I have been asked to write personally of John [Merryman]. Not of him as scholar, educator, author, nor even as father of the fields of art and cultural property law, but as the person who did these things, and more. To present an inclusive, all-embracing picture of John, the universalist, both in himself and what he has done.

First, I owe my interest, career, and whatever contributions I have made as lawyer, teacher, and writer on art and cultural property law to John. Nearly 30 years ago, as a corporate litigator and neophyte collector interested in the connection between art and law, I read Law Ethics and the Visual Arts.1 In chapters entitled “Plunder, Destruction, and Reparation” and “An Artist’s Life,” I was taken by its commitment to culture, its questions—such as, Can art be more valuable than a life?—and its overarching ethical yet concrete approach to them. I became a fledgling in the fields of art and cultural property law. A few years later I met John at a conference in Amsterdam. He became a mentor, model, and friend.

The international legal discourse on the topic of state succession in cultural property has long been dominated by the concept of territoriality—the territorial provenance (origin) of cultural assets. This traditional reasoning was essentially rooted in the idea of the European nation-state. In the last 50 years, the principle of territoriality has also become accommodated within the framework of the preservation of cultural heritage. Yet such territorial and protective approaches do not take into account the value of cultural heritage for society, that is, groups and individuals that have created or maintained a given heritage. This article attempts to explore the potential clash between the principles of territoriality and human rights, with respect to state succession in cultural heritage matters. In this context, it deals with some recent ongoing interstate negotiations on the allocation of and access to cultural property with respect to post–World War II developments in state succession among Poland, Germany, and Ukraine.

The Codex Calixtinus, the 12th-century manuscript at the heart of Spain’s Camino de Santiago, was stolen, hidden for a year, and then found in a trash can wrapped in newsprint and plastic. The extraordinary theft highlights some dysfunctions in cultural heritage thought and practice. Explored here are questions about exemplars and copies, ambiguities in heritage protection law, problems of proprietorship and commercialization of heritage goods, and administrative negligence in the management of heritage assets. The focus is on Spain, but the questions have broad relevance. This article concludes that one way to better protect movable heritage assets like the codex is to recognize them as part of a broad heritage landscape in which their loss or mismanagement means damage to an entire ecosystem of culture and history.

The United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel hears claims for cultural objects held in museum collections of which their original owners lost possession during the Nazi era. The Panel aims to achieve “fair and just” solutions for the parties and was created in response to the strong impetus to return cultural objects lost by Jewish owners during the Nazi era. This article argues that understanding the rationale for this claims process and the choice of remedies is essential for achieving such just and fair solutions, specifically whether the Panel aims to redress the past injustices of Hitler’s tyranny, return objects to their “rightful owners,” or prevent the public’s unjust enrichment from access to objects “tainted” by their Nazi association. If it aims to return cultural objects to their rightful owners or to strip museums of unjust gains, it is only a small step to allowing moral claims by other claimant groups whose cultural objects reside in national museums.

Australia has, like many other states over the past few years, introduced a statute that provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad and immunity from suit for certain parties. This article explores the historical context that lead to the adoption of this statute and comprehensively explores the legislative regime, highlighting its peculiarities.

It is an honor to be invited to speak at this symposium, both for the kind invitation to address this society, and for the opportunity to honor an esteemed scholar from my alma mater, Stanford.

I come to this symposium, not as an expert in cultural property, but as an inhabitant of the field of biotechnology and intellectual property law. Although the view from a distance can provide different perspectives, it lacks the layers of understanding and meaning that are accumulated by those who are steeped in the field. I cannot possibly hope to offer solutions to issues with which many brilliant minds have spent a lifetime grappling. Thus, I temper my comments with the caution appropriate for the exercise. What I can do is offer comparisons from the treatment of human cells, as well as observations I have suggested in that context.

In Italy, churches, chapels, and monasteries are often rich in precious artifacts. However, these religious buildings cannot be easily protected from theft because either they have no antitheft measures or they are abandoned. This article examines the problematic state of the holy heritage in the Italian territory from a legal perspective. In particular, it looks at Italian legislation and the international instruments entered into by the Italian State. The article argues that this protective legal regime is affected by various shortcomings and loopholes that mostly relate to the implementation of existing legal standards. Notably, it appears that these problems originate from the fact that most of the holy heritage situated in Italy belongs to the Catholic Church, and at the same time, it constitutes the historical and artistic patrimony of the Italian State. The article calls for a more efficient management of such precious vestiges by the stakeholders involved and for a revision of the domestic legislation with a view of properly incorporating the achievements of international cultural heritage law.

John Henry Merryman’s seminal writings established the twin poles of nationalism and internationalism, which have framed debates over cultural patrimony for three decades. He has long advocated a cosmopolitan ideal of sharing the world’s artistic heritage as the best course for preservation, knowledge, and public access. Although the tensions between national ownership and universal circulation frequently put countries and museums at odds, above all when it comes to ancient art and archaeological objects, a middle ground has been found that can bridge the gap. This article reviews several recent MOUs that U.S. museums and cultural ministries in Italy, Greece, and Turkey have established for exhibition loans and research collaborations. The J. Paul Getty Museum’s experiences in implementing four international cultural agreements illuminate how sharing works in practice, and the benefits (and costs) of an object-oriented approach to cultural diplomacy.

This article focuses on the idea that archaeology aids the revaluation of cultural properties within historical centers. At the same time, it holds that the application of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 should imply the development of best management practices at inscribed sites. The handling of archaeological heritage in three Latin American cities is presented and discussed in this study, through the theoretical assumptions of preventive archaeology for the management of archaeological properties. It examines the different social contexts of World Heritage in these areas and concludes that the traditional vision of World Heritage impedes other historical readings of the past in these places. This conclusion is reached through a proactive vision defending the use of these UNESCO World Heritage Sites to improve management models with high public participation, the use of which should also be considered in the European community. There is, finally, a reminder of the desired objective: the improvement of archaeological management and, consequently, of urban historical discourses, whose outcomes enrich the lives of citizens.

South Carolina’s tidal rice fields are significant historic and cultural landscapes. A critical piece of the cultural significance is continuity in the process of using the land. This essay provides an overview of how collaboration among historic preservationists, archaeologists, biologists, federal and state agencies, consultants, and plantation managers resulted in new methods of permitting work in historic tidal rice fields and new understandings of rice fields as significant historic properties.

The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq entered force in 2005, placing such “national treasures” as “antiquities, archeological sites, cultural buildings, manuscripts, and coins” under federal jurisdiction to be “managed in cooperation with the regions and governorates.” This provision may not immediately appear significant or controversial, but it is both. Federalism remains a heated and even deadly issue in Iraq, which is still balancing authority between its capital and other parts of the country. The Constitution’s handling of heritage—like its comparable treatment of oil and gas—therefore raises many questions. The answers to these have massive implications, as they not only determine who governs culture in Iraq but also could void much existing domestic law and unravel the country’s entire heritage management system. This study thus aims to clarify the Constitution’s treatment of antiquities and archaeology, resolving who controls one of Iraq’s most important historic, cultural, and economic resources.

Immovable cultural heritage is still at risk of being neglected by the state responsible for heritage sites, by urban planning of big cities, and by armed conflicts around the world. Normally, because it is immovable, the international community cannot do very much. It can ban the trade of items that became movable property when detached from buildings or illegally excavated in certain protected sites. In other cases, it is the responsibility of the national state to care for cultural heritage and cultural objects. International conventions may furnish help and advice and provide for monitoring any risk to the cultural heritage of state parties.

Ardelia Ripley Hall (1899–1979) served from 1946 until 1962 as the Fine Arts and Monuments Adviser to the U.S. Department of State. In this role she oversaw the recovery and restitution of movable cultural property that had been displaced during the Second World War. In spite of her vast accomplishments, almost nothing has been written on Ardelia Hall, and little is known about her life. She began her career at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, but personal circumstances led to her resignation in 1941. During the war, she was employed by the Office of Strategic Services. The expertise she established as an art historian working with the Roberts Commission at this time led to her appointment at the State Department in 1946. This essay traces for the first time Hall’s remarkable journey from curatorial researcher to adviser on international art restitution.

This article examines the events leading up to, surrounding, and following UNESCO’s controversial removal of Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List in 2009. At the heart of the controversy lay the construction of a new four-lane bridge, the Waldschlößchen Bridge, that would cut through scenic meadows, destroying long-protected vistas and changing the city’s cultural landscape. Although supported by German court decisions and local public opinion polls, the bridge has been denounced by many as an eyesore and an affront to the ideals of World Heritage. Yet despite the bridge, Dresden supposedly maintains World Heritage worthiness, even if it no longer enjoys that title. The author attempts to make sense of these contradictions in order to discover lessons applicable to the World Heritage program as a whole.

The international community is concerned about criminal activity involving cultural property and is promoting the use of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime to combat looting and trafficking of cultural property. This article discusses how the Convention may be applied, outlines some of the intentions of UN member states with regard to cultural property crime, and the role of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. It is suggested that cultural property stakeholders should scrutinize this developing effort, particularly in the areas of UNTOC application to specific cultural property cases and the collection and analysis of data specifically to address the connections between cultural property and transnational organized crime.

In February 2013 Christos Tsirogiannis linked a fragmentary Athenian red-figured cup from the collection formed by Dietrich von Bothmer, former chairman of Greek and Roman Art at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, to a tondo in the Villa Giulia, Rome. The Rome fragment was attributed to the Euaion painter. Bothmer had acquired several fragments attributed to this same painter, and some had been donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Other fragments from this hand were acquired by the San Antonio Museum of Art and the Princeton University Art Museum. In January 2012 it was announced that some fragments from the Bothmer collection would be returned to Italy, because they fitted vases that had already been repatriated from North American collections. The Euaion painter fragments are considered against the phenomenon of collecting and donating fractured pots.