CRIMEAN GOLD in the CROSSHAIRS of GEOPOLITICS Volume 18 Number 1 2017 Volume

IFARJOURNAL

INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ART RESEARCH

In this issue VOLUME 18 NO. 1 2017 THE QUEDLINBURG TREASURES; CRIMEAN GOLD; GUELPH TREASURE CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS Volume 18 Number 1 2017 Volume

The Quedlinburg Treasures: Would Anything Be Different Now?

Guelph Treasure; Hobby Lobby; Adam & Eve Redux;

INCORPORATING Resale Royalties; STOLEN ART ALERT® and more … 2 NEWS & UPDATES

2 Gulf Over Guelph – Dispute Over “Guelph Treasure” Continues As Court Stays Case Pending Outcome of Appeal

5 Adam and Eve Still in Limbo – Briefs Filed in Third Appeal to Ninth Circuit Over Cranach Diptych

7 In Brief—Libya; de Csepel; Cassirer

8 Despite Long Odds, Artists Continue Fight to Preserve California Resale Royalty Act

10 Hobby Lobby Settles Loot Suit

13 Third Time Not the Charm (so far) for NY State Bill Protecting Art Experts

16 THE RECOVERY OF THE QUEDLINBURG TREASURES: WOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT NOW? An IFAR Evening, April 24, 2017 16 Introduction 18 The Quedlinburg Treasures: Highlights and Mysteries Charles T. Little 23 The Quedlinburg Treasures: The Legal Context for Recovery Thomas R. Kline 26 Q & A

32 TWO NEW RESOURCES FOR STUDYING THE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF ARTWORKS Joyce Hill Stoner, Kristin DeGhetaldi, and Brian Baade

36 CRI-ME-A-RIVER! CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS Evelien Campfens and Irina Tarsis

49 STOLEN ART ALERT®

COVER: Armband (Scythian, 900-100 BC). Gold and glass. Loaned to the Allard Pierson Museum. Photo: AP Museum. See story on p. 36.

IFAR® JOURNAL VOL. 18, No. 1 © 2017 1 International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) www.ifar.org This article from IFAR Journal, v. 18.1, cannot be reproduced or printed elsewhere without the express permission of IFAR.

CRI-ME-A-RIVER! CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS EVELIEN CAMPFENS* AND IRINA TARSIS*

INTRODUCTION1 Black Sea (FIG. 5). Comprised of more than 500 In February 2014, when the fourth President of archaeological objects, the loans came from five Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, defected to Russia, Ukrainian institutions, four of which are in an international art exhibition of thirty Andrei Crimea.3 Originally scheduled from February to Rublev icons loaned to Kiev from Moscow’s Central May 2014, the loans were extended through August.4 CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art was 2 abruptly and prematurely closed, and the “The AP Museum's dilemma— loaned objects hastily returned to Moscow. Due to protests against the Yanukovich gov- where should it return the borrowed materials: ernment that ultimately led to his ouster, it to the Ukrainian State that authorized the was deemed unsafe to continue to lend cultur- loan or to the individual Crimean institutions ally significant Rublev icons to the capital of that lent their objects …?” Ukraine. As fate would have it, the very same The political unrest that prompted Yanukovich to month, hundreds of Ukrainian objects — weapons, flee Ukraine was soon followed by Russian inter- decorative objects, sculptures (FIGS. 1-4) — arrived vention in Crimea. Less than halfway through the at the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam (the AP Museum loan period, Crimea seceded from “AP Museum”) for the second leg of a touring exhi- Ukraine and was annexed by the Russian Federa- bition entitled Crimea: The Golden Island in the tion, an act disavowed by most members of the

United Nations. This event unhinged the clear *Evelien Campfens was director of the Dutch Restitutions terms of the loan agreement, which stipulated an Committee from its founding until 2016 and, at present, holds a research position at the the Grotius Centre for International Legal orderly return of the borrowed Ukrainian artifacts Studies at Leiden University. to the participating museums. Thus arose the AP *Irina Tarsis, Esq., is the founding director of the Center for Art Law Museum’s dilemma. Where should it return the in New York and a practicing attorney specializing in art and cultural property law. borrowed materials: to the Ukrainian State that authorized the loan or to the individual Crimean

