The British punitive expedition of 1897 led to the theft and vandalization of the cultural heritage of the Benin kingdom. The plunder included more than 3,000 cultural objects made of bronzes, ivories, beads, and other objects, which were produced since the 1st century AD to commemorate historical moments, political transitions, and ritual purposes. This theft dishonoured the spiritual and ritual significance of these living cultural objects, and has turned them into museum artefacts. As international debates on restitution and the return of Benin Bronzes intensify, two pertinent questions which arise are: Who will be the custodians of the returned artefacts?; and How will they be conserved? In this article, we address these two questions through the lens of Benin customary laws and practices. We argue that within this local jurisprudence, the Emwin Arre– the living cultural heritage described above –belong to the Oba of Benin and should be returned to the royal Palace, where they will be preserved, protected, and shared with the present and future generations. 

“These works notably stand among the highest heights of European casting”. This is what Felix von Luschan, the curator of the ethnographic museum in Berlin, wrote in 1919 in his book on the Benin objects. Their looting in 1897 foreshadowed a scramble for cultural colonial objects in the heydays of colonial collecting. Today, they stand at the forefront of discussions on return, including new forms of consent, ownership, or re-appropriation. They constitute a special case and have triggered a novel race for returns. This contribution traces some of the violence and colonial stereotypes underpinning their taking, different perceptions of the objects, and contemporary ethical and legal frames for their return. It argues that the contemporary debate over the Benin Bronzes reflects certain changes in the attitude towards return in general; changes which are grounded in the interplay between justice, ethics, and human rights. It challenges the argument that takings were acceptable according to the standards of the time. At the same time it cautions that the current movement towards return should not turn into a cosmetic ritual of self-purification, which detracts from necessary reforms at the macro level. 

Debates on the restitution of colonial loot usually focus on art, antiquities, religious artefacts, and similar objects. Many fossils of considerable scientific and cultural value were also removed under colonial rule, yet they rarely feature in these discussions despite being classified as cultural objects. This article seeks to shed light on the colonial removal of fossils and explore potential avenues for their return under public international law. Instead of focusing on the (il-)legality of colonial takings, we argue that the right to access culture has developed from the right to participate in cultural life in Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provides, if not a solid legal basis, a valuable set of arguments for former colonies requesting the return of fossils looted from their countries/territories of origin. The case study of the negotiations on the return of the Broken Hill skull before the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) highlights the potential of this mechanism of dispute resolution with respect to fossils. 

Since late 2021, a new development has been taking place in Nepal. Like many governments around the world, the Nepalese authorities are also fully invested in asking for the return of their looted art held in foreign collections. Yet the policy is no longer to keep these in the country’s main museums, but rather to bring them back to the communities of origin, where they can fully take up their role as “living Gods”. With this move – which fully prioritizes intangible heritage values over tangible – a unique process is taking place that allows for reflection on what the restitution of stolen objects could be all about. In this way the case of Nepal demonstrates that the trafficking of art and its placement in museums abroad, as well as its “typical” return to museums in the source countries, are strongly influenced by Western concepts of art and conservation, often ignoring the local values of this heritage.

Considering that the vast majority of the objects constituting Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage are now located outside their source communities, the restitution of cultural property has become a pressing issue among Indigenous Peoples worldwide and should be understood as part of Indigenous Peoples’ historical (as well as current) encounter with colonization and its consequences. As such, this article investigates whether international cultural heritage law offers any possibilities for successful repatriation and to what extent the shortcomings of the framework in place could be complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms and the new mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Expert Mechanism). First, crucial concepts in the repatriation debates are explained. Next the factual background of the case studies of the G’psgolox Totem Pole and Maaso Kova are presented. This is followed by a discussion of the most pertinent mechanisms of international cultural heritage law and the place of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within such a framework. Subsequently, the concept of ADR is introduced, and the details of the negotiation processes between the Haisla First Nation (Canada) and the Yaqui People (Mexico, the United States) – both with the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm (Sweden) – are presented. Finally, the article evaluates to what extent ADR could be an appropriate mechanism for the settlement of disputes concerningIndigenous Peoples’ cultural property, andwhether the Expert Mechanism is a well-suited body for facilitating the process of repatriating Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage.

