2391-7997 Private International Law as a Toolkit for Extraterritorial Refuge of Endangered Cultural Property Ekşi Nuray author Marmara Üniversitesi 02kswqa67 Correspondence to: Nuray Ekşi nurayeksi@gmail.com 11 12 2025 2/2025 (11) 2025 113 146 Copyright © 2025 2025 The article begins by identifying the threats that give rise to the need for extraterritorial refuge, clarifying the core concepts underpinning this measure, and drawing a conceptual distinction between cultural refuge and the refugee status of individuals. It then examines notable cases of extraterritorial refuge involving endangered cultural property, followed by a brief review of relevant national legislation, international conventions, and soft-law instruments. Extraterritorial refuge between states involves elements governed by both public and private international law, each addressing distinct aspects of the legal relationship. This dual nature shapes not only the allocation of responsibilities between the parties, but also the applicable legal frameworks and dispute resolution mechanisms. This study primarily focusses on the aspects of such arrangements related to private international law, referring to public international law only when necessary to clarify the boundaries of the field and the legal sources on which this measure is based. Furthermore, this study contends that characterizing extraterritorial refuge as a contract of deposit reinforces its basis within private international law. While scholars often focus on public international aspects, this study argues that with respect to the other aspects, existing principles of private international law already offer a viable framework for resolving disputes arising from extraterritorial refuge. However, given the divergent rules on conflict of laws and jurisdiction across various fora, the study advocates for the adoption of a new international convention to harmonize these rules and facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments. As a final remark, this study maintains that extraterritorial refuge should be undertaken in good faith, as a genuine effort to protect and preserve cultural property, not to obtain financial or reputational gain. 1 444.1 Loi fédérale du 20 juin 2003 sur le transfert international des biens culturels [Federal Law No. 444.1 of 20 June 2003 on the International Transfer of Cultural Property], Recueil officiel 2005 1869. 2 520.3 Loi fédérale du 20 juin 2014 sur la protection des biens culturels en cas de conflit armé, de catastrophe ou de situation d’urgence (LPBC) [Federal Law No. 520.3 of 20 June 2014 on the Protection of Cultural Objects in the Event of Armed Conflict, Catastrophe and Emergency Situations (PCPA)], Recueil officiel 2014 3545. 3 AAMD Protocols for Safe Havens for Works of Cultural Significance from Countries in Crisis, 1 October 2015, https://aamd.org/document/aamd-protocols-for-safe-havens-for-works-of-cultural-significance-from-countries-in-crisis [accessed: 02.12.2025]. 4 Abu Dhabi Declaration on Heritage at Risk in the Context of Armed Conflicts, 3 December 2016, https://diplomatie-humanitaire.org/en/conference-on-safeguarding-endangered-cultural-heritage/ [accessed: 02.12.2025]. 5 Al Shallah S., Refugee Protection through Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Home Country and Refugee Journey, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2023, Vol. 30. 6 Albisetti L., Büchel R., Cultural Property Shelter Systems: The Swiss Model, in: E. Cunliffe, P. Fox (eds.), Safeguarding Cultural Property and the 1954 Hague Convention: All Possible Steps, Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge 2022. 7 Al-Houdalieh S.H., Sauders R.R., Building Destruction: The Consequences of Rising Urbanization on Cultural Heritage in the Ramallah Province, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2009, Vol. 16. 8 Başgelen N., Pazarcık ve Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş), Yayladağı (Hatay) Depremleri ve Kültürel Mirasımız [Pazarcık and Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş), Yayladağı (Hatay) Earthquakes and Our Cultural Heritage], in: N. Ekşi, G. Dardeniz, M. Ülgen (eds.), Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage from the Perspective of Different Legal Disciplines: A Comparison of Turkish and Slovenian Laws on Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Related to Cultural Property, Articles Written within the Scope of the TÜBİTAK-ARIS Project (Project No 122N328), 2nd ed., Beta Publisher, Istanbul 2024. 