1 These gold materials are alternatively referred to as “Scythian Gold” or “Crimean Gold,” a nuanced distinction akin to referencing 3 The five museums are: The National Museum of History of Ukraine antiquities removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin as either the (Kiev), the Central Museum of Tavrida (Simferopl), the Kerch “Parthenon Marbles” or the “Elgin Marbles.” The Crimean objects are Historical and Cultural Preserve (Kerch), the Bakhchisaray History of multicultural origin, however, and are not only Scythian. and Culture State Preserve of the Republic of Crimea (Bakhchisaray), and the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos (Sevastopol). 2 See, for example, “Old Russian icons are taken from Kiev exhibition ahead of schedule to escape the danger of damage,” Interfax Religion 4 See 2.4, Amsterdam District Court, 14 December 2016, case number (February 26, 2014). HA ZA 14-1179/ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:8264.

2017 © . 1 o

VOL. 18, N VOL.

JOURNAL Sword and Scabbard Sword (Scythian, 900-100 BC). 900-100 BC). (Scythian, 1. IFAR® Helmet 4. FIGURE Gold. 900 -100 BC). (Scythian, Museum. Pierson Allard the Loaned to FIGURE Museum. Pierson Allard the Loaned to Gold. (Scythian, 900-100 BC). 900-100 BC). (Scythian,

Dolphin 2. FIGURE Allard the Loaned to crystal. Gold and rock Museum. Pierson (Scythian, 900-100 BC). 900-100 BC). (Scythian, Brooch 3. All Photos Courtesy AP Museum. Courtesy All Photos FIGURE the Loaned to glass. and green Gold gemstone Museum. Pierson Allard institutions that lent Amsterdam District Court rendered a decision as their objects to the show? to how the AP Museum ought to handle the Crime- an loans: they would be returned to Ukraine.8 In The international dis- January 2017, that ruling was appealed. While the pute was further compli- artifacts remain in storage in Amsterdam pending cated by tragic events in the outcome of the appeal, this case offers a wealth the territory of Ukraine of political, legal and ethical dilemmas for experts – the military opera- in the field of cultural property disputes. The Dis- tions, the devastation trict Court verdict illustrates the central role of in war-affected areas, state authorities in the context of international art and the more than 1.4 loans and the 1970 UNESCO Convention. million internally displaced persons. Not the BACKGROUND least of these tragedies was the downing of a Present-day Ukraine declared its independence in Malaysian jetliner flying 19919 following the collapse of the Union of Soviet FIGURE 5. Cover of the Allard Pierson Museum’s exhibition catalogue for over Ukraine on July 17, Socialist Republics, a.k.a. the Soviet Union, a geo- Crimea: The Golden Island in the Black Sea. 2014. Having departed political experiment that lasted for 70 years. The from Amsterdam on its history and cultural patrimony of Ukraine is, itself, way to Kuala Lumpur, a hotly contested subject, due in great part to the the plane was shot down together with all 298 pas- ever-changing borders and sovereignty of its dif-

CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS 10 sengers and crew on board—many of whom were ferent parts (FIG. 6). It is telling that the national of Dutch nationality.5 anthem begins with less than enthusiastic lyrics, “The glory and the freedom of Ukraine has not In August 2014 the exhibition in Amsterdam came yet died/Shche ne vmerly Ukrainy ni slava ni volya.” to an end, and 19 of the more than 500 borrowed Until the Mongolian invasion in the 13th century, artifacts were returned to the museum in Kiev, as Kievan Rus’, with the seat of power in Kiev, was these were not contested.6 The objects from the the center of East Slavic culture and the strongest four museums in Crimea, however, remained in of the Slavic principalities. Later, parts of present Amsterdam due to opposing claims, and the stand- day Ukraine were dominated or annexed by the still was brought to court in The Netherlands for Kingdom of Poland, Duchy of Lithuania, Crimean adjudication.7 Parties to the court case were the Khanate, Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, four Crimean museums (hereinafter the “Crimean Russian Empire, and the Czechoslovak Republic. In Museums”), the State of Ukraine and the Uni- the 20th century, Ukraine’s formation was marked versity of Amsterdam (acting on behalf of the AP by multiple declarations of independence, including Museum). Ultimately, on December 14, 2016, the those in 1917, 1941, and 1990-91.

