DOCSLIB.ORG

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS Virginija

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS Virginija VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS TEISĖS FAKULTETAS Virginija Maziliauskaitė CAN A FORMER OWNER GET RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION FOR ARTWORKS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING WAR? Magistro baigiamasis darbas Teisės vientisųjų studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 60101S103 Vadovas (-ė)prof. Charles Szymanski Apginta doc. dr. Julija Kiršienė Kaunas, 2012 Table of contents ABSTRACT IN LITHUANIAN ................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 5 1 THE PROTECTION OF ARTWORKS DURING WAR.................................................... 7 2 EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE RESTITUTION OF ARTWORKS .............................................................................................................................. 10 3 STATES PRACTISE RESOLVING ART RESTITUTION DISPUTES.......................... 16 3.1. The United States courts practise resolving art restitution claims................................. 16 3.1.1. The factual circumstances surrounding art restitution claims and their impact reclaiming art ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Difficulties in courts: bona fide purchaser, statute of limitations, conflict of laws ....................................................................................................................................20 3.1.3. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act...................................................................... 24 3.1.4. Enforcement and immunity from seizure law .................................................... 27 3.2. “Trophies” of War, Compensatory restitution and Russian Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of Russian Federation............................................................................................. 28 3.3. Similarities and differences of art restitution in Western and Eastern Europe .. 30 4 COMPENSATION ISSUES .................................................................................................... 34 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 36 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................... 38 2 ABSTRACT IN LITHUANIAN AR GALI ANKSTESNIS SAVININKAS SUSIGRĄŽINTI AR GAUTI KOMPENSACIJĄ UŽ MENO KŪRINĮ NUSAVINTĄ KARO METU? Santrauka Nepaisant to, kad praėjo dešimtmečiai po Antrojo Pasaulinio karo, pasaulyje vis netyla diskusijos apie tuo laikotarpiu nusavinto turto grąžinimą teisėtiems savininkams. Paskutinysis dešimtmetis gali būti įvardijamas meno kūrinių restitucijos raidos laikotarpiu. Nuo to momento, kai šalys pasirašė Vašingtono Principus prasideda ne tik dingusių meno kūrinių paieška, bet ir teismuose tiek Jungtinėse Valstijose tiek Europoje pradedamos kelti bylos, dėl nusavintų meno kūrinių susigrąžinimo. Tarptautinė teisė saugo kultūros vertybes, tame tarpe ir meno kūrinius nuo neteisėto jų pasisavinimo, naikinimo ir žalojimo. Meno restitucija tarptautinėje teisėje atsiranda nuo devyniolikto amžiaus. Pasibaigus Napoleono karams šalys nugalėtojos pareikalavo grąžtinti iš jų pagrobtas meno vertybes. Šiuo laikotarpiu atsiranda vadinama specifinė restitucija, kai sugrąžinamas konkretus meno kūrinys. Po Pirmojo Pasaulinio karo tarptautinėje teisėje susiformuoja praktika vadinamosios restitucijos gera valia, t.y. kai sunaikintas, prarastas meno kūrinys pakeičiamas kaltininko turimu adekvačiu kūriniu. Tačiau pradžioje meno kūrinių restitucija buvo tik tarptautinio lygmens klausimas, t.y. grąžinamas buvo tik valstybei priklausęs turtas tarptautinių sutarčių, arba taikos sutarčių pagrindu. Privačios nuosavybės grąžinimo idėja atsirado po Antrojo Pasaulinio karo, tačiau iš esmės ją įgyvendinti sukliudė istoriniai sunkumai, tame tarpe ir Šaltasis karas. Kartu su interneto raida, bendruomenių išaugusiu aktyvumu meno kūrinių restitucija privatiems savininkas prasidėjo tik prieš daugiau kaip dešimt metų. Šio darbo tikslas yra ne tik nustatyti ar ankstesnis savininkas gali susigrąžinti meno kūrinius nusavintus karo metu, bet ir išanalizuoti tarptautinės teisės normas šiuo klausimu, bei atlikti išsamią analizę įvairių šalių praktikos sprendžiant pokario restitucijos klausimus. Šis darbas susideda iš dviejų dalių: tai bendrosios, aptariant tarptautinės teisės raidą meno restitucijos klausimu, ir specialiosios skirtos išanalizuoti ir aptarti įvairių šalų teisę ir teismų praktiką sprendžiant meno restitucijos problemas. Patraukliausia ir daugiausiai pažengusi šalis grąžinant karo metu prarastus meno kūrinius – Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos. Nepaisant diskusijų ir nepasitentinimo tarptautinėje bendruomenėje, Rusija taip pat yra priėmusi įstatymą, kurio pagrindu galima susigrąžinti prarastą nuosavybę. Europa šiuo klausimu pasidalinusi į dvi dalis, tai iš dalies sąlygoja ekonominės priežastys, Rytų Europoje susigrąžinti nusavintą meno kūrinį vis dar pakankamai sudėtinga, tuo tarpu Vakarų Europos šalys grąžina turtą dažniausiai net ne teismo keliu. 