This article analyses the case of the dispute over the return of the Aboriginal shield from the collection of the British Museum, which up to 2018 was believed to have come from the First Contact with the Aboriginal people made by the crew of captain James Cook. The arguments exchanged between the parties are studied from the perspective of the theory of hard cases. The claim for the return expressed by Rodney Kelly is supported mostly by the arguments based on justice, and both personal and cultural affiliation. The British Museum responded to the claim with results of research questioning the provenance of the shield. The relevance of the research is evaluated in the context of the symbolic significance of the case. The author believes that application of the theory of hard cases allows to broaden the debate beyond the scope of positive law.

The status of colonial objects in European museums touches upon a matrix of legal and historical issues. This article engages with some of them, while referring to the case of a Sri Lankan object in the possession of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (RMA) in the Netherlands: a ceremonial cannon looted by the Dutch from the King of Kandy in 1765. The article offers a historical overview of the European colonial domination of Ceylon, distinguishing between the Portuguese, Dutch, and British periods, and for each period distinguishes the nature and the size of the confiscated heritage. It also analyses Sri Lanka’s legal title to the cannon, and the discrepancy between the international and mostly Euro-centric legal regime and Sri Lanka’s own legal framework. The article moves on to analyses of and reflections about the type of provenance research practiced by the RMA, as well as the broader efforts in the Netherlands for better provenance research. The importance of the cannon for both Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, as well as earlier efforts to retrieve it, are also described and evaluated. In its conclusions, the article proffers suggestions for more balance and equality in the provenance research efforts. The contribution covers legal studies, history, and museum studies and is based on the literature, historical catalogues, and other documents, as well as the practice of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries titution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP).

This article focuses on the colonial context of China, which led to a monumental loss of Chinese cultural objects by three means: looting and plundering; cultural expeditions; and illicit trafficking. The loss of cultural objects caused severe deprivation to the country of origin (i.e. China) from the perspective of culture, and active decolonization could helpheal the wounds and rebuild the cultural independency of China.In order to recover cultural objects removed during the colonial era, at the present time countries of origin are faced with difficulties at two levels. In terms of provenance research, the history and ownership trajectory of the cultural objects is difficult to establish in light of the fact that significant time has elapsed. In terms of legal claims, evidence needs to be collected in order to prove the original ownership, while at the same time issues of private law create obstacles to claims. Moreover, current international conventions fail to provide a legally-binding obligation on the part of current possessors to return objects lost due to colonialism. This article proposes mutual respect for cultural sovereignty as a way to make up for the absence of cultural sovereignty during past colonizations.

Restitution claims involving colonial cultural objects are usually said to lack a sound legal basis. These claims are instead perceived more often than not as belonging solely in the realm of ethics. This article, however, calls that perception into question. It argues for the existence of a more complex picture. It does so by bringing to the forefront the potential of the US courts to adjudicate restitution claims concerning colonial cultural objects. By analysing the largely unexplored 1900 exception of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (2016), amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (1976) expropriation exception, this article posits that the exception might hold the key for offering an alternative road in accessing justice. Being applicable to takings of a systematic nature against members of a targeted and vulnerable group which have taken place after 1900, this provision might provide legal recourse for those colonial takings which have occurred after the dawn of the 20th century.

This article highlights the legal and technical challenges of contemporary heritage conservation in the context of a weak democracy, ethnic unrest, and military rule. Burma was a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2010, followed by the operation of the civil government between 2011 and 2021, which was then overthrown by the military in 2021. These ten years of civil government were characterized by a reopening of the borders to the international community, initiatives towards democracy. In terms of cultural heritage, Myanmar appeared to have made progress in modernizing its legislation when the country ratified and implemented international conventions protecting tangible cultural heritage such as the World Heritage Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. In 2015, the elected parliament drafted new legislation protecting cultural heritage: the Law Protecting Ancient Objectsand theLaw on the Preservation and Protection of Ancient Buildings. How has the ratification of international conventions and new laws impacted domestic conservation practices in Myanmar? The democratic turn entailed a visible modernization of laws, policies, and conservation techniques. However, this time was also characterized by peaks of violence between the Burman government, the Rohingya people, and other ethnic minorities. Ultimately, this article reveals that the protection of heritage became closely linked to ethnonationalist ideologies that have survived the numerous changes of political regime. This is particularly true in the Burmese context. Foreign technical assistance must be aware of the country’s complexity and learn from lessons of the past.