5 See S.C. Res. 2166, U.N. Doc. SC/11483 (July 21, 2014) and Draft Ukraine’s control over Crimea, a land mass situ- S.C. Res., U.N. Doc. S/2015/562 (July 15, 2015) – vetoed by Russia – in ated on the coast of the Black Sea, arose relatively relation to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. recently under peculiar circumstances. Like 6 Nina Siegal, “Artifacts from Crimean Museums Are Held Hostage by Ukraine, Crimea has changed hands as a strategi- Politics,” New York Times (Aug 17, 2015). cally important asset since ancient times. Having 7 For intervention by the Dutch State, see an earlier ruling in the case: 8 April 2015 [Amsterdam District Court, case number HA ZA 14-1179/ ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:2000]. At the same time, private 8 Cited supra fn 4. activists were launching campaigns, such as one hosted on the website Change.org entitled “Return Scythian gold to Crimea! Laat het Scytisch 9 “The Transfer of the Crimea to the Ukraine,” International gold terugkeren naar De Krim" to appeal to the court of public Committee for Crimea (July 2005), available at http://www.iccrimea. opinion for the desired outcome. The creator of the Change.org org/historical/crimeatransfer.html (last visited March 25, 2017). campaign sought to get 1,000 signatures to support the message of returning the Scythian gold to Crimea, but only managed to collect 10 Adam Taylor, “To understand Crimea, take a look back at its 535. complicated history,” The Washington Post (February 27, 2014).

- -

2017 © . 1 o (Exeter: University of University (Exeter: VOL. 18, N VOL. (University of California (University

SCYTHIANS JOURNAL

Displaced the by Sarmatians 14 THE Later dominant cultures in Crimea Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interaction in Interaction Cultural Scythians and Greeks: IFAR® 15 The World of the Scythians World The Renate Rolle, Rolle, Renate See, David Braund, Braund, David See, ties in Southern Russia and Ukraine date back to 14 Empire and the Early Roman Athens Scythia, 2007). Press, Exeter 15 134. p. 1989), 1st English ed., Press, The Scythians ancient were nomadic peoples who inhabited the central Eurasian steppes from the 9th century 1st to BC. starting in the century 3rd BC, they to forced were inhabit coastal areas the of Black Sea and Crimea. It was supposedly the Scythian king Saitaphernes who founded the new capital Neapolis Scythica near pres Simferopol.ent-day The city was sacked in the 3rd century BC, leading the to extinction late Scythian of culture. In Ovid 9 AD, referred the to Black Sea as the “Scythian Sea.” influencedwere the by Scythians. The Crimean peninsula, which is rich in archaeologi cal sites, has many Scythian burial mounds, called kurgans. These contain weapons, jewelry, vessels for the afterlife, and numerous ceremonial objects. The first archaeological excavations of Scythian antiqui

- - - Map showing Ukraine and Crimea in relation to Russia. Russia. to showing Ukraine and Crimea in relation Map 6.