9 Berberer H.M., The Right to Use Anticipatory Self Defense Against Terror: The Tomb of Suleyman Shah and Turkey’s Challenges, “The Army Lawyer” 2015, Vol. 34. 10 Chechi A., Multi-Level Cooperation to Safeguard the Human Dimension of Cultural Heritage and to Secure the Return of Wrongfully Removed Cultural Objects, in: S. Borelli, F. Lenzerini (eds.), Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New Developments in International Law, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden–Boston 2012. 11 Chechi A., Rescuing Cultural Heritage from War and Terrorism: A View from Switzerland, “Santander Art and Culture Law Review” 2015, Vol. 1. 12 Collins E., Preventing Cultural Heritage Destruction and the Responsibility to Protect, “Intercultural Human Rights Law Review” 2018, Vol. 13. 13 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240. 14 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231. 15 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137. 16 Cunliffe E., Fox P. (eds.), Safeguarding Cultural Property and the 1954 Hague Convention: All Possible Steps, Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge 2022. 17 Ekşi N., Immunity from Seizure of Cultural Objects on Loan for International Exhibitions, in: T. Jere Jakulin, D. Munro, N. Ekşi (eds.), Law, Humanities, and Tourism: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Restitution of Cultural Heritage, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne 2025. 18 Ekşi N., No Way Out for Climate Refugees’ Asylum Applications in Court Decisions and Conventions, “Medicine, Law & Society” 2023, Vol. 16. 19 Ekşi N., Ulusal ve Uluslararası Hukukta Kültür Varlıklarına İlişkin Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Mekanizmaları [Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Regarding Cultural Property in National and International Law], Beta Publisher, Istanbul 2024. 20 Francioni F., The Evolving Framework for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in International Law, in: S. Borelli, F. Lenzerini (eds.), Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New Developments in International Law, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden–Boston 2012. 21 Gerner M., Managing Cultural Sustainability: Safe Haven, Cultural Property, and Sustainability in Best Practice, in: E. Lagrange, S. Oeter, R. Uerpmann-Wittzack (eds.), Cultural Heritage and International Law: Objects, Means and Ends of International Protection, Springer, Cham 2018. 22 Gerstenblith P., Toward a Human Rights-Based Approach as an Element in Post-Conflict Cultural Heritage Reconstruction, in: A. Strecker, J. Powderly (eds.), Heritage Destruction, Human Rights and International Law, Brill, Leiden–Boston 2017. 23 Guidelines for the Establishment and Conduct of Safe Havens as Adopted by the International Law Association at its 73rd Conference held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 17-21 August 2008, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2009, Vol. 16. 24 Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The present version reflects the amendments endorsed by the 10th Meeting of the Parties to the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict [Paris, 2023]), https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2024/05/1999-SecondProtocol_Guidelines_2023_Eng.pdf [accessed: 02.12.2025]. 25 Hardy S.A., Conflict Antiquities’ Rescue or Ransom: The Cost of Buying Back Stolen Cultural Property in Contexts of Political Violence, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2021, Vol. 28. 26 Hauser-Schäublin B., Looted, Trafficked, Donated and Returned: The Twisted Tracks of Cambodian Antiquities, in: B. Hauser-Schäublin, L.V. Prott (eds.), Cultural Property and Contested Ownership: The Trafficking of Artefacts and the Quest for Restitution, Routledge, London 2017. 27 Hess B., The Private-Public Divide in International Dispute Resolution, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden–Boston 2018. 28 International Criminal Law – Rome Statute – International Criminal Court Imposes First Sentence for War Crime of Attacking Cultural Heritage, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Judgment & Sentence (Sept. 27, 2016), “Harvard Law Review” 2017, Vol. 130. 29 Italian Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq: The Italian Cooperation of the Safeguarding and Enhancement of the Erbil Citadel, 21 August 2015, https://ambbaghdad.esteri.it/en/news/dall_ambasciata/2015/08/iraq-la-cooperazione-italiana-per-2 [accessed: 03.12.2025]. 