3 ABSTRACT CAN A FORMER OWNER GET RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION FOR ARTWORKS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING WAR? The past ten years can be named as art restitution decade in international law. Since Washington Principles were signed in the huge amount of cases were brought to the courts of different countries. It is necessary to notice that even if decades past after Warl War II the prewar owners of seized, looted, thieft or otherwise lost property can get restitution or atleast compensation for the artworks. The international law protects cultural heritage and the artworks as the part of it from destruction and plunder during war. International law grants immunity for cultural property and for works of art as a part of it during war. It can not be seized, captured, destroyed. The private property is fully protected, and the works of art which belongs to the state has general or special protection in accordance with measures taken by the state. Although at the emergence of art restitution litigation in international law to get restitution could only states, private persons did not have that possibility. This work is categorized into two parts: the first one is general, includes review of international law regarding protection of artworks, and the review of evolution of international law practice resolving postwar art restitution disputes; the second part of the work is special, includes states practice resolving art restitution disputes of private property, and the review of compensatory issuses. The main purpose of the work is to analyze international law practice, states practice resolving art restitution disputes and to determine whether former owner can get restitution or compensation for the property which was seized during war. In work there will be determined whether the international law propects artworks from seizure during war; analyzed international law practice resolving postwar art restitution disputes; analyzed states practice resolving Holocaust era disputes (United States, Russia, Europe); determined difficulties bringing a lawsuit in courts of different states; analysed compensation problems of lost art; prodused a conclusion can a former owner get restitution or compensation for artworks which were seized during war. International society seeks to resolve postwar art restitution disputes. Dozens art restitution conferences are held in Europe and United States, there are many art recovery commitions which helps prewar owners to recover lost art. Lithuania are criticized in international level for its little attention over art restitution disputes. 4 INTRODUCTION “Art defines our societies, outlines our aspirations, shows us ways of seeing the world that science never could. When a painting goes missing, we all lose a piece of our common heritage.” Simon Houpt1 The past ten years can be named as art restitution decade in international law. Since Washington Principles were signed in the huge amount of cases were brought to the courts of different countries. It is necessary to notice that even if decades past after Warl War II the prewar owners of seized, looted, thieft or otherwise lost property can get restitution or atleast compensation for the artworks. Although at the emergence of art restitution litigation in international law to get restitution could only states, private persons did not have that possibility. This work can be categorized into two parts: the first one is general, includes review of international law regarding protection of artworks, and the review of evolution of international law practice resolving postwar art restitution disputes; the second part of the work is special, includes states practice resolving art restitution disputes of private property, and the review of compensatory issuses. The purpose of the work The main purpose of the work is to analyze international law practice, states practice resolving art restitution disputes and to determine whether former owner can get restitution or compensation for the property which was seized during war. The objectives of the work In order to achieve the purpose
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protection of Cultural Property Under International Humanitarian Law: Some Emerging Trends