This article refers to various intertextual strategies in the field of electronic music and their legal categorization. The main part of the article is devoted to the problem of sampling, widely discussed in the literature and jurisprudence. Possible legal qualifications are discussed, as well as controversies related to the different scope of protection of works, artistic performances, and phonograms. The article also refers to other phenomena in the electronic field, including reedit, remix, or mash-up. In the summary, the general rules for making a legal assessment of musical borrowing strategies, interpretative guidelines in relation to a musical quotation, as well as de lege ferenda postulates are outlined.

In January 2022 theAustrian government established an expert committee to study the colonial heritage in its federal museums. Although Austria is a country not considered to have an extensive colonial past, Austrian museums hold large collections of ethnographic objects and human remains that they acquired during the heydays of colonialism. This country report introduces the current restitution debate in Austria through a legal lens. It discusses the legal situation of cultural objects from colonial contexts and the instruments available to museums and the federal government to organize restitutions and formulate rules. From a comparative law perspective, the specific history of Austria might turn the currently-evolving Austrian approach into an interesting example for other countries with public holdings of cultural objects from colonial contexts but without a history of direct colonialism.

The Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognize the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return (“the Restitution Bill”) puts Belgium at the forefront of international restitutions of colonial collections. With the parliamentary approval, and therefore democratically backed adoption of the Restitution Bill, Belgium is about to write history by being the first country in the world with a legislative framework allowing for large-scale restitutions of colonial collections. The situation, however, is not all roses, as the new legislation keeps its scope quite narrow (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, and no archives or human remains) and excludes local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings. Moreover, the Bill’s initial draft had to be watered down significantly to give the Government maximum freedom in negotiating bilateral restitution agreements. The relative lack of procedural rules renders the process less transparent and more political. In sidestepping the issue, the actual restitution procedure will depend almost entirely on the terms of each of the bilateral agreements, thus giving more leeway to political squabbling.

This article provides an overview of the state of legislation and the efforts toward the repatriation of colonial-looted cultural objects in England. It discusses the National Heritage Act, Charities Act, and general trust rules which make it challenging to deaccession any objects from museums in the United Kingdom, including and especially colonial-looted objects. It highlights how the UK’s former period of colonization resulted in vast holdings from these territories, but that the UK has yet to create a comprehensive policy on repatriation, despite numerous calls for return of several famous heritage objects, including the Maqdala treasures and the Benin Bronzes. This article sketches the powers of the current possessors – namely national, regional, and university museums. Finally, the article considers the many updates in the conversation surrounding colonial repatriation in 2022, from the debate at the House of Lords to potential changes to the National Heritage Act to the new Charities Act to the publication of Arts Council England’s guidelines for museums on restitution and repatriation.

Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, the President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President’s wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law’s passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return – from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy.

The debate on the return and restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. In recent years, however, the debate – stimulated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech in 2017 – extended to include the question of how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. Whereas international law provides a legal framework for how to deal with war-time looting (the 1954 Hague Convention) and the present-day trafficking in cultural property (the 1970 UNESCO Convention), no such legal regime exists for cultural objects removed during colonial times. Nevertheless, as this article illustrates – with a focus on recent examples in Germany – current developments indicate a movement towards new political and ethical schemes on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts and, in a broader sense, how to come to terms with the colonial past. In Germany, this includes the return of cultural objects and human remains to Namibia as well as the transfer of ownership of all Benin Bronzes held by German institutions to Nigeria.

