Looking at cultural objects through a private international law lens

• Pages: 557-582
• Author: Janeen M. Carruthers

LOOKING AT CULTURAL OBJECTS THROUGH

A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW LENS

Janeen M. carruthe rs*

SUMMARY: I. BACKGROUND.— II. WHAT’S IN A NAME.— III. THE IMPOR-

TANCE OF APPLICABLE LAW.— IV. POTENTIAL MODELS OF LEGISLA-

TIVE INTERVENTION.— V. BUILDING THE EUROPEAN LEGISLATIVE

FRAMEWORK.— VI. DRAFTING A SPECIAL CHOICE OF LAW RULE FOR

A SPECIAL CATEGORY OF PROPERTY.— VII. EXISTING MODELS AND

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.— VIII. CONCLUSION.

I. BACKGROUND

Much has been written about the legal dimensions of cultural

property 1 and cultural objects2, about international trade in art3 and the

* Professor of Private Law, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK; Janeen.Carruthers@

glasgow.ac.uk. The author wishes to thank Professor Elizabeth B. Crawford for her comments on

a draft of this chapter. All the websites mentioned in this chapter were accessed on 26 April 2024.

1 See e.g. J.M. carruthers (ed), Transfer of Property and Private International Law – Vol

II, Edward Elgar Publishing (2016); D. FinchaM, «How Adopting the Lex Originis Rule Can

Impede the Flow of Illicit Cultural Property» [2008], Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts: 32,

111 - X.; D. FinchaM, «Rejecting Renvoi for Movable Cultural Property: The Islamic Republic

of Iran v Denyse Berend» (2007), 14 Journal of International Cultural Property: 111 – 120; J.

H. MerryMan, «Thinking about the Elgin Marbles», Michigan Law Review 83 (1985): 1881; J.

H. MerryMan, «Cultural Property Internationalism» (2005), 12 International Journal of Cul-

tural Property: 11; H. NIEC, «Legislative Models of Protection of Cultural Property» 1976 Vol.

27, Hastings Law Journal 1089; G. reichelt, «International Protection of Cultural Property»,

Uniform Law Review (1985): 43; K., siehr, «The Protection of Cultural Property: The 1995

UNIDROIT Convention and the E.E.C. Instruments of 1992/93 Compared», Uniform Law Re-

view (1998): 671; K. siehr, «The Protection of Cultural Heritage and International Commerce»,

International Journal of Cultural Property 6 (1997): 304; and M. weller, «Cultural Objects,

Footnotes 2 y 3 in next page

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON RIGHTS IN REM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO SOBRE DERECHOS REALES EN LA UNIÓN EUROPEA

Maria Font-Mas (dir.)

ISBN: 978-84-1381-849-8

Madrid, 2024

pp. 557-581

DOI: 10.37417/PILRIRUE/25

Marcial Pons Ediciones Jurídicas y Sociales

Editado bajo licencia Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

558 JANEEN M. CARRUTHERS

2, 3

regulation and governance of the international art market. 4 Sometimes

the analysis is situated in the context of stolen 5 or spoliated 6 property

and the mechanics of restitution; 7 at other times, the context is the ille-

gal export of such property. 8 Occasionally, the literature has a European

focus; 9 at other times, a global perspective is favoured. 10

Protection of», in BaseDow, J; ruhl, G; Ferrari, F; and asensio, P de M, Encyclopaedia of

Private International Law (2017), Edward Elgar Publishing, 498.

2 See e.g. D. L. carey-Miller, W. Meyers and A. L. cowe, «Restitution of Art and

Cultural Objects: a Reassessment of the Role of Limitation» (2001), 6(1) Art, Antiquity & Law

1; and L. V. prott, «UNESCO and UNIDROIT: A Partnership Against Trafcking in Cultural

Objects», Uniform Law Review (1996) 59.

3 See e.g. P. M. Bator, «An Essay on the International Trade in Art», Stanford Law Review

34 (1982): 275; and A. BionDi, «The Merchant, the Thief and the Citizen: the Circulation of

Works of Art within the European Union», Common Market Law Review (1997) 1173.

