Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 12-15
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 17-24
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.010.11558Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 25-34
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.011.11559Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 35-56
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.012.11560Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 57-76
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.013.11561Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 77-94
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.014.11562Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 95-108
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.015.11563Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 109-134
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.016.11564Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 135-158
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.017.11565Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 159-186
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.018.11566Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 187-192
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.019.11567Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 193-208
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.020.11568Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 209-232
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.021.11569Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 233-244
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.022.11570Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 245-266
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.19.023.11571Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 267-270
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 271-273
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 274-276
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 277-280
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 281-283
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 284-286
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 287-290
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 291-292
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 293-295
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 296-299
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 300-301
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 302-305
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 306-308
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 309-313
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2019 (5), 2019, s. 314-317
Słowa kluczowe: international trade, cultural heritage, World Trade Organization, Article XX(f) of the GATT 1994, general exceptions, national treasures, cultural property, European Union, Article 36 TFEU, cultural heritage, European Union, national treasures, human rights, constitutional rights, import and export, European Union, Germany, Single European Market, 2019 EU Import Regulation, Canada, 1970 UNESCO Convention, UK, national treasures, Nazi Era spoliation, tainted cultural objects, cultural heritage law, criminal law, Italian and EU law, legal definitions of cultural property, photographs as cultural property, art market, photography market, cultural heritage law, criminal law, Italian and EU law, legal definitions of cultural property, cultural property export, federal registry (inventory), national treasures, cultural property, Switzerland, export authorization, national treasure, Waverley criteria, export control, Arts Council, objects of cultural interest, export of cultural property, cultural significance, pre-emption right, Germany, EU, China, Castiglione, looting, Ai Weiwei, national treasure, protection of cultural property, gravity assessment, the Site of Palmyra, ICC Prosecutor, Al Mahdi case
