conviction of a single looter of archaeological sites, or advanced any “Research into Crimes against Art”?

Yes, she certainly did, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As anyone should know who claims to study looting of archaeology and heritage, Marion True was the hero of one of the most prominent antiquities cases of the last thirty years, AUTOCEPHALOUS GREEK-ORTHODOX CHURCH OF CYPRUS vs.GOLDBERG, 917 F. 2d 278 (7th Cir., 1990) (available here). The case involved an antiquities dealer, Peg Goldberg, as well as Michel van Rijn. A helpful summary of the case is available here from IFAR.  I discuss the case at some length in  an article where I argue the nation of origin’s law should be applied more often in cross-border trafficking in pieces of cultural heritage.

But with respect to Marion True, she is the unabashed hero of the case. From the opinion by Chief Judge Alex Bauer:

Peg Goldberg’s efforts soon turned to just that: the resale of these valuable mosaics. She worked up sales brochures about them, and contacted several other dealers to help her find a buyer. Two of these dealers’ searches led them both to Dr. Marion True of the Getty Museum in California. When told of these mosaics and their likely origin, the aptly-named Dr. True explained to the dealers that she had a working relationship with the Republic of Cyprus and that she was duty-bound to contact Cypriot officials about them. Dr. True called Dr. Vassos Karageorghis, the Director of the Republic’s Department of Antiquities and one of the primary Cypriot officials involved in the worldwide search for the mosaics. Dr. Karageorghis verified that the Republic was in fact hunting for the mosaics that had been described to Dr. True, and he set in motion the investigative and legal machinery that ultimately resulted in the Republic learning that they were in Goldberg’s possession in Indianapolis.

(emphasis added)

The opinion is also widely cited because of a concurring opinion by Judge Cudahy embedding the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1970 UNESCO Convention into cultural heritage law, a precedent which has had a number of important effects.

Marion True is no saint, nobody would argue she is, but her story is more complicated than merely painting her as the endpoint for looted antiquities. She did so much more, as Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino explain in their book. Italian officials will tell you if asked that the case was brought against her because they had the evidence, not necessarily because she was the worst offender. And yes, she was instrumental in returning at least one looted object.  group of looted objects.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Kreder on Holocaust-Era Art Claims and Federal Executive Power

Prof. Jennifer Anglim Kreder has a new essay in the Northwestern Law Colloquy which examines some timely issues in Holocaust-Era art claims. From the Introduction:

Doctrines of judicial restraint in international cases take many forms, but they all have at their heart a concern about the proper role of courts, be they federal or state. This Article explores the proper role of courts in deciding state law conversion claims for art stolen or subject to forced or duress sale during the Nazi era. Many presume, incorrectly, that such claims must be precluded by separation of powers and federalism doctrines. This Article demonstrates the inaccuracy of such presumptions.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Who Benefits From the Stieglitz Collection at Fitz University?

So asks Boston University Law Prof. Alan Field in a piece on SSRN: Who Are the Beneficiaries of Fisk University’s Stieglitz Collection? Here is the abstract:

Most fiduciary relationships determine with specificity the beneficiaries of the fiduciary’s activities. Not-for-profit entities, however, serve a class of unspecified beneficiaries and can exercise discretion in determining who to serve and how to serve them. This paper explores the limits of discretion that recent litigation established for Fisk University in balancing its educational mission and its administration of a valuable art collection donated decades earlier. The paper analyzes the case as it addresses respect for donor conditions, changes in circumstance, standing issues, the doctrine of cy pres and the designation of the appropriate class of public beneficiaries. Race and geography also play contributing roles.

Well worth a read. Donn Zaretsky finds it “much more interesting” than the Attorney General’s brief in the very long legal battle over the present disposition of the collection.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Urice and Adler on the "Disjunction between Cultural Property Policy and Law"

Stephen Urice and Andrew Adler have posted a working paper titled “Resolving the Disjunction between Cultural Property Policy and Law: A Call for Reform“. In the piece they continue to point out what they call the “increasingly lawless” cultural property policy in the United States.

Here is the abstract:

Cultural property policy in the United States has become increasingly lawless, for lack of a better term. In recent years, the Executive Branch has aggressively restricted the movement of cultural property into the United States, but it has repeatedly done so without regard for constraining legal authority. The result is a troubling disjunction between the Executive Branch’s current cultural property policies and the existing legal framework established by Congress and the Judiciary. We document that disjunction in this Article.
We explain, for example, how the Executive Branch has recently repatriated an Egyptian sarcophagus and an antique French automobile to their respective countries of origin, but disregarded well-established judicial authority in the process. We explain how the Executive Branch has similarly sought to repatriate cultural objects to Italy, Peru, and Southeast Asia by relying on statutory authority that Congress plainly never designed for such a purpose. And we explain how the Executive Branch has imposed comprehensive import restrictions on cultural property from around the world without satisfying all of the statutory requirements mandated by Congress.
In addition to documenting this disjunction between policy and law, we situate it in its broader context. We submit that the disjunction reflects that the legal framework is outdated. That framework is the product of the 1970s, when the cultural property field was still forming, and it has not incorporated the dramatic political and normative developments of the last three decades. We further explain how the Executive’s willingness to disregard statutory constraints raises serious and unresolved separation of powers concerns. This precarious constitutional dynamic undermines the democratic process and invites arbitrary policymaking. We therefore argue that statutory reform is necessary to resolve the disjunction, modernize the legal framework, and restore the rule of law. We conclude by offering suggestions for reform.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The Cultural Heritage & the Arts Review

The American Society of International Law Cultural Heritage and the Arts Interest Group has published its second issue. Topics include the Machu Picchu artifacts which appear to be returning to Yale; the Met’s repatriation of objects from King Tut’s tomb, California’s new Art Law, and more. You can find subscription information here.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Art-Law

Anne Laure Bandle and Sarah Theurich have an article in Vol 6, No 1 of the Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology titled “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Art-Law – A New Research Project of the Geneva Art-Law Centre“.

This article introduces the new research project of the Geneva Art-Law Centre, which aims to study alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods for art-related disputes. It gives a brief introduction on the topic of the research the project – the significant potential of ADR mechanisms in art law – and provides an overview of the growing international consideration for ADR in art-law matters. While types of art-related disputes vary considerably from case to case, certain common features may be identified to explain the need for adapted dispute resolution in this area. The Art-Law Centre’s research project will involve the creation of an Art-Law ADR Database recording art-related disputes worldwide that were resolved by means of ADR methods, as well as a thorough case analysis. To illustrate the nature of the research project, this paper specifies the different project stages and gives examples of collected art-law cases.

An interesting approach and a project with a great deal of potential. Well worth a read.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com