This article provides a broad overview of Indonesia’s current post-independence legislation and practice with respect to cultural heritage protection and repatriation. We highlight several challenges that hamper the effective implementation and enforcement of this framework, particularly in relation to repatriation processes of foreign-held cultural objects. We furthermore explore how the State-centric discourse that surrounds Indonesia’s cultural heritage protection and repatriation policies impede locally-led activism related to cultural heritage, particularly in relation to value production and sense of ownership. Overall, we highlight the importance of co-creation in knowledge production processes and crime-prevention methods concerning cultural heritage to maximize effectiveness. Agency, access, and ownership were violently removed through the colonial looting of Indonesian cultural heritage, so the first step towards restorative justice should be reinstating this to the communities of origin, or to the Indonesian government when the rightful origin community cannot be identified. This concerns not only the cultural objects themselves, but also their digital and physical lives, i.e. the knowledge and expertise created based on these objects.

This commentary offers an overview of the restitutions and claims processed in the Netherlands until recently, and the legal framework in which they took place. Although the focus is on restitutions to and claims from Indonesia, those to and from a number of other former colonial possessions occur as well. It thus looks at Dutch cultural heritage regulations and laws concerning colonial possessions. Next, the current situation is reviewed, with special attention paid to the Dutch Heritage Act of 2016 and the 2021 Policy Vision on Collections from a Colonial Context, and possible frictions between the two. In the final part, two comparisons are made. One is between how the Netherlands has been dealing with claims for Nazi-looted art works and with claims for items looted from colonial areas. The second comparison is between the current measures for dealing with colonial loot by the Netherlands and Belgium. For several years now, both countries have taken up more seriously the decolonization of state-owned collections from colonial contexts. However, the new policies of both countries have their limitations as well. For the Netherlands, the author concludes that this former major colonial power is in an intermediate phasein the process of developing new rules for dealing with objects and collections from colonial contexts.

Scotland’s museums include many collections that are the result of Scotland’s involvement in the British Empire. These include items that were fairly and legally collected, but also include items that were acquired as military loot, those that reflect power imbalances in favour of collectors, and ancestral remains that were acquired to demonstrate theories of racial supremacy. This past has left problematic legacies that museums in Scotland are now addressing, including by their involvement in repatriation. This paper reviews the repatriations that have taken place since 1990, noting a focus on the return of ancestral remains and the recent increase in the number of cases. It also considers the legal, political, and cultural backgrounds to the decisions, including how international moves towards decolonization and aimed at addressing racism in museums are interacting with Scotland’s own complex relationship with colonialism as well as the political debate about the identity and future of the nation.

This article explores the ownership of cultural objects within national and traditional customary law in Suriname, with the aim to provide a legal context to the issue of claims for the return of some of these cultural objects from the Netherlands. The discussion of the legal regime for exporting cultural objects examines the National Ordinance of 1952 on Provisions for the Preservation of Objects with Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Value; the Movement of Goods Act of 2003; and the Monuments Act of 2002, which protects immovable objects, objects of archaeological excavations, and discoveries. This is followed by a short overview of the legal regime relating to the ownership of cultural property under the Surinamese Civil Code. Next this article outlines the property law of cultural objects under customary laws of Indigenous and Tribal communities in Suriname and how these may be included in the Draft Civil Code and the Draft Legislation on Rules Concerning the Collective Land Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The article concludes that neither the existing legal framework nor the draft legislation provide answers on dealing with cultural objects acquired in a colonial context and the possible repatriation of such objects.

In Switzerland, the decolonization of ethnological and historical museums and collections is in progress. This is true in practice, especially by federally funded provenance research projects and by single restitutions of human remains and colonial objects. However, provenance research and its goals need to be better understood in Switzerland, and the reluctance towards restitution is still high. There are no regulations or guidelines that would support the decolonization activities and supplement existing cultural heritage law. In practice and by regulation, the goal to strive for should be to implement the international human rights of Indigenous peoples to control or restitute their cultural heritage.

