PANEL 18
ILLEGALLY TRADED CULTURAL ARTIFACTS: WILL THE MUSEUMS
SHOWING ANCIENT ARTIFACTS BE EMPTY SOON?
______
Malcolm (Max) Howlett,
Sciaroni & Associates.
The Hypothetical
For decades, Cambodian art has been acquired by private collectors and museums such as the
Melaten Museum of Brooklyn, New York, USA (“MeltMuseum”), and the Museum für
Asiatische Kunst of Berlin, Germany (Museum of Asian Art or “Asian Kunst Museum”).
These pieces of art have been bought directly at auctions, or, in the case of museums,
obtained as gifts from collectors. Among these artworks are:
• a relief from temples in Angkor dating to the 9th century which is in the collection of
the MeltMuseum (the “Relief”);
• a sandstone statue of a horse from the temple in Preah Vihear dating to the 7th century
which is part of the collection of the Asian Kunst Museum (the “Horse”); and
• a statue of a lion from the temple in Banteay Chhmar dating to the 11th century which
is part of the collection of Koh Lek Ter, a wealthy Singaporean businessman (the
“Lion”).
The École Française D’Extrême-Orient (French School for Far Eastern Studies) did extensive historical and legal research about the origins of the three artifacts. It turns out that:
• The relief was taken during the French colonial period in the 1930s by an American
archeologist with the knowledge of the local government and brought to the USA, but
no approval had been granted by the French colonial government of that time. It was
given to the MeltMuseum by the heirs of the archeologist in 1962. • Regarding the Horse, it is unknown when and by whom it was taken from Cambodia
and if any governmental body of Cambodia had agreed to its removal from the
country. It first appeared in an auction catalogue of the London auction house
Bommelham in 1981, and the Asian Kunst Museum was the winning bidder for the
artwork at the auction.
• The Lion was stolen during the unrest in Cambodia in the 1970s, then sold by a
Cambodian artifacts dealer in Phnom Penh to a British collector who sold it to Koh in
1995.
The Office of the Council of Ministers of the Royal Government of Cambodia has asked its
legal advisors if it can and should pursue claims for recovery of all three artifacts against the
Meltmuseum, the Asian Kunst Museum and Koh, what legal defenses they may have, and where to commence litigation if necessary.
2
THE CAMBODIAN POSITION ON RECOVERY OF ARTIFACTS
Selected Legal Instruments Regarding Protection of Cultural Property
Pre-Colonial and Colonial Property and Cultural Protection Laws
Under ancient Cambodian law the King was the owner of all immovable property in
the Kingdom of Cambodia.1 On August 11, 1863 a Treaty was made between the Emperor of
France and the King of Cambodia by which a Protectorate of France was established over
Cambodia. In 1884, a Convention between the Kingdom of Cambodia and France resulted,
in fact, in the delegation, or handing over, of the administrative power of the State to the
French.2
In 1900 the French Governor General of Indochina issued an Arrêté (in Khmer, a
“Prakas” – an administrative instrument or regulation) on the preservation of monuments and
objects of historical or artistic interest. The Prakas provided for a system of classification and
declassification of immovable properties being monuments and objects of historical or artistic
interest. Classification, and de-classification, was established by a Prakas of the Governor
General, following upon a report by the French School for Far Eastern Studies and upon the
advice of the Permanent Commission of the Superior Council of Indochina.3 Once an
immovable property had been classified, the property could only be disposed of with the
authorization of the Governor General.4 Once an immovable property had been classified it could not be destroyed, even in part (which would include its removal or partial removal), nor
1 Land Law of Cambodia, A Study and Research Manual, East West Management Institute, Inc., Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2003, p.19, citing Kleinpeter, Roger, Le Problème foncier au Cambodge, Thèse pour le Doctorat, Paris, Les Editions Domat-Montchrestien F.Loviton & Cie, 1937, p.40-41. 2 Land Law of Cambodia, A Study and Research Manual, East West Management Institute, Inc., Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2003, p.21. 3 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 1. 4 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 2.