4 See e.g. D. FinchaM , «How Adopting the Lex Originis Rule Can Impede the Flow of

Illicit Cultural Property» [2008], Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts: 32; A. hawkins, R.

A. rothMan and D. B. GolDstein, «A Tale of Two Innocents: Creating an Equitable Balance

Between the Rights of Former Owners and Good Faith Purchasers of Stolen Art» (1995 - 1996),

Vol 64(1) Fordham Law Review: 49; A. E. hayworth, «Stolen Artwork: Deciding Ownership is

No Pretty Picture», Duke Law Journal 43 (1993) 337; L. M. kaye, «Looted Art: What Can and

Should be Done?» (1998), 20 Cardozo Law Review: 657; N. palMer, «Memory and Morality:

Museum Policy and Holocaust Cultural Assets» (2001), 6(3) Art, Antiquity & Law 259; and C.

rooDt, Private International Law, Art and Cultural Heritage (2015), Edward Elgar Publishing.

5 See e.g. N. palMer, «Recovering Stolen Art», Current Legal Problems 47 (1994): 215;

C. rooDt and D. L. carey-Miller, «Stolen Cultural Property: Implications of Vitium Reale in

Private Law and Private International Law» (2013), Transnational Dispute Management: 5; and

S. C. syMeoniDes, «A Choice-of-Law Rule for Conicts Involving Stolen Cultural Property»

(2005), 1 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law: 1177.

6 See e.g. D. L. carey-Miller, D.W. Meyers. and A. L. cowe, «Restitution of Art and

Cultural Objects: a Reassessment of the Role of Limitation’», Art, Antiquity and Law 6, no. 1

(2001) 1; E. pocock, «Spoliation of Works of Art during the Holocaust and World War II Period -

A Commentary», Art, Antiquity and Law 5, no. 1 (2000) 81; and C. wooDheaD, «Nazi-Era Spoli-

ation: Establishing Procedural and Substantive Principles» (2013), 18 Art, Antiquity & Law 167.

7 See e.g. P. GerstenBlith, «The Public Interest in the Restitution of Cultural Objects»

(2000 – 2001) 16 Connecticut Journal of International Law 197; and C. rooDt, «State Courts

or ADR in Nazi-Era Art Disputes: A Choice “More Apparent than Real”?» (2012 – 2013), 14

Cardozo Journal of Conict Resolution 421.

8 See e.g. K. A. short, «Preventing the Theft and Illegal Export of Art in a Europe

Without Borders», Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 26 (1993) 633; and E. caMpFens,

«Cross-border claims to looted art» (Study commissioned by European Parliament, JURI Com-

mittee: PE754.126) (October 2023),

9 See e.g. A. BionDi, «The Merchant, the Thief and the Citizen: the Circulation of Works

of Art within the European Union», Common Market Law Review (1997) 1173; L. E. Gillies,

«The contribution of jurisdiction as a technique of demand side regulation in claims for the

recovery of cultural objects» (2015), Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 11.2, 295; M.

weller, Rethinking EU Cultural Property Law: Towards Private Enforcement, Baden-Baden

(2018) 36; and M. weller, Article 7(4) Brüssel Ia-VO, in: Wieczorek/Schütze, Zivilprozessord-

nung und Nebengesetze, Großkommentar, Vol. XIII/2, Berlin 4th ed. (2019).

10 See e.g. C. Fox, «The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural

Objects: An Answer to the World Problem of Illicit Trade in Cultural Property», American Jour-

nal of International Law and Policy 9 (1993): 225; L. V. prott, «UNESCO and UNIDROIT: A

Partnership Against Trafcking in Cultural Objects», Uniform Law Review (1996) 59; and A. F.

VrDoljak, A. jakuBowski and A. chechi, The 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions on

Stolen or Illegally Transferred Cultural Property: A Commentary, Oxford University Press (2024).