Over the last 20 years, museums have attracted unprecedented academic attention. For the first time in their history, museums as institutions have been the subject of theorizing as well as intense academic and public debates about their place in the contemporary world. Much of the theoretical work has taken place in the context of the New Museology, a critical goal of which has been to rethink the manifold and complex relationships between museums and the societies in which they exist. Advocates of the New Museology have prominently sought ways to make museums less elitist but more inclusive, that is more directly and democratically involved with their various constituencies such as the people who create and use the objects that museums collect or the audiences who visit museum exhibitions and participate in museum programs. Unfortunately, the New Museology has been rather long on theory and rather short on detailed explorations or accounts of the implications of its theoretical formulations for museum practice, that is for the day-to-day activities and interactions comprising the work that goes on in and around museums.

The Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme at Te Papa was established in July 2003. It is mandated by the New Zealand government and supported by iwi (Mäori and Moriori tribal groups) indigenous to New Zealand.

This case arose out of a controversy over the return of a Māori head from the collection of a city of Rouen museum to New Zealand. The case raised the issue of whether the head was a French public good that required declassification before it could be returned or a body part (and not a work of art) that could be immediately returned for appropriate treatment in its place of origin.

John Carman, Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. London, Duckworth, 2005. Pp. 145. ISBN 071563402X. 11.99 pounds sterling.

Carman is a latecomer to archaeology. He worked in areas such as finance, law, and commercial administration and is thus well acquainted with legal and business issues otherwise outside the reach of ordinary archaeologists and even heritage scholars and managers. Thanks to his unique background, Carman acknowledges from the start that archaeology does not exist in a vacuum; and notions from law, finance, economics, environmental science, and management are deeply intertwined with archaeological heritage. Starting with illicit antiquities and Merryman's arguments for licit trade in antiquities, the American lawyer argues that this promotes the values of the objects itself and of its traffic across the globe over those of the individual nation state from which it derives. The whole book by Carman is to dispute this approach, challenging the notion of ownership itself, because it is considered to be the problem in our treatment of ancient remains.

The mounting loss of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples presents environmental as well as ethical issues. Fundamental among these is the sustainability of indigenous societies and their ecosystems. Although the commercial expropriation of traditional knowledge grows, rooted in a global, corporate application of intellectual property rights (IPRs), the survival of indigenous societies becomes more problematic. One reason for this is an unresolved conflict between two perspectives. In the modernist view, traditional knowledge is a tool to use (or discard) for the development of indigenous society, and therefore it must be subordinated to Western science. Alternatively, in the postmodernist view, it is harmonious with nature, providing a new paradigm for human ecology, and must be preserved intact. We argue that this encumbering polarization can be allayed by shifting from a dualism of traditional and scientific knowledge to an assemblage of local knowledge, which is constituted by the interaction of both in a third space. We argue that IPR can be reconfigured to become the framework for creating such a third space.

The Institute for Archaeological Studies of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, organized a conference on legal issues concerning archaeology and theft of antiquities. This meeting was stimulated by the German statute (Kulturgüterrückgabegesetz version of May 18, 2007) implementing the UNESCO convention of November 14, 1970, the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Archaeologists are afraid that the new legal regime might encourage thieves and art dealers to localize their activities in Germany. Michael Müller-Karpe of the Roman-Germanic Central Museum in Mainz, Germany, articulated these fears. Five reports on tomb robbery in Africa (Peter Breunig), Europe (Rüdiger Krause), Mediterranean countries (Hans-Markus von Kaenel, Wulf Raeck), and the Near East (Jan-Waalke Meyer) gave a bleak picture of contemporary dangers to archaeological sites and archaeological objects. Kurt Siehr gave the paper, “Legal Aspects of the Protection of Cultural Property,” stressing that the ratification and implementation of the 1970 UNESCO convention will improve the protection of cultural property in Germany. However, he also emphasized that the implementing statute could have provided stronger measures: Germany should ratify the UNIDROIT Convention of June 24, 1995, on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects as already urged by most German archaeologists and museums.

Proceedings of the Doha Conference of ‘Ulama on Islam and Cultural Heritage. Doha, Qatar. December 30–31, 2001. Pp. 73 in English and Arabic each. New York: UNESCO, 2005.

On February 26, 2001, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ordered the destruction of “all statues and non-Islamic shrines” in the country. In March the ministers of culture and finance destroyed 2750 of the nation's art treasures; after a month of intensive shelling, the Taliban government obliterated the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan. At the end of December 2001, a conference of Islamic legal scholars (‘ulama) was convened on the subject of cultural heritage at Doha, Qatar. In between, of course, came the September 11, 2001, attacks (9/11).