3
could it be the object of any repair, restoration or modification without the consent of the
Governor General.5 Significantly, the Prakas provided that the consequences of classification
followed the classified immovable property regardless of to whom the property may have
been passed.6 The Governor General was also empowered to pursue the expropriation of
classified objects, even against private owners.7
The 1900 Arrêté (Prakas) also dealt with movable objects of historical or artistic
interest. Movable objects constituting part of the national domain, whose preservation was of public interest from the point of view of history or art, could be classified by the Director of the French School for Far Eastern Studies, such classification becoming final upon the approval of the Governor General. Declassification followed the same process as for
immovable properties.8 Once classified, such objects became inalienable and imprescriptible.9
Of particular relevance is Article 17 of the 1900 Arrêté (Prakas). It states that
“ownership of art or archeological objects, buildings, bas-reliefs, statues, medals, vases, columns or inscriptions which may exist on or in the soil of immovable properties constituting a part of the national domain in Indochina or granted by the Government to private individuals shall be reserved for the domain”.10 In this instance there was no
requirement of classification in order to establish state ownership. All such objects fitting
within the list set out in Article 17 were automatically state owned by virtue of their nature.
5 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 4. 6 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 8. 7 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 9. 8 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Articles 10-11. 9 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 12. 10 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 17.
4
The 1900 Arrêté (Prakas) also provided that no monument could be exported, in
whole or in part, from the territory of French Indochina (including present day Cambodia) without authorization of the Governor General. Without this authorization, such objects
would be seized by the Customs authorities, and the General Governor was then empowered
to decide upon the destination of such a piece, following the prescribed formalities, and
without prejudice to the bringing of a prosecution against an offender. This provision was
also applicable to objects that were removed from monuments prior to the promulgation of
the present Prakas, that is, before 1900, as well as to classified objects that are concealed in
violation of Articles 13 and 15 of the Prakas11. The practical effect of this provision is that no
classified object or part of a classified monument could leave Indochina without authorization
of the Governor General, including classified objects that were not part of the national
domain and that had been disposed of by sale, gift or exchange.
Collectively, these provisions mean that cultural artifacts have always been the property of the state. Title to the artifacts in question could only pass with the express authorization of the Governor General, regardless of whether the artworks were classified.
The Relief, even though it was taken with the knowledge of the local government, is subject
to these laws, as no authorization was given permitting its removal. Furthermore, according
to Article 20 of the 1900 Arrêté (Prakas), even if the Horse was removed from the temple in
Preah Vihear prior to 1900, it still would have been subject to the authorization requirements
of the Prakas. Any removal without authorization permitted Customs authorities to seize the
artifact and allowed the Governor General to decide upon its destination and bring a
prosecution against the offender.
In May, 1925 the Governor General issued another Prakas pertaining to the
classification of movable objects belonging to the colonial domain. The Prakas re-iterated
11 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina on preservation of monuments and objects of historical or artistic interest, March 9, 1900, Article 20.
5
that antiquities (items of art or archaeology, sculptures, medals, money, vases, jewelry,
inscriptions, tools, or prehistoric objects, etc.,) that may be discovered on or in the grounds of
land belonging to the colonial domain, local domain, municipal domain, to a public
establishment, or an individual who has received the land under concession from the public
authority, shall be reserved for the state.12 The Prakas also provided that all movable objects
belonging to a classified immovable are also considered to be classified. Thus, a statue such
as the Horse removed from a monument that has been classified, is also classified.13
Furthermore, no antiquity, including art objects, statues, sculptures, inscriptions in stone,
wood or metal from the Indochinese origin and before the nineteenth century, could be
exported from French Indochina unless accompanied by a certificate of non-classification
issued by the Director of the French School for Far Eastern Studies or his delegates specially
appointed by him for that purpose. If the exporter could not produce the certificate of non-
classification, the object would be retained by the Customs service until such certificate could
be produced.14 This would apply to the Horse and is particularly relevant for the Relief,
which was taken shortly thereafter during the 1930’s.