The British punitive expedition of 1897 led to the theft and vandalization of the cultural heritage of the Benin kingdom. The plunder included more than 3,000 cultural objects made of bronzes, ivories, beads, and other objects, which were produced since the 1st century AD to commemorate historical moments, political transitions, and ritual purposes. This theft dishonoured the spiritual and ritual significance of these living cultural objects, and has turned them into museum artefacts. As international debates on restitution and the return of Benin Bronzes intensify, two pertinent questions which arise are: Who will be the custodians of the returned artefacts?; and How will they be conserved? In this article, we address these two questions through the lens of Benin customary laws and practices. We argue that within this local jurisprudence, the Emwin Arre– the living cultural heritage described above –belong to the Oba of Benin and should be returned to the royal Palace, where they will be preserved, protected, and shared with the present and future generations. 

“These works notably stand among the highest heights of European casting”. This is what Felix von Luschan, the curator of the ethnographic museum in Berlin, wrote in 1919 in his book on the Benin objects. Their looting in 1897 foreshadowed a scramble for cultural colonial objects in the heydays of colonial collecting. Today, they stand at the forefront of discussions on return, including new forms of consent, ownership, or re-appropriation. They constitute a special case and have triggered a novel race for returns. This contribution traces some of the violence and colonial stereotypes underpinning their taking, different perceptions of the objects, and contemporary ethical and legal frames for their return. It argues that the contemporary debate over the Benin Bronzes reflects certain changes in the attitude towards return in general; changes which are grounded in the interplay between justice, ethics, and human rights. It challenges the argument that takings were acceptable according to the standards of the time. At the same time it cautions that the current movement towards return should not turn into a cosmetic ritual of self-purification, which detracts from necessary reforms at the macro level. 

Debates on the restitution of colonial loot usually focus on art, antiquities, religious artefacts, and similar objects. Many fossils of considerable scientific and cultural value were also removed under colonial rule, yet they rarely feature in these discussions despite being classified as cultural objects. This article seeks to shed light on the colonial removal of fossils and explore potential avenues for their return under public international law. Instead of focusing on the (il-)legality of colonial takings, we argue that the right to access culture has developed from the right to participate in cultural life in Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provides, if not a solid legal basis, a valuable set of arguments for former colonies requesting the return of fossils looted from their countries/territories of origin. The case study of the negotiations on the return of the Broken Hill skull before the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) highlights the potential of this mechanism of dispute resolution with respect to fossils. 

Since late 2021, a new development has been taking place in Nepal. Like many governments around the world, the Nepalese authorities are also fully invested in asking for the return of their looted art held in foreign collections. Yet the policy is no longer to keep these in the country’s main museums, but rather to bring them back to the communities of origin, where they can fully take up their role as “living Gods”. With this move – which fully prioritizes intangible heritage values over tangible – a unique process is taking place that allows for reflection on what the restitution of stolen objects could be all about. In this way the case of Nepal demonstrates that the trafficking of art and its placement in museums abroad, as well as its “typical” return to museums in the source countries, are strongly influenced by Western concepts of art and conservation, often ignoring the local values of this heritage.

Considering that the vast majority of the objects constituting Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage are now located outside their source communities, the restitution of cultural property has become a pressing issue among Indigenous Peoples worldwide and should be understood as part of Indigenous Peoples’ historical (as well as current) encounter with colonization and its consequences. As such, this article investigates whether international cultural heritage law offers any possibilities for successful repatriation and to what extent the shortcomings of the framework in place could be complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms and the new mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Expert Mechanism). First, crucial concepts in the repatriation debates are explained. Next the factual background of the case studies of the G’psgolox Totem Pole and Maaso Kova are presented. This is followed by a discussion of the most pertinent mechanisms of international cultural heritage law and the place of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within such a framework. Subsequently, the concept of ADR is introduced, and the details of the negotiation processes between the Haisla First Nation (Canada) and the Yaqui People (Mexico, the United States) – both with the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm (Sweden) – are presented. Finally, the article evaluates to what extent ADR could be an appropriate mechanism for the settlement of disputes concerningIndigenous Peoples’ cultural property, andwhether the Expert Mechanism is a well-suited body for facilitating the process of repatriating Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage.