13 FIGURE - - - - - In 1994, Ukraine In 1994, was granted 12 Ironically, the trans 11 (Munich), Vol. 1, no. 1, April 1954, pp. 30-33. pp. 1954, April 1, no. 1, Vol. (Munich), UN Resolution A/RES/25/2625. Declaration on Principles of Declaration Principles on A/RES/25/2625. UN Resolution UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/263. Territorial integrity Territorial A/RES/68/263. Resolution Assembly UN General Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of the History and Culture of the Bulletin of the History the Study and Culture for of Institute the of Ukraine (Apr. 1, 2014); UN General Assembly Letter A/49/676. Letter Letter A/49/676. Letter Assembly UN General 2014); 1, of Ukraine (Apr. of Ukraine Representative the Permanent 1994 from 17 November dated 1994). 17, the Secretary-General to addressed (Nov. International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation and Co-operation Relations Friendly concerning Law International (Oct. Nations with the Charter of the United in accordance States among 1970). 24, 13 11 USSR 12 nized in borders” exchange reduction for and limita tion its of nuclear arsenal and disarmament. assurance with the the on Treaty Non-Proliferation of confirmingNuclear Weapons the “unity and territorial integrity Ukraine of within its internationally recog including the provision that a State shall acquire not territories another of Member State through the use of threats or force. In 1970, members the of NationsIn United signed 1970, a num berinternational of treaties declaring the principles friendlyof relations and cooperation among states, Union. In 1991, the Autonomous Republic Crimea the of Autonomous InUnion. 1991, became a part the of newly independent Ukraine. sians and Ukrainians, which, the at time, few could anticipatedhave would turn hostile. could Nor envisionedanyone have the collapse the of Soviet fer aimedfer bolster to the brotherly and friendshiplove between Rus Crimean peninsula was natural “a extension the of southern Ukraini an steppes.” Crimea from the Russian to SFSR the Ukrainian SFSR for economic and geographic reasons, as the Nine Nikita years in 1954, later, Khrushchev decreed a transfer of was made a province the of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic within(SFSR) the Soviet Union. collapse Rus following the 1917 sian Crimea Revolution, became an autonomous republic. In it 1945, annexed in 1783 by theannexed by Russian in 1783 Empire. Soon after the Empire’s trolledthe by Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottomans, Crimeawas at one point or another point or one at been con 1763.16 In Crimea, Paul Du Brux discovered a stone agreements were finalized in the spring of 2013, burial chamber in the early 19th century, the con- months before any unrest in Kiev. The parties to tents of which were transported to St. Petersburg.17 the agreements were the representatives of the AP In the Soviet Union, “excavations and archaeologi- Museum and the Landesmuseum on one side, and cal expeditions [were] generally the province of their counterparts at the five Ukrainian museums – the central institutions of the Academy of Science the one in Kiev and four in Crimea – on the other.20 in the main cities in the Soviet republics,” with The loan agreements stipulate that the AP Museum “the centre for modern research into the Scythians would return the loaned materials to each of the five [being] Kiev.”18 museums in a timely manner “after the expiration of the term of the temporary storage for the purpose of THE EXHIBITION demonstration.”21 In the early 2010s, museum administrators and The Crimean Museums rely on this stipulation to curators in Germany, The Netherlands, and advance their claim for return of their artifacts to Ukraine began planning an international art the museums. The interests of Ukraine surface in exhibition to showcase Scythian, Greek, and Goth the loan agreements in the reference to the objects treasures and other objects from Crimea’s rich his- as part of the “Museum Fund of Ukraine” and a tory. The exhibition, Crimea: The Golden Island reminder that the parties “realize that the exhibits of in the Black Sea, at the AP Museum would, as the exhibition are the property of Ukraine and world already noted, include more than 500 artifacts. Its civilization and shall take all possible measures to alternate name, The Crimea: Greeks, Scythians and avoid their loss and damage.”22 CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS Goths at the Black Sea, better described the objects, The Ukrainian executive branch of the gov- which the AP Museum’s January 2014 press release ernment, not being a party to the agreements, said “reveal the rich history of the peninsula colo- approved the loans by signing export licenses in nized by the Greeks since the seventh century BC. 2013 and an extension authorization in 2014.23 The Crimea and the Black Sea were and remain an important crossroads between Europe and Asia.” GEOPOLITICAL EVENTS 2014 The loaned artifacts are testimony to the various civilizations the region has known. A Chinese The exhibition at the AP Museum coincided with lacquer box dating from the Han dynasty, for unforeseen geopolitical events. The Amsterdam example, attests to Crimea’s position as part of the court summarized them as follows: Silk Road.19 “On 6 March 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) agreed on the secession from LOAN AGREEMENTS Ukraine and accession to the Russian Federation. AND EXPORT LICENSES On 16 March 2014, the ARC held a referendum and voters in Crimea were in favor of accession To arrange for the loan of the objects from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. On 18 March 2014 to Bonn (from July 2013) and to Amsterdam in 2014, the ARC and Sevastopol became part of the Rus- sian Federation.”24

16 Ellen D. Reeder and Esther Jacobson, Scythian gold: treasures from ancient Ukraine (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Walters Art Gallery) (1999) and Pavel Dolukhanov, The Early Slavs: Eastern 20 Rechtbank Amsterdam, [Amsterdam District Court], C/13/577586 Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus (Routledge, 1st / HA ZA 14-1179 [ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:8264] 14 December 2016, ed.)(June 27, 1996). hereafter ”Verdict.”