Also in May, 1925, the Governor General issued another Prakas classifying certain historical monuments of Indochina. The Prakas provided that both the immovable and movable objects situated within the limits of the territorial union of Indochina that are listed and enumerated in the tables annexed to that Prakas, are classified as the historical monuments and objects of French Indochina.15 The Tables annexed to the Prakas included
670 historical monuments in Cambodia. If the artifacts are among this list of classified
12 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina of May 6, 1925, pertaining to the classification of movable objects belonging to the colonial domain, Article 7. 13 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina of May 6, 1925, pertaining to the classification of movable objects belonging to the colonial domain, Article 9. 14 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina of May 6, 1925, pertaining to the classification of movable objects belonging to the colonial domain, Article 10 (with italics added). 15 Prakas of the Governor General of Indochina of May 16, 1925, pertaining to the Classification of the historical monuments of Indochina, Article 1.
6
monuments, this would be another legal basis for a recovery claim from the Royal
Government of Cambodia, if none of the artifacts were accompanied by a certificate of non-
classification. The Temple of Preah Vihear where the Horse originates from is one of the
monuments listed (at item 624). A series of further Prakas and other legal instruments
reinforced the system of classification and export authorization through the remainder of the
colonial period until Cambodia and remained in force even after independence was gained
from France in 1953.
Post-Independence Property and Cultural Protection Laws
In 1949, as Cambodia moved towards full independence from France, a Franco-
Cambodian Cultural Agreement transferred the functions and powers for protection, classification and conservation of historical monuments in the territory of Cambodia from the
Republic of France to the Royal Government of Cambodia.16 A Minute (Procès-Verbal) of
August 9, 1951, of the Republic of France also referenced the transfer to the Royal
Government of Cambodia the Powers of Conservation of the Historical Monuments.
According to this Minute, the power over conservation of the immovable and movable
objects (including bas-reliefs and statues) classified and in the list annexed to the Minute was
transferred to the Cambodian authorities. The Annex to the Minute refers to 785 listed
objects. If the three artifacts are found on this list, or of the temples from which they were
sourced are found on that list, it is another legal instrument that can be used by the
Cambodian authorities to support their claim for recovery.
On 21 September 1993, after more than two decades of civil warfare a new
Constitution was adopted, pursuant to which, in 1996, the Royal Government adopted a Law
on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. The purpose of the law is to protect the national
16 Franco-Cambodian Cultural Agreement of November 8th, 1949, Article 38.
7
cultural heritage and cultural property in general against destruction, modification, alteration,
excavation, alienation and exportation.17 The national cultural heritage includes cultural
property created on or discovered on national territory and applies to both immovable and
movable property. Cultural property is considered to be any work produced by human agency
of a historic, religious, artistic or scientific nature which bears witness to a certain stage in the
development of a civilization, and whose protection is in the public interest.18 The three
artifacts (the Relief, the Horse and the Lion), all created between the 7th and 11th century, are
clearly part of that national cultural heritage.
The 1996 Law also provided for the keeping of an inventory of public and private
cultural property and the classification or registration of public and private cultural property
from the inventory.19 Once classified, the cultural property becomes imprescriptible and once classified, the publicly owned classified property becomes inalienable.20 Sale of
classified (or proposed to be classified) private cultural property is permissible, but only if the
beneficiary is informed of the classification status and the authorities are informed of the
details of the sale.21 The alienation of materials or fragments illegally removed from cultural
property that has been classified or proposed for classification, including any transfer of
possession or control to a third party is null and void and such third parties are not entitled to
compensation from the State.22 The 1996 Law also gives the State a right of pre-emption for the purchase of any cultural property in the inventory, classified or proposed for classification, as well as a right of expropriation over such immovable cultural property.23
Under this law, the export of any cultural object is prohibited, unless a special export license
17 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Article 1. 18 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Articles 2-4. 19 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Articles 7-27. 20 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Articles 19-20. 21 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Article 21. 22 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Article 22. 23 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Articles 28-29.