This article analyses the case of the dispute over the return of the Aboriginal shield from the collection of the British Museum, which up to 2018 was believed to have come from the First Contact with the Aboriginal people made by the crew of captain James Cook. The arguments exchanged between the parties are studied from the perspective of the theory of hard cases. The claim for the return expressed by Rodney Kelly is supported mostly by the arguments based on justice, and both personal and cultural affiliation. The British Museum responded to the claim with results of research questioning the provenance of the shield. The relevance of the research is evaluated in the context of the symbolic significance of the case. The author believes that application of the theory of hard cases allows to broaden the debate beyond the scope of positive law.

The status of colonial objects in European museums touches upon a matrix of legal and historical issues. This article engages with some of them, while referring to the case of a Sri Lankan object in the possession of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (RMA) in the Netherlands: a ceremonial cannon looted by the Dutch from the King of Kandy in 1765. The article offers a historical overview of the European colonial domination of Ceylon, distinguishing between the Portuguese, Dutch, and British periods, and for each period distinguishes the nature and the size of the confiscated heritage. It also analyses Sri Lanka’s legal title to the cannon, and the discrepancy between the international and mostly Euro-centric legal regime and Sri Lanka’s own legal framework. The article moves on to analyses of and reflections about the type of provenance research practiced by the RMA, as well as the broader efforts in the Netherlands for better provenance research. The importance of the cannon for both Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, as well as earlier efforts to retrieve it, are also described and evaluated. In its conclusions, the article proffers suggestions for more balance and equality in the provenance research efforts. The contribution covers legal studies, history, and museum studies and is based on the literature, historical catalogues, and other documents, as well as the practice of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries titution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP).

This article focuses on the colonial context of China, which led to a monumental loss of Chinese cultural objects by three means: looting and plundering; cultural expeditions; and illicit trafficking. The loss of cultural objects caused severe deprivation to the country of origin (i.e. China) from the perspective of culture, and active decolonization could helpheal the wounds and rebuild the cultural independency of China.In order to recover cultural objects removed during the colonial era, at the present time countries of origin are faced with difficulties at two levels. In terms of provenance research, the history and ownership trajectory of the cultural objects is difficult to establish in light of the fact that significant time has elapsed. In terms of legal claims, evidence needs to be collected in order to prove the original ownership, while at the same time issues of private law create obstacles to claims. Moreover, current international conventions fail to provide a legally-binding obligation on the part of current possessors to return objects lost due to colonialism. This article proposes mutual respect for cultural sovereignty as a way to make up for the absence of cultural sovereignty during past colonizations.

Restitution claims involving colonial cultural objects are usually said to lack a sound legal basis. These claims are instead perceived more often than not as belonging solely in the realm of ethics. This article, however, calls that perception into question. It argues for the existence of a more complex picture. It does so by bringing to the forefront the potential of the US courts to adjudicate restitution claims concerning colonial cultural objects. By analysing the largely unexplored 1900 exception of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (2016), amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (1976) expropriation exception, this article posits that the exception might hold the key for offering an alternative road in accessing justice. Being applicable to takings of a systematic nature against members of a targeted and vulnerable group which have taken place after 1900, this provision might provide legal recourse for those colonial takings which have occurred after the dawn of the 20th century.

This article highlights the legal and technical challenges of contemporary heritage conservation in the context of a weak democracy, ethnic unrest, and military rule. Burma was a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2010, followed by the operation of the civil government between 2011 and 2021, which was then overthrown by the military in 2021. These ten years of civil government were characterized by a reopening of the borders to the international community, initiatives towards democracy. In terms of cultural heritage, Myanmar appeared to have made progress in modernizing its legislation when the country ratified and implemented international conventions protecting tangible cultural heritage such as the World Heritage Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. In 2015, the elected parliament drafted new legislation protecting cultural heritage: the Law Protecting Ancient Objectsand theLaw on the Preservation and Protection of Ancient Buildings. How has the ratification of international conventions and new laws impacted domestic conservation practices in Myanmar? The democratic turn entailed a visible modernization of laws, policies, and conservation techniques. However, this time was also characterized by peaks of violence between the Burman government, the Rohingya people, and other ethnic minorities. Ultimately, this article reveals that the protection of heritage became closely linked to ethnonationalist ideologies that have survived the numerous changes of political regime. This is particularly true in the Burmese context. Foreign technical assistance must be aware of the country’s complexity and learn from lessons of the past.