On June 1, 2005, the Swiss Cultural Property Transfer Act (CPTA) of 2003 entered into force. This statute implements for Switzerland the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. According to article 7 of the CPTA—along the line followed by the United States in their implementation statute—bilateral agreements must be stipulated with contracting states of the convention so these states will be protected in Switzerland with respect to the items mentioned in these agreements. Yves Fischer and Benno Widmer of the Federal Office for Culture explained the CPTA and the Ordinance on Cultural Property Transfer (CPTO) and mentioned that with Peru and Greece agreements have already been achieved and that agreements with Italy, Egypt, and Mexico are in preparation. Marc-André Renold, director of the Geneva-based Institute of Art and Law, presided the session when question were put to the Federal Office at the end of the conference.

In October 2007, the mayor of the French city of Rouen agreed to return to New Zealand a preserved tattooed head of a Maori warrior (called toi moko by Maori) from that city's Museum of Natural History, whose collection the head had been part of since 1875. The decision to return the head was based on an initiative by the Museum of New Zealand (Te Papa Tongarewa), which has successfully secured the return of other such heads from museums in various European countries and the United States. Before the Rouen head could be handed over, however, the French Ministry of Culture intervened, arguing that its return was unauthorized under French law as being part of a French museum collection and thus inalienable.

The Committee on Cultural Heritage Law of the International Law Association (ILA) held an interim meeting in London on May 17–18, 2007. After completing the work on the Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material on the occasion of the Seventy-Second Conference in Toronto 2006, the committee has now two projects on its agenda. The first one is concerned with a study of the concept of safe havens for temporary deposit of cultural material rescued from circumstances of armed conflict and other serious threats; the second study deals with the relationship between international trade law and cultural heritage law.

Under the auspices of Kurt Siehr (Hamburg, Zürich) the 9th International Seminar on “Art & Law” took place from July 6–9, 2007, in Basel, Switzerland. Originally conceived as a platform for doctorate candidates in Europe and over the last years enlarged to a platform for comprehensive discussions between lawyers as well as art historians, academics as well as practitioners, this year's seminar in Basel focused on three main issues: protection of cultural property, problems of stolen works of art (both including their international and European legal frame), and copyright protection.

July 12–13, 2007, the Institute of Art and Law, Leicester, invited numerous experts to an international meeting at Pecz, Hungary, about the legal and ethical issues of portable antiquities in Europe. Norman Palmer (Barrister, King's College, London) introduced the participants to the questions revolving around treasure trove and the various ways to legally structure claims for recovery of portable antiquities under both public and private law. In particular, he addressed the issue of interdependencies between potentially strong substantive law on treasure trove or protection of cultural property on the one hand and limits of implementation of such rules in cross-border cases on the other hand. Jeremy Scott (Withers LLP, London) further illustrated this issue with reference to the most recent English cases of Iran v. Berend—no renvoi in English choice of law on moveable property and (if there were renvoi) no lex originis under French choice of law—and Iran v. Barakat—no application of foreign public law such as Iranian patrimony law by English courts. In the meantime the latter case has been reversed on appeal. Kurt Siehr (Max-Planck-Institute for Private International and Foreign Law, Hamburg) outlined the mechanisms offered by community law, in particular under Directive 93/7/EEC, for the protection of cultural property of member states vis-à-vis other member states. Zsolt Visy (Pecz University) demonstrated the typical difficulties of the protection of archaeological objects found in the ground but illegally exported with reference to the highly problematic history of the Sevso Treasure. Visy also underlined the fact that most legal remedies depend on the precise attribution of the moveable object in question to a certain state. In the following a tour de raison was offered through various national legal systems on how treasure trove is regulated and to what extent claims for recovery of antiquities can be raised. Weller pointed to the peculiarity under German law that the rules on treasure trove are rather unsophisticated compared to the voluminous statutory regimes in other states and that the competency to rule on treasure trove primarily lies with the states of the Federal Republic of Germany—a situation that necessarily results in a variety of solutions. Although many rules of general nature supplement the regime of treasure trove under German law, the law on treasure trove appeared to be a suitable object for unification on the federal level, and on this occasion the protection of archaeological objects found in the ground should be strengthened. In the second part of the meeting, Guido Carducci (UNESCO, Paris) presented a comparison between the regimes of claims for recovery of antiquities under the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. Patty Gerstenblith (DePaul University, United States) commented on the interaction between foreign patrimony law and domestic criminal prosecution under the National Stolen Property Act with reference to the famous case in US v. Schultz. In the following round table talk with Kurt Siehr, Jeremy Scott, and Weller, the crucial issue of the application of foreign public law such as patrimony law was discussed from a comparative perspective; and Weller drew the attention to the 1975 Wiesbaden Resolution on the Application of Foreign Public Law of the Institute of International Law, by which the world leading conflicts scholars of the time had already agreed on the principle that there was no good reason a priori to exclude foreign public law from its application by a domestic court. Further presentations on the relevance of soft law, codes of ethics, and practical issues of archaeological excavations provided a comprehensive picture of the legal and ethical issues of portable antiquities in Europe.