8
has been granted for the purpose.24 Any attempt to export cultural objects without such a
license will entail the seizure and confiscation of the objects.25 The 1996 Law also provides
for a series of offenses and penalties, including imprisonment of up to eight years and fines
equal to double the value of the objects in question, for alienating cultural property classified
or proposed for classification; selling such property without informing the authorities (or the
purchaser); exporting or attempting to export such cultural property without a license and for
other offences against the law relating to the protection of such cultural property.26
International Legal Instruments Regarding Cultural Property Protection
In addition to the domestic laws discussed above, international legal instruments can
also be used to strengthen Cambodia’s claims for recovery of the artifacts. For example, of
particular importance to the Horse, from the temple in Preah Vihear, is the 1953 dispute
between Cambodia and Thailand. In response to Thailand’s claim over the temple,
Cambodia instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice asserting its territorial sovereignty.27 In 1962 the International Court of Justice rejected the Thai claim of
sovereignty over the temple and found that the temple was situated in territory under the
sovereignty of Cambodia. On July 15, 2008, Cambodia successfully applied to have the
temple inscribed into the UNESCO World Heritage List. This classification provides a strong
basis for a claim against Germany to recover the Horse, if it was removed from Preah Vihear
without authorization.
24 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Article 51. 25 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Article 56. See also the Sub- Decree No. 98 of September 17, 2002 on the Protection of Cultural Patrimony, Article 44. 26 Law NS/RKM/0196/26 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, January 25, 1996, Articles 63-65. 27 International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits), Judgment of June 15, 1962, especially at 31-32.
9
In 1972 Cambodia became the seventh State to ratify the Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property (Paris, 14 November 1970). The Convention entered into force in April 24th, 1972,
and for Cambodia, three months after its ratification on September 26, 1972.28 The United
States acceded to the Convention on September 1, 1983 and Germany ratified on November
30, 2007. According to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the State Parties undertake to help
“make the necessary reparations” to oppose the “illicit import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property”29. Article 7(b)(ii) states that all State Parties undertake “at the
request of the State Party of origin, to take the appropriate steps to recover and return any
such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention in both States
concerned, provided, however, that the requesting State shall pay just compensation to an
innocent purchaser or to a person who has valid title to that property.”30 Similarly, Article 13
provides that all State Parties must facilitate “the earliest possible restitution of illicitly
exported cultural property to its rightful owner.”31 Unfortunately, both the Relief and the
Horse appear to have left Cambodia prior to the entry into force of the Convention in
Cambodia and the USA and Cambodia and Germany respectively.
In 1999, the Royal Government of Cambodia submitted a request to the Government
of the United States of America to impose restriction on the importation of Khmer cultural
objects onto US territory.32 This resulted in a 2003 Memorandum of Understanding
protecting Cambodian artifacts and preventing their import into the United States, and the
28 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 14 November 1970), Article 21. For ratification by Cambodia, see: http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13039&language=E&order=alpha 29 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 14 November 1970), Articles 2 and 3. 30 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 14 November 1970), Article 7. 31 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 14 November 1970), Article 13. 32 http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/about_apsara/police/looting/international.html
10
2008 renewal and extension of the Memorandum of Understanding to Archaeological
Material from Cambodia from the Bronze Age through the Khmer Era. Under this
Memorandum of Understanding, the Government of the United States of America shall
restrict importation into the United States of certain categories of archaeological material
identified in its Designated List and shall offer to return them to Cambodia. In pursuing a claim for the recovery of the Relief, this Agreement may be of particular relevance.
11