Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:13:59.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rejecting Renvoi for Movable Cultural Property: The Islamic Republic of Iran v. Denyse Berend

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2007

Derek Fincham
Derek Fincham
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Aberdeen. Email: derek.fincham@gmail.com; blog on the topic: http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/index.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Iran v. Berend, the High Court in London had occasion to revisit one of the most enduring problems of private international law and cultural property. Effective regulation of the illicit market in cultural property is extremely difficult, because many measures aimed at stemming the illicit trade actually contribute to the black market. Courts in both England and the United States have shown that they are prepared to use criminal laws to convict persons involved in the illegal trade in antiquities exported in violation of foreign patrimony laws. As a result, much cultural property policy debate in recent years has focused on the extent to which the criminal law can impact the illicit trade. The extent to which national ownership declarations can be used in civil disputes remains less clear.

Type
CASE NOTE
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
© 2007 International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[Anonymous] Note. “A Distinction in the Renvoi Doctrine.” Harvard Law Review 35 (1922): 454–456.Google Scholar
Bator, Paul. “An Essay on the International Trade in Art.” Stanford Law Review 34 (1981): 275–384.Google Scholar
Chait, Matthew. “Renvoi in Multinational Cases in New York Courts: Does Its Past Preclude Its Future?” Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 11 (2003): 143–175.Google Scholar
Coggins, Clemency. “Illicit Traffic of Pre-Columbian Antiquities.” Art Journal 29 (1969): 94–114.Google Scholar
Brainerd, Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws. Durham: Duke University Press, 1963.
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Identity and Cultural Property: The Protection of Cultural Property in the United States.” Boston University Law Review 75 (1995): 559–688.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adam. “Reaffirming McClain: The National Stolen Property Act and the Abiding Trade in Looted Cultural Objects.” UCLA Law Review 53 (2006): 1031–1071.Google Scholar
Harwood, Richard. “Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003.” Art, Antiquity & the Law 8 (2003): 347–355.Google Scholar
Kramer, Larry. “Return of the Renvoi.” N.Y.U. Law Review 66 (1991): 979–1044.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer. “The Choice between Civil and Criminal Remedies in Stolen Art Litigation.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38 (2005): 1199–1252.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Ernest G. “The Renvoi Theory and the Application of Foreign Law.” Columbia Law Review 10 (1910): 327–344.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Simon. “Dig a Bit Deeper: Law, Regulation and the Illicit Antiquities Market.” British Journal of Criminology 45 (2004): 249–268.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Simon. Going, Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law, 2005.
Yasaitis, Kelly Elizabeth. “National Ownership Laws as Cultural Property Protection Policy: The Emerging Trend in United States v. Schultz.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 95–113.Google Scholar