    Protection Of Cultural Property Under International Humanitarian Law: Some Emerging Trends P. ISHWARA BHAT[*] 1. INTRODUCTION Cultures use properties as the media of expression[1] and blossom them into proud cultural property of the community. The creative human genius, in the process, flowers into arts, architecture, sculpture, monument, painting, literature and other innumerable forms of aesthetic manifestations. Transcending the geopolitical boundaries, they constitute cultural heritage of the mankind irrespective of the point whether they are products of individual talent or of group effort.[2] From the perspective of specific culture, the cultural property that it produces is an overt mark of its identity,[3] a repository of cultural and traditional informations,[4] and an essential thing for cultural group’s self understanding.[5] Being visible symbols of culture and creativity,[6] great pieces of art are irreplaceable things,[7] as they attempt to grasp eternity by their beauty and grace. It is the mankind’s sad experience that armed conflicts result in intentional or unintentional devastation of cultural property. While earlier wars witnessed deliberate destruction of enemy’s cultural property as a measure of annihilation of enemy’s power,[8] modern armed conflicts with their more destructive mechanisms inflict extensive loss to cultural property. Such destructions and their cultural function, offend inter-generation equity, and impoverish the world’s intellectual and artistic attainment. The anger that suppression of culture breeds
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Search Complete
    Academic Search Complete Pavadinimas Prenumerata nuo Prenumerata iki Metai nuo Metai iki 1 Technology times 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20140601 20210327 2 Organization Development Review 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20190101 3 PRESENCE: Virtual & Augmented Reality 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20180101 4 Television Week 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20030310 20090601 5 Virginia Declaration of Rights and Cardinal Bellarmine 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 6 U.S. News & World Report: The Report 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20200124 7 Education Journal Review 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20180101 8 BioCycle CONNECT 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20200108 9 High Power Computing 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20191001 10 Economic Review (Uzbekistan) 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20130801 11 Civil Disobedience 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 12 Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 13 IUP Journal of Environmental & Healthcare Law 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 14 View of the Revolution (Through Indian Eyes) 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 15 Narrative of Her Life: Mary Jemison 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 16 Follette's Platform of 1924 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 17 Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sanford 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 18 U.S. News - The Civic Report 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20180928 20200117 19 Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present) 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 20 Geophysical Report 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 21 Adult Literacy 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 2000 22 Report on In-Class Variables: Fall 1987 & Fall 1992 2021-04-01 2021-12-31 2000 23 Report of investigation : the Aldrich Ames espionage case / Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,2021-04-01 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter the Getty the J
    The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter ■ Volume 16, Number 2 2001 Conservation The Getty The J. Paul Getty Trust Barry Munitz President and Chief Executive Officer Conservation Stephen D. Rountree Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Institute John F. Cooke Executive Vice President, External Affairs Newsletter The Getty Conservation Institute Timothy P. Whalen Director Volume 16 , Number 2 2001 Jeanne Marie Teutonico Associate Director, Field Projects and Conservation Science Kathleen Gaines Assistant Director, Administration Luke Gilliland-Swetland Head of Information Resources Kristin Kelly Head of Public Programs & Communications François LeBlanc Head of Field Projects Alberto de Tagle Chief Scientist Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter Jeffrey Levin Editor Angela Escobar Assistant Editor Joe Molloy Graphic Designer Color West Lithography Inc. Lithography The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) works internationally to advance conservation and to enhance and encourage the preservation and understanding of the visual arts in all of their dimensions— objects, collections, architecture, and sites. The Institute serves the conservation community through scientific research; education and training; field projects, and the dissemination of the results of both its work and the work of others in the field. In all its endeavors, the Institute is committed to addressing unanswered questions and promoting the highest possible standards of conservation practice. The GCI is a program of the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural and philanthropic organization devoted to the visual arts and the humanities that includes an art museum as well as programs for education, scholarship, and conservation. Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, is distributed free of charge three times per year, to professionals in conservation and related fields and to members of the public concerned about conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fm 6-27 Mctp 11-10C the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare
    FM 6-27 MCTP 11-10C THE COMMANDER'S HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE AUGUST 2019 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This publication supersedes FM 27-10/MCTP 11-10C, dated 18 July 1956. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Foreword The lessons of protracted conflict confirm that adherence to the law of armed conflict (LOAC) by the land forces, both in intern ational and non-international armed conflict, must serve as the standard that we train to and apply across the entire range of military operations. Adhering to LOAC enhances the legitimacy of our operations and supports the moral framework of our armed forces. We have learned th at we deviate from these norms to our detriment and risk undercutting both domesti c and international support for our operations. LOAC has been and remains a vital guide for all military operations conducted by the U.S. Governm ent. This fi eld manual provides a general description of the law of land warfare for Soldiers and Marines, delineated as statements of doctrine and practice, to gui de the land forces in conducting di sci plined military operations in accordance with the rule of law. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 20 15, updated December 2016) is the authoritative statement on the law of war for the Department of Defense. In the event of a conflict or discrepancy regarding the legal standards addressed in this publication and th e DOD Law of War Manual, the latter takes precedence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: a Crime Against Property Or a Crime Against People?
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: A CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY OR A CRIME AGAINST PEOPLE? PATTY GERSTENBLITH ABSTRACT The destruction of cultural heritage has played a prominent role in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq and in the recent conflict in Mali. This destruction has displayed the failure of international law to effectively deter these actions. This article reviews existing international law in light of this destruction and the challenges posed by the issues of non-international armed conflict, non-state actors and the military necessity exception. By examining recent developments in applicable international law, the article proposes that customary international law has evolved to interpret existing legal instruments and doctrines concerning cultural heritage in light of the principles of proportionality and distinction and a definition of intentionality that includes extreme negligence and willful disregard. As a result, international law may more effectively foster the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations. Copyright © 2016 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Patty Gerstenblith, The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Crime Against Property or a Crime Against People?, 15 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 336 (2016). THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: A CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY OR A CRIME AGAINST PEOPLE? PATTY GERSTENBLITH I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Actions and Effects of Dr. Zahi Hawass
    Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 Museums and Restitution: The Actions and Effects of Dr. Zahi Hawass Bonnie Jean Roche Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Repository Citation Roche, Bonnie Jean, "Museums and Restitution: The Actions and Effects of Dr. Zahi Hawass" (2011). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1049. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1049 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MUSEUMS AND RESTITUTION: THE ACTIONS AND EFFECTS OF DR. ZAHI HAWASS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Humanities By BONNIE JEAN ROCHE Bachelors of Liberal Arts Bowling Green State University, 2008 2011 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES June 10, 2011 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Bonnie Jean Roche ENTITLED Museums and Restitution: The Actions and Effects of Dr. Zahi Hawass BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Humanities. _________________________________ Donovan Miyasaki, Ph.D. Project Director _________________________________ Ava Chamberlain, Ph.D. Director, Master of Humanities Program Committee on Final Examination: __________________________________ Dawne Dewey, MA. __________________________________ Karla Huebner, Ph.D. __________________________________ Andrew Hsu, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies ABSTRACT Roche, Bonnie Jean.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protection of Cultural Property and Post-Conflict Kosovo
    THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY AND POST-CONFLICT KOSOVO ∗ Par Eduard Serbenco In the context of the unprecedented level of cultural destruction taking place in Kosovo since the international community took over in 1999, the author of this article seeks to provide an answer to two questions. First, whether the Serbian-built religious heritage in Kosovo deserves any international protection. Second, whether the two international authorities in place in Kosovo, UNMIK and KFOR, a NATO-led military force, are under any legal obligation to protect this religious heritage. Relying on the relevant international law provisions, the author determines that items of Serbian-built religious heritage in Kosovo qualify as cultural property of international value, thereby deserving international protection. Examining further the legal mandate received by the international administration in Kosovo, the author argues that both UNMIK and KFOR exercise public authority in this province, thus placing the Serbian religious heritage in question under their jurisdiction. As a result, the author concludes that the legal obligation to ensure the protection of cultural heritage in Kosovo, although normally assigned by international law to the territorial state, here devolves upon these two international entities. Considérant le niveau sans précédent de destruction de biens culturels au Kosovo depuis la prise de contrôle par la communauté internationale en 1999, l’auteur de cet article tente de répondre à deux questions. Premièrement, l’héritage religieux bâti serbe du Kosovo mérite-t-il une protection internationale? Deuxièmement, les deux autorités internationales en place au Kosovo, soit le MINUK et le FORK, une force militaire menée par l’OTAN, ont-elles l’obligation de protéger cet héritage culturel? Après une analyse du droit international pertinent, l’auteur soutient que les édifices religieux serbes au Kosovo peuvent être qualifiées de biens culturels possédant une valeur internationale et que, de ce fait, elles méritent d’être protégées.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Cultural Property in Iraq: How American Military Policy Comports with International Law
    Note Protecting Cultural Property in Iraq: How American Military Policy Comports with International Law Matthew D. Thurlow† I. INTRODUCTION As American troops entered Baghdad as a liberating force on April 9, 2003, a wave of looting engulfed the city. Iraqi looters ransacked government buildings, stores, churches, and private homes stealing anything they could carry and defacing symbols of the defunct Hussein regime. American authorities had not anticipated the magnitude or the fervor of the civil disorder. But the looting over the course of two to three days at Iraq’s National Museum, home to the world’s greatest collection of Babylonian, Sumerian, and Assyrian antiquities, stood apart from the rest of the pillaging and vandalism in Baghdad. Months before, prominent members of the international archaeological community contacted the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. State Department with concerns about the Museum.1 Nonetheless, as the threat materialized, American forces largely stood idle as a rampaging mob ravaged the collection. Initial reports noted that 170,000 objects had been taken including some of the world’s most priceless ancient treasures.2 In the following weeks, the anger of Iraqis, archaeologists, and cultural aesthetes bubbled over in a series of accusatory and condemnatory newspaper reports and editorials.3 † J.D. Candidate, Yale Law School, 2005. Many thanks to Abigail Horn, Kyhm Penfil, Nicholas Robinson, Professor Susan Scafidi, Katherine Southwick, and the many helpful people in the United States armed services. Lastly, a special thanks to George L. Thurlow (grandpa) and Robert G. Thurlow (dad) for blazing the lawyering trail. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Property Protection Outside of Armed Conflict Cultural Property
    Cultural Property Protection Cultural Property Protection During Armed Conflict Outside of Armed Conflict The “Roerich Pact” of 1935 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing In 1929, Russian painter and philosopher Nicholas Roerich and Paris the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property University international law and political science professor George At the end of the 1960s, thefts of cultural and historical artifacts were Chklaver drafted an international treaty dedicated to the protection of increasing both in museums and at archaeological sites, particularly cultural values. The intent was to create a neutrality status for cultural in the countries of the southern hemisphere. In the developed world, property paralleling the medical one previously established by the private collectors and museums alike, were increasingly offered objects Red Cross. Roerich simultaneously proposed a distinctive emblem that had been fraudulently imported or were of unidentified origin. to identify objects protected under the treaty; a “banner of peace.” The banner follows the color scheme of the Red Cross flag to provide It is in this context, and to address such situations, that UNESCO created a distinctive and highly recognizable emblem, which is reproduced the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit below. The draft treaty accompanied by an appeal from Roerich to Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property in 1970. governments and peoples of all countries