17 A Dictionary of Archaeology. Edited by Ian Shaw and Robert 21 Id. Verdict at 2.2 and 2.8. Jameson (London: Blackwell Publishers, 2002). 22 Id. Verdict 3.4; Art. 7.1 of the Loan Agreements. 18 Rolle, op. cit., p. 9. 23 Id. Verdict at 2.3 and 2.4. 19 Allard Pierson Museum Series, De Krim: Goud en geheimen van de Zwarte Zee (W Books, 2014), p. 95. 24 Id. Verdict 2.5.

2017

31 33 . 1 34 o the four 32 35 VOL. 18, N VOL.

SEIZURE

JOURNAL FROM

IFAR® (Kiev, 1998). (Kiev, This position was consistent with 30 IMMUNITY “Regarding restitution to Ukraine cultural heritage cultural restitution from Ukraine to “Regarding 4.6 and 5.4. According to the Court, the interest of the interest the the Court, to According 4.6 and 5.4. Ibid. Ibid.

Verdict 2.10, 3.7, 3.8. 3.7, 2.10, Verdict Two meetings were held in Amsterdam in September and October October and in September Amsterdam held in meetings were Two Rechtbank Amsterdam, [Amsterdam District Court] [Amsterdam Amsterdam, Rechtbank Given the fact that Russian museums contain collections that are that are collections contain museums the fact that Russian Given Verdict 2.11. Verdict

displaced in the course of the early 20th century, any argument in favor in favor argument any of in the course displaced the early 20th century, of of cultural returning the place objects to backfire origin surely would the 1998 report example, for See, Federation. if the Russian by made where a 1938 exhibition for Kiev from about artifacts Moscow to lent Monastery Golden-Domed Michael’s the St. objectsmultiple from at the of one display on is currently which be returned, failed to and Koreniuk, Ui. Kot, S. Source: Gallery State in Moscow. Tretyakov Sebta, T. ZlatoverkovyiMikhailovskii Sober in museums located presently of the Federation” Russian Despite speculations the to contrary, the Russian Federation did the enter not debate. One may ask, there were immunity no from sei zure arrangements with the Dutch State? In The 30 31 32 the and Pierson ofAllard the of representatives between one 2014: of meeting and another representatives between Crimean Museums, Verdict Ukraine. from officials and government Pierson Allard the 2.12. 33 2015. April 8 [ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:2000], 34 not obligations would see that its international ‘“to State Dutch the right served be by better a hearing could to as be jeopardized’” of Code Procedure]. 44 Rv [Dutch Civil Art. by for provided 35 and, of the geographic to the country, contours endemic not always of hundreds Ukrainian artifacts valuable include specifically, more for breach of contract breach of for damages or claimed the by other party. decisionthe return to AP Museum’s objects that hadbeen borrowed from the National Museum of History Ukraine of in Kievafter the termination theof exhibition August, of the 2014. on 31st As a resolution could be reached, not Crimean museums initiated legal action against the AP Museum and filed suit in the District Court Ukraine’s Amsterdam 2014. of 19, November on request intervene to was granted the by Amsterdam District Court April on a few months 8. later, thatAt point, the Dutch State also tried inter to vene, requesting be to admitted as a party the to litigation the in prevent to Crimean order treasures from being returned the to Crimean Museums. This request was denied grounds on that the Dutch State lacked specific interestin the outcome. - - 27 Vol. Vol.