This article refers to various intertextual strategies in the field of electronic music and their legal categorization. The main part of the article is devoted to the problem of sampling, widely discussed in the literature and jurisprudence. Possible legal qualifications are discussed, as well as controversies related to the different scope of protection of works, artistic performances, and phonograms. The article also refers to other phenomena in the electronic field, including reedit, remix, or mash-up. In the summary, the general rules for making a legal assessment of musical borrowing strategies, interpretative guidelines in relation to a musical quotation, as well as de lege ferenda postulates are outlined.

In January 2022 theAustrian government established an expert committee to study the colonial heritage in its federal museums. Although Austria is a country not considered to have an extensive colonial past, Austrian museums hold large collections of ethnographic objects and human remains that they acquired during the heydays of colonialism. This country report introduces the current restitution debate in Austria through a legal lens. It discusses the legal situation of cultural objects from colonial contexts and the instruments available to museums and the federal government to organize restitutions and formulate rules. From a comparative law perspective, the specific history of Austria might turn the currently-evolving Austrian approach into an interesting example for other countries with public holdings of cultural objects from colonial contexts but without a history of direct colonialism.

The Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognize the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return (“the Restitution Bill”) puts Belgium at the forefront of international restitutions of colonial collections. With the parliamentary approval, and therefore democratically backed adoption of the Restitution Bill, Belgium is about to write history by being the first country in the world with a legislative framework allowing for large-scale restitutions of colonial collections. The situation, however, is not all roses, as the new legislation keeps its scope quite narrow (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, and no archives or human remains) and excludes local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings. Moreover, the Bill’s initial draft had to be watered down significantly to give the Government maximum freedom in negotiating bilateral restitution agreements. The relative lack of procedural rules renders the process less transparent and more political. In sidestepping the issue, the actual restitution procedure will depend almost entirely on the terms of each of the bilateral agreements, thus giving more leeway to political squabbling.

This article provides an overview of the state of legislation and the efforts toward the repatriation of colonial-looted cultural objects in England. It discusses the National Heritage Act, Charities Act, and general trust rules which make it challenging to deaccession any objects from museums in the United Kingdom, including and especially colonial-looted objects. It highlights how the UK’s former period of colonization resulted in vast holdings from these territories, but that the UK has yet to create a comprehensive policy on repatriation, despite numerous calls for return of several famous heritage objects, including the Maqdala treasures and the Benin Bronzes. This article sketches the powers of the current possessors – namely national, regional, and university museums. Finally, the article considers the many updates in the conversation surrounding colonial repatriation in 2022, from the debate at the House of Lords to potential changes to the National Heritage Act to the new Charities Act to the publication of Arts Council England’s guidelines for museums on restitution and repatriation.

Recent developments in French and international laws concerning the return of cultural property from formerly colonized territories are particularly rich. Most States with large collections of non-European objects are now faced with claims from the countries from which these objects were transferred. France, after having long maintained a legal stance based on strict respect of the principle of inalienability of public collections, has recently changed its position statement. In 2017, in Ouagadougou, the President Emmanuel Macron said he was in favour of returning African heritage to Africa. Three years later, on 24 December 2020, the Parliament adopted a law that partially fulfilled the President’s wish, by identifying 27 objects for return to Benin and Senegal. As this article will explain, the law’s passage was fraught, and opinions continue to diverge on a case-by-case (or object-by-object) approach to return versus a generic statute. There are also questions about what drives the idea of return – from legal responsibility, to moral duty in view of French history, to contemporary politics and diplomacy.

The debate on the return and restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. In recent years, however, the debate – stimulated by French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech in 2017 – extended to include the question of how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. Whereas international law provides a legal framework for how to deal with war-time looting (the 1954 Hague Convention) and the present-day trafficking in cultural property (the 1970 UNESCO Convention), no such legal regime exists for cultural objects removed during colonial times. Nevertheless, as this article illustrates – with a focus on recent examples in Germany – current developments indicate a movement towards new political and ethical schemes on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts and, in a broader sense, how to come to terms with the colonial past. In Germany, this includes the return of cultural objects and human remains to Namibia as well as the transfer of ownership of all Benin Bronzes held by German institutions to Nigeria.