On September 8, 2007, the Heidelberg Institut für Kunst und Recht (IFKUR, Institute of Art and Law) hosted guests interested in art and law from all over Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. More than 100 participants attended the institute's First Heidelberg Day of Art Law on “The Artist's Law—The Art of Law (Des Künstlers Rechte—Die Kunst des Rechts).” The conference was held in the Heidelberg Town Hall's ballroom. The first part of the day was dedicated to various legal aspects of the freedom of art, and the second part was devoted to legal challenges concerning the exploitation of artistic works.

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur in Vienna offered the perfect frame for the symposium “Rechtsfragen der Restitution von Kulturgut” on October 12, 2007. Under the direction of Gerte Reichelt, member of the Institut für Kunst und Recht (IFKUR) advisory board, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Europarecht dedicated this day for the UNESCO convention in 1970 and the UNIDROIT convention in 1995.

This symposium on provenance research and the restitution of Nazi-looted art was organized by the auction house Sotheby's and sponsored by the Muggenthaler International Genealogical Research Institute. After prior meetings hosted by Sotheby's on the same topic in London and Vienna, some 90 provenance researchers, art historians, government representatives, lawyers, and academics met in Amsterdam to discuss the Dutch restitution regime in particular and, in general, the progress made since the passing of the Washington Principles on Nazi-looted art in December 1998.

UNESCO launched the United Nations (UN) International Year of Languages on February 21, 2008, International Mother Language Day, with an information workshop entitled “Standard-setting Instruments Promoting Multilingualism.” UNESCO is the lead agency for carrying out activities related to the international year in view of its extensive work in the area of promoting multilingualism (in education and cyberspace, for example), safeguarding endangered languages, and supporting indigenous languages linked with traditional ecological knowledge and environmental sustainability. The international year is accompanied by the slogan “languages matter!” and this reflects the wider context within which it and its related activities have been conceived.

The Musée du Quay Branly held an international symposium, “From Anatomic Collections to Objects of Worship: Conservation and Exhibition of Human Remains in Museums,” in Paris on February 22–23, 2008, at the museum's Théatre Claude Levy Strauss. The main purpose of the 2-day conference—opened by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication's Christine Albanel—was to stimulate an international debate on a multidisciplinary basis concerning the roles and responsibilities of museums in the exhibition and repatriation of human remains. The subject turned out to be topical, originating from the case of the toi moko, the Maori tattooed head belonging to the collection of the Natural History Museum in Rouen, France, since 1875. The restitution of the toi moko to the Papa Museum in Wellington, New Zealand, deliberated by the city of Rouen, was recently banned by the Administrative Tribunal of Rouen, on request of the Ministry of Culture at the end of 2007. The head actually belonged to a municipal museum, which was in fact part of the Musées de France, and therefore it was considered part of a public collection. Accordingly, the 2002 French statute providing for the inalienability of state properties was applicable.

The Fourth Annual Ename International Colloquium, entitled “Between Objects and Ideas: Rethinking the Role of Intangible Heritage,” was held in Ghent, Belgium, March 26–28, 2008. Focusing on the intellectual and practical relationship between tangible and intangible heritage and its implications for the shaping of international heritage policy, it featured 40 speakers representing universities, museums, universities, and heritage organizations in Belgium, Canada, China, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As in previous years, the colloquium was organized by the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation, with support from the Province of East Flanders.

The 16th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was held in Quebec, Canada, from September 29 to October 4, 2008. The events included the scientific, advisory, and executive committee meetings; Young Professional's Forum; a Scientific Symposium; and the General Assembly meeting including elections for the new executive committee. According to the ICOMOS official report, 853 participants from 77 different countries attended the event.