European Union Union European

The United 26 CLAIMS

That same month, the 28 Fordham International Law Journal, Journal, International Law Fordham 29 More importantly, More Ukraine took COMPETING 25 Highlights. Verdict 2.9. Verdict Law of Ukraine “On Securing the Rights and Freedoms of Securing the Rights“On Citizens and Freedoms of Law Ukraine Resolutions by the Security by stating the illegality Council Resolutions of Verdict 2.6. Verdict Ukraine and Russia Sanctions, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Sanctions, Ukraine and Russia in the loan agreements. as March 2014, the four Crimeanas March 2014, museums began insisting in writing that the AP Museum return all objects the to lending institutions as stipulated was confronted with two competing demands for return the of objects: Ukraine the on hand one and the Crimean Museums the on As other. early After the exhibition period ended, the AP Museum economic sanctions on Russia “for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity Ukraine.” of rather that permanently annexed. States and the European placed Union multiple nized most by other nation states, including The Netherlands. the position that Crimea wastemporarily occupied The secession was Crimea, of recog not however, 28 29 27 2014, 6, March 13660, Order Executive Department of the Treasury, Ukraine crisis,” over “EU sanctions against Russia and Newsroom, No. 1207-VII (April 15, 2014). See also M. Nudelman, “Who Owns “Who Nudelman, See also M. 2014). 15, 1207-VII (April No. ofthe Scythian Implications Gold? The Ukraine Legal and Moral and Dispute,” Cultural Crimea’s 1283. at 1276, 1261-1297, pp. 2016, 38, Ukraine. Ukraine. 26 of Ukraine,” Territory Occupied the Temporarily on and Legal Regime 25 A/ Doc. U.N. 68/262, Res. G.A. Russia; by vetoed were the events integrity of the Territorial 2014) underlines 27, RES/68/262 (March wanted return to the artifacts the to entitled par that but did it wantty, not be to liable held the objects the to four Crimean museums, and, instead, a position adopted that as a bailee had it interestno in the Crimean treasures and simply By July 2014, the AP Museum JulyBy suspended 2014, its obligations under the loan agreement return to Museum Fund as being “national treasures and an integral part the of cultural heritage Ukraine of protected law.” by Ukraine, saying that Ukraine was working the on return all of artifacts that the to belonged State Ministry Culture of Ukraine of requested an early return the of Crimean treasures the to State of “The AP Museum suspended its Netherlands, this can be arranged by so-called obligations under the loan agreement “letters of comfort,” documents issued by the to return the objects to the four Ministry of Foreign Affairs that aim to provide Crimean museums. … The museums some degree of immunity from seizure for cul- filed suit in the District Court of tural property from foreign states in the event of Amsterdam on November 19, 2014. international loans. More specifically, such letters Ukraine's request to intervene was explain that, “the Government of The Netherlands granted … a few months later.” will do everything that is legally within its power to ensure that the art object loaned by the foreign State will not be encumbered at any time while agreement and on their rights of operational man- it is located on Dutch territory.”36 In the present agement. In their view, this right is stronger than case, such letters appear to have been issued; how- the “bare” ownership rights Ukraine may have, ever, they did not play any role, as the objects were taking into account the close cultural-historical never seized. Although such “letters of comfort” ties of the objects with the territory and people of may provide (some) protection, they do not pro- Crimea, as well as the principle of the integrity of vide immunity from lawsuits, at least not in the museum collections. The Crimean institutions, Dutch situation.37 in other words, argued that they are the “genuine home” of the archaeological findings as they were THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS discovered and preserved there over time. AND COURT RULING The three-judge panel of the civil chamber of the CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS The opposing parties based their claims for the Amsterdam District Court needed a little over two return of the objects on: (i) obligations stated in years to render its verdict.39 On December 14, 2016, the loan agreements; on (ii) ownership/title; on the Court held in favor of Ukraine and against the 38 (iii) the 1970 UNESCO Convention ; and on (iv) Crimean Museums (FIG. 7). The following issues ethical principles—existing cultural-historical were addressed in the verdict: links and the integrity of museum collections. • The obligations imposed by the loan agreement Ukraine claimed legal ownership over the loaned • Who is legally entitled to the collection(s)? objects on the basis of Ukrainian law, which deems • How does the 1970 UNESCO Convention apply? archaeological objects “state property.” It relied on the 1970 UNESCO Convention for the interna- Issue 1: The Loan Agreements tional return claim. The Crimean Museums based One of the questions presented to the Court was their claim for the return of the objects on the loan whether the AP Museum was bound by obliga-