This article provides a broad overview of Indonesia’s current post-independence legislation and practice with respect to cultural heritage protection and repatriation. We highlight several challenges that hamper the effective implementation and enforcement of this framework, particularly in relation to repatriation processes of foreign-held cultural objects. We furthermore explore how the State-centric discourse that surrounds Indonesia’s cultural heritage protection and repatriation policies impede locally-led activism related to cultural heritage, particularly in relation to value production and sense of ownership. Overall, we highlight the importance of co-creation in knowledge production processes and crime-prevention methods concerning cultural heritage to maximize effectiveness. Agency, access, and ownership were violently removed through the colonial looting of Indonesian cultural heritage, so the first step towards restorative justice should be reinstating this to the communities of origin, or to the Indonesian government when the rightful origin community cannot be identified. This concerns not only the cultural objects themselves, but also their digital and physical lives, i.e. the knowledge and expertise created based on these objects.

This commentary offers an overview of the restitutions and claims processed in the Netherlands until recently, and the legal framework in which they took place. Although the focus is on restitutions to and claims from Indonesia, those to and from a number of other former colonial possessions occur as well. It thus looks at Dutch cultural heritage regulations and laws concerning colonial possessions. Next, the current situation is reviewed, with special attention paid to the Dutch Heritage Act of 2016 and the 2021 Policy Vision on Collections from a Colonial Context, and possible frictions between the two. In the final part, two comparisons are made. One is between how the Netherlands has been dealing with claims for Nazi-looted art works and with claims for items looted from colonial areas. The second comparison is between the current measures for dealing with colonial loot by the Netherlands and Belgium. For several years now, both countries have taken up more seriously the decolonization of state-owned collections from colonial contexts. However, the new policies of both countries have their limitations as well. For the Netherlands, the author concludes that this former major colonial power is in an intermediate phasein the process of developing new rules for dealing with objects and collections from colonial contexts.

Scotland’s museums include many collections that are the result of Scotland’s involvement in the British Empire. These include items that were fairly and legally collected, but also include items that were acquired as military loot, those that reflect power imbalances in favour of collectors, and ancestral remains that were acquired to demonstrate theories of racial supremacy. This past has left problematic legacies that museums in Scotland are now addressing, including by their involvement in repatriation. This paper reviews the repatriations that have taken place since 1990, noting a focus on the return of ancestral remains and the recent increase in the number of cases. It also considers the legal, political, and cultural backgrounds to the decisions, including how international moves towards decolonization and aimed at addressing racism in museums are interacting with Scotland’s own complex relationship with colonialism as well as the political debate about the identity and future of the nation.

This article explores the ownership of cultural objects within national and traditional customary law in Suriname, with the aim to provide a legal context to the issue of claims for the return of some of these cultural objects from the Netherlands. The discussion of the legal regime for exporting cultural objects examines the National Ordinance of 1952 on Provisions for the Preservation of Objects with Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Value; the Movement of Goods Act of 2003; and the Monuments Act of 2002, which protects immovable objects, objects of archaeological excavations, and discoveries. This is followed by a short overview of the legal regime relating to the ownership of cultural property under the Surinamese Civil Code. Next this article outlines the property law of cultural objects under customary laws of Indigenous and Tribal communities in Suriname and how these may be included in the Draft Civil Code and the Draft Legislation on Rules Concerning the Collective Land Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The article concludes that neither the existing legal framework nor the draft legislation provide answers on dealing with cultural objects acquired in a colonial context and the possible repatriation of such objects.

In Switzerland, the decolonization of ethnological and historical museums and collections is in progress. This is true in practice, especially by federally funded provenance research projects and by single restitutions of human remains and colonial objects. However, provenance research and its goals need to be better understood in Switzerland, and the reluctance towards restitution is still high. There are no regulations or guidelines that would support the decolonization activities and supplement existing cultural heritage law. In practice and by regulation, the goal to strive for should be to implement the international human rights of Indigenous peoples to control or restitute their cultural heritage.