Master Thesis France and the Repatriation of Cultural Objects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Communication Erasmus University Rotterdam Master Thesis Master Cultural Economics and Entrepreneurship France and the repatriation of Erasmus School of History, Culture and cultural objects Evaluating individual preferences for French cultural policy with respect to repatriation. Academic Year 2018-2019 Student: Tiphaine de Saint-Laurent Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Isidoro Mazza Student number : 501211 Second Reader: Dr. Anna Mignosa Date : June, 2019 Abstract In the past couple years, due to the decision of President Emmanuel Macron to return African cultural property to African States, the repatriation of cultural objects to their countries of origin has become a hot topic in France. The geographical repartition of cultural heritage is a complex issue, entangled with history, culture, politics and law. This study focuses on the issues of human rights, multiculturalism, cultural identity or recognition related to the repatriation of cultural heritage as well as on the international legal regimes protecting cultural property. A wide literature has addressed the subject of repatriation and of its various aspects. Nevertheless, despite the studies on that subject and the organization of symposia on the value of repatriation, there is still research on what people (citizens of a State, members of nation or cultural group…) believe and expect from repatriation. By using self-administered questionnaires, this quantitative study attempts to investigate French citizens’ opinion on what considerations should be taken into account when returning cultural objects to their countries of origin. Keywords: Cultural property; heritage ownership; looted artefact; cultural property disputes; return; restitution; repatriation; relocated art; protection of cultural heritage; international relationships; ethics; cultural diplomacy; soft power. ii Acknowledgements My Master thesis was a long-winded project that I could never have done without the help and support of my entourage in France and in the Netherlands. I am particularly thankful to my family who supported me and never avoided any of my questions whenever I was struggling with the ethical, philosophical and political dilemma raised by my thesis’ topic. I am also grateful to Emma Deblangy and Marie Dermont for always accepting to help me correcting my works and to Léo Wanty and Estelle Medous for their precious assistance with the statistical analysis of my data. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Pr. Isidoro Mazza for his expert assistance during my research and for constantly motivating and encouraging me throughout the thesis project. Tiphaine de Saint-Laurent, June, 2019 iii Table of Content Abstract .................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. iii Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vi Terminology ....................................................................................................... viii I. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 1. Research background ............................................................................................ 1 2. Research questions ................................................................................................ 2 3. Research objectives............................................................................................... 3 4. Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................... 4 II. Literature review ............................................................................................. 5 1. Disputes over cultural heritage ............................................................................. 5 a. Culture objects and the construction of cultural identity ............................................. 5 b. The power of possession .............................................................................................. 6 c. Who owns cultural objects? ......................................................................................... 8 d. Opposing views on the return of cultural property .................................................... 10 2. Cultural objects as diplomatic instruments ......................................................... 16 a. What is cultural diplomacy? ...................................................................................... 17 b. Heritage and museum diplomacy .............................................................................. 18 III. International legal regimes protecting cultural objects ................................. 20 1. Protection of cultural objects in the event of armed conflicts ............................ 20 2. Protection of cultural objects against illegal trafficking ..................................... 24 3. Soft-laws and ethics principles reinforcing the protection of cultural objects ... 26 4. Legal hurdles surrounding restitution claims and alternative dispute resolution means ......................................................................................................................... 27 IV. France’s position on disputes over cultural heritage .................................... 29 1. French legislation protecting cultural objects ..................................................... 29 2. Restitution of cultural objects in France ............................................................. 30 3. A shift of French cultural policy under Emmanuel Macron’s presidency? ........ 32 a. A new official position on cultural property restitution ............................................ 32 b. The diplomatic use of arts and culture ....................................................................... 35 V. Research Methodology ................................................................................. 38 1. Why France? ....................................................................................................... 38 iv 2. Research design and methods ............................................................................. 38 3. Questionnaire development ................................................................................ 39 4. Data collection and analysis ............................................................................... 39 VI. Results and discussion .................................................................................. 41 1. Respondents’ profile ........................................................................................... 41 2. Hypotheses on the influence of socio-demographic factors ............................... 43 3. Descriptive analysis ............................................................................................ 44 a. General statements on the repatriation of cultural objects......................................... 44 b. Restitution in France .................................................................................................. 45 c. Influence of socio-demographic factors on respondents’ opinion of restitution ....... 50 d. Patterns of opinion ..................................................................................................... 54 e. Principal Component Analysis .................................................................................. 57 4. Limitations and future research .......................................................................... 57 VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 59 References ........................................................................................................... 61 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 1 : self-completed questionnaire ............................................................... 69 Appendix 2: coding of the data for analysis using R studio 1.1.463 ......................... 77 Appendix 3: Univariate statistics ............................................................................... 89 Appendix 4: Pearson correlation matrices ................................................................. 96 v Abbreviations ADR Alternative Dispute Resolutions App. Appendix Art. Article BC Before Christ BNF Bibliothèque Nationale de France (France) CGPPP Code Général de la Propriété des Personnes Publiques (France) Cf. Confer CP Code du Patrimoine (France) DIVUM (2002) Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums (2002) EEC European Economic Community EU European Union ICOM International Council of Museums ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites MNR Musées Nationaux de Récupération (France) NAGPRA The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; November 16, 1990) PACA Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur PCA Principal Component Analysis UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization US The United States USSR Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics UK The United Kingdom WWII The Second World War Lieber Code Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (April 24, 1863) Brussels Declaration Project of an International