36 The Dutch system follows the 2004 U.N. Convention on tions in the loan agreement as to the “timely return Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, under which of the exhibits to the museum” given the change in State-owned cultural property enjoys immunity from measures of constraint. See Cultural Heritage Inspectorate, Ministry of circumstances in Ukraine. The loan agreements Education, Culture and Science, (acc. 21 April 2017.) https://english. clearly spelled out an obligation to return the erfgoedinspectie.nl/cultural-goods/temporary-import-of-cultural- goods-for-exhibitions-in-heritage-institutions. objects to their specific lending museums. That

37 Cf. a United States case, Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 517 F. said, the choice of law clause in the loan agreement Supp. 2d 322 (D.C. 2007), ruling that foreign states lending art to made Ukrainian law determinative, and according the United States were not per se immune from jurisdiction, even if the loaned objects were precluded from seizure. In 2016, however, to Ukrainian Law article 652 CCU, any agreement President Obama signed into law the The Foreign Cultural Exchange can be terminated by the contracting parties in Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (FCEJCA), or Art Museum 40 Amendment, narrowing the expropriation exception in the FSIA to case of a “material change in circumstances.” provide greater immunity from suit for foreign states lending artworks to the United States for temporary exhibit. 39 Starting from the writ of 19 November 2014 (and headed by Mr. 38 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit R.A. Dudok van Heel). Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Paris, 14 November 1970. 40 Verdict 4.24, 4.25.

- - - - 2017 of ©

- -

. 1 o

ownership VOL. 18, N VOL.

JOURNAL 46 of May 13, 2014. Verdict 2.7. Verdict 2014. 13, of May IFAR® On Transfer of Museum Objects of Museum the National to Transfer On

48 The Crimean Museums contest the 45 rights known as “operational manage Questions as ownership, to the on other 47 Verdict 3.2. Verdict The court rules that on the basis of Art. 1012 RV (Dutch Code Code (Dutch 1012 RV The court rules the basis of that on Art. Per Order No. 292 No. Order Per The Dutch Heritage Act 2016 (officially “Act of December 9, 2015, 2015, of 9, “Act December 2016 (officially Act Heritage The Dutch

Cultural Heritage”), supersedes the earlier Implementation Act ofAct the earlier Implementation supersedes Heritage”), Cultural regarding it has not changed 2016 on; 1 July from applies It 2007. Art Law IFAR’s on Available Verdict. of provisions the relevant the Hereafter www.ifar.org/art_law.php. Database. Property & Cultural Act.” “Dutch Heritage 48 legal of ownership of a cultural object shall Procedure) be Civil of upon return determined the cultural object in the country that 4.17. Verdict. laws. its national by its return requested ment rightment in Crimean-based Ukrainian national patrimony the to National Historical Museum of Ukraine. legality this of transfer. The Amsterdam Court in its December ruling did reach a decision not regarding the the Crimean treasures. Instead, limited it itself the to question as the whom to AP Museum was obliged return to the objects the on basis of the – the Dutch law implement Heritage Act 2016 UNESCOing the 1970 Convention in the Nether lands. hand, should be decided, according the to Verdict, theupon return cultural of objects the to State from which they came, as will be elaborated upon below. 45 of Ukraine Historical Museum 46 47 of Regarding Amendment Rules and the Combining to Relating Moreover, according the theof to version 1996 Moreover, Ukrainian Constitution, ARC has rights auton to omously administer its possessions and keep and use its historical objects. that Given three the of four Crimean Museums apparently were founded ARCby independently, the Crimean Museums believe the ARC should be considered the legal owner the of objects all of the but Sevastopol museum, which was founded Ukraine. by Further, they maintain that the “bare ownership right” to the objects Ukraine by is superseded the by supe rior rights the of Crimean Museums their to due rights “operational of the management.” Under previous the of version Ukrainian and until law, the CrimeanMay 2014, Museums certain enjoyed (in rem) rights”ment the to objects in their care. Following the annexation Crimea, of the Ukrainian Ministry Cultureof transferred the operational manage