    [Show full text]
  • The Roerich Pact and the Military
    THE ROERICH PACT AND THE MILITARY Exhibition Catalogue “75 Years Roerich Pact” Sonderpublikation ReproZ W 3647/10 Schriftenreihe der ISBN: 978-3-902670-46-5 8/2010/S Landesverteidigungsakademie www.bundesheer.at www.bundesheer.at Sonderpublikation Schriftenreihe der Landesverteidigungsakademie Leylya M. Strobl, Friedrich T. Schipper (Eds.) THE ROERICH PACT AND THE MILITARY Exhibition Catalogue “75 Years Roerich Pact“ 8/2010/S Wien, September 2010 Impressum: Amtliche Publikation der Republik Österreich / Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung und Sport Schriftenreihe der Landesverteidigungsakademie Medieninhaber, Herausgeber, Hersteller: Republik Österreich / Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung und Sport BMLVS, Rossauer Lände 1, 1090 Wien Redaktion: Institut für Human- und Sozialwissenschaften Militärpsychologie und Bildungswissenschaften Landesverteidigungsakademie Stiftgasse 2a, 1070 Wien ObstdG MMag. Dr. Andreas W. Stupka e-mail: [email protected] Erscheinungsjahr: September 2010 Druck: Reprozentrum Wien 1070 Wien, Stiftgasse 2a THE ROERICH PACT AND THE MILITARY EXHIBITION CATALOGUE “75 YEARS ROERICH PACT” Edited by Leylya M. Strobl and Friedrich T. Schipper Editors: Leylya M. Strobl, director of the Austrian Roerich Society – National Committee of the Roerich Pact and member of the executive board of the Austrian National Committee of the Blue Shield. Friedrich T. Schipper, secretary general of the Austrian National Committee of the Blue Shield and chair of the scientific board of the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property, archaeologist at the University of Vienna. Catalogue published by the National Defence Academy, Austria, in collaboration with the Austrian National Committee of the Blue Shield, the Austrian Roerich Society - National Committee of the Roerich Pact and the International Centre of the Roerichs, Moscow, Russian Federation, in conjuction with the exhibition “75 years Roerich Pact”.
    [Show full text]
  • Repatriation of Cultural Goods
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Repatriation of cultural objects: The case of China Liu, Z. Publication date 2015 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Liu, Z. (2015). Repatriation of cultural objects: The case of China. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:24 Sep 2021 Repatriation of Cultural Objects: The Case of China Zuozhen Liu © Zuozhen Liu This study is financed by the Oversea Study Program of Guangzhou Elite Project. Repatriation of Cultural Objects The Case of China ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op dinsdag 14 april 2015, te 10.00 uur door Zuozhen Liu geboren te Guangdong, China Promotor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • State Practice Following World War II, 1945-1990
    Chapter IV State Practice Following World War II, 1945-1990 A paper by George K. Walker * Comments by L. C. Green Walker 121 State Practice Following World War II, 1945-1990 I. Introduction At least ten armed conflicts at sea since W orld War II have involved targeting issues concerning enemy merchant shipping and neutral vessels that have acquired enemy character: the Korean conflict of 1950-53 and naval actions connected with the civil war in China, 1949-58; the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948-57, 1967, 1973 and 1982; the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971; the Vietnam War, with principal U.S. forces involvement between 1962 and 1973; the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982; and, most importandy, the Iran-Iraq Tanker War of 1980-88. There was no global war similar to the experiences of World Wars I and II; in all cases the arenas of attack were relatively localized. However, to some participants the conflict was total, e.g., the Tanker War as to the belligerents, Iran and Iraq; to neutral bystanders, involved to a greater or lesser degree (e.g. the United States in the Tanker War), the conflict was only a regional, second or third level affair. Although these conflicts overlapped each other in point of beginning and duration, they may be analyzed conveniendy in the sequence listed above. This chapter will also attempt to interweave other major sources of state practice - e.g., treaties,l in some cases like UNCLOS,2 not yet in force - that may have impact on this area, albeit tangentially, in the future.
    [Show full text]