30 Jakubowski A., The Human Dimension of State Succession to Cultural Property: The Balkan Lesson, in: S. Borelli, F. Lenzerini (eds.), Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New Developments in International Law, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden–Boston 2012. 31 Jakubowski A., International Protection of Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Revisiting the Role of Safe Havens, “Indonesian Journal of International Law” 2019, Vol. 16. 32 Jakubowski A., Safeguarding Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage in War: Identifying the Obligations of Non-Parties to the Conflict, with Special Focus on the European Union, “Polish Review of International and European Law” 2023, Vol. 12. 33 Loi n° 2016-925 du 7 juillet 2016 relative à la liberté de la création, à l’architecture et au patrimoine [Law no. 2016-925 of 7 July 2016 on the Freedom of Creation, Architecture and Heritage], Journal Officiel de la République Française no. 158, 8 July 2016. 34 Mahnad P.L., Protecting Cultural Property in Syria: New Opportunities for States to Enhance Compliance with International Law? “International Review of the Red Cross” 2017, Vol. 99. 35 McAuliffe P., From the Ashes: Guarantees of Non-Recurrence for Destruction of Cultural Heritage, “Santander Art and Culture Law Review” 2023, Vol. 9. 36 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Italian Republic and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on the Italian National “Task Force in the Framework of UNESCO’s Global Coalition Unite4Heritage” for Initiatives in Favor of Countries Facing Emergencies that May Affect the Protection and Safeguarding of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism, https://www.unesco.it/wp-content/uploads/pdf/UploadCKEditor/Memorandum_of_Understanding___11_II_2016_DRAFT_Finale_UNESCO_versione_Italia.pdf [accessed: 05.08.2025]. 37 Miura K., Destruction and Plunder of Cambodian Cultural Heritage and Their Consequences, in: B. Hauser-Schäublin, L.V. Prott (eds.), Cultural Property and Contested Ownership: The Trafficking of Artefacts and the Quest for Restitution, Routledge, London 2017. 38 Paumgartner N.T., Zingg R., The Rise of Safe Havens for Threatened Cultural Heritage, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2018, Vol. 25. 39 Philpotts A.C.L, Violence and Monumental Complexes: The Fate of Cambodia’s Buddhist Heritage during the Turbulent Years: 1969-79, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2019, Vol. 26. 40 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 358. 41 Ruiz Abou-Nigm V., McCall-Smith K., French D. (eds.), Linkages and Boundaries in Private and Public International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2018. 42 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999, 2253 UNTS 172. 43 Shah V., Deconstructing the Dichotomy in Cultural Property Law, “Law Review” 2019, Vol. 10. 44 Siehr K., ‘Safe Havens’ for Endangered Cultural Objects, in: J. van Krieken-Pieters (ed.), Art and Archaeology of Afghanistan: Its Fall and Survival. A Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Brill, Leiden–Boston 2006. 45 Sooksripaisarnkit P., Prasad D. (eds.), Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law: Towards Convergence or Divergence Still? Springer, Singapore 2022. 46 The ICC Office of the Prosecutor and UNESCO Sign Letter of Intent to Strengthen Cooperation on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, “ICC Press Release”, 6 November 2017, https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-office-prosecutor-and-unesco-sign-letter-intent-strengthen-cooperation-protection-cultural [accessed: 02.12.2025]. 47 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15), Judgment and Sentence of 27 September 2016. 48 Toman J., The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: Commentary on the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Its Protocol, signed on 14 May 1954 in The Hague, and on Other Instruments of International Law Concerning Such Protection, Routledge, London–New York 1996. 49 Vassilas P.A., Cultural Property Preservation: Legal Perspectives and Realities at the National, Regional and International Levels, “Aberdeen Student Law Review” 2020, Vol. 10. 50 Vikan G., The Case for Buying Antiquities to Save Them, “The Wall Street Journal”, 19 August 2015, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-buying-antiquities-to-save-them-1440024491 [accessed: 02.12.2025]. 51 Weller M., The Safeguarding of Foreign Cultural Objects on Loan in Germany, “Art Antiquity and Law” 2009, Vol. 14.