- 42 - The 41 to return Underlin 43 not Law of Ukraine of Ukraine Law Art. 17, clarifies that all 17, Art. (Vidomosti of Verkhovna (Vidomosti of Verkhovna (Vidomosti of Verkhovna Rada Verkhovna (Vidomosti of Title 2000, No. 39, p. 333); See: UNESCO Database of See: 333); p. 39, No. 2000, The ARC status has had autonomous Legal 44 2: 2004, No. 26, p. 361), UNESCO Database of National Cultural Cultural UNESCO Database of National 361), p. 26, No. 2004, Under the heading of “RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF “RIGHTS the heading of Under Verdict 3.2. Verdict Decree on the basis of Art. 15 para. 3 of of15 para. the Law Ukraine the basis of on on Art. Decree

Verdict 4.27. Verdict National Cultural Heritage Laws (acc. April 1, 2017). 1, April (acc. Laws Heritage Cultural National 44 Heritage Laws: http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws. Moreover, Moreover, http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws. Laws: Heritage the although in the 2016 verdict, not mentioned Heritage of 2000, of Cultural on Protection property. state are finds” “archaeological Rada (VVR), archaeological heritage and discovered and documented during and documented heritagearchaeological and discovered of Law Ukraine on property. the [sic] state are research) archaeological Heritage ofArchaeological Protection (VVR), 43 Article 18 reads: RESEARCHERS” HERITAGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL (immovable of in the result research archaeological received “Finds, with connected the object of were which items, and movable 41 42 3.4 Verdict, See: 1995. ofAffairs 29 June and Museum Museum since the foundation Ukraine of in the early 1990s. Republic Crimea of Ukraine, not (ARC), should be considered the owner the of majority the of loaned objects. The Crimean Museums, the on other hand, argue that the matter complex; is the more Autonomous ing this argument is the premise that the secession Crimeaof is irrelevant the to legal status Ukrai of nian-registered cultural objects. vesting ownership all of archaeological finds in the state; example, for the 2004 Law Ukraine of on Protection of Archaeological Heritage. Decree designating the collections the of four Crimean museums as Ukrainian State property. generally, UkraineMore invoked Ukrainian laws are listed in the museum registryUkraine. of Ukraine bases its claim a February on 2, 2000 is, as expected, a difference opinion of between Ukraine and the Crimean Museums, despite the fact that is it uncontested thatthe loaned artifacts Issue On thematter legal of title the to objects, there the AP Museum was within its rights the artifacts the to Crimean Museums. stances,” a change justifying the termination of contractualthe AP Museum’s obligations. court dissolved the loan agreement and found that The Amsterdam court ruled that the Crimean annexation was a “material change in circum A similar provision can be found in Dutch law. Not insignificantly, the Russian legislators passed UNLAWFUL TRANSFER? a new law on February 4, 2015, which states that The provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention museum collections in Crimea are to be included are notoriously vague and various interpretations in the national museum registry of the Russian can co-exist, such as what exactly falls under the Federation.49 definition of “illicit” import, export or transfer.52 This is important, as the return request of Ukraine Issue 3: The 1970 UNESCO Convention was based on the argument that the unlawfulness Ukraine as well as the Netherlands (and Russia) of the situation is created by the non-return after are State Parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention expiration of the export licenses, while the way the and implemented its principles, albeit in differ- objects entered The Netherlands was perfectly legal. ent ways. The Convention is non-self executing; it Under Ukraine’s implementing legislation for the needs to be implemented in domestic law, which in UNESCO Convention, the expiration of an export the Netherlands took effect with the Heritage Act. license is deemed “illicit.”53 The applicable provi- The aim of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, to sions of the Dutch Heritage Act, however, (Article which 132 countries belong as of June 2017, was 6.7) make the illicit import the sole prerequisite for to attain a minimum level of uniform protection return: “The return of cultural property imported against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects into The Netherlands in breach of the prohibition and international cooperation and solidarity in as referred to in Section 6.3 may be claimed (…) by CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS doing so.50 Its rationale, stated in Article 2, is proceedings brought by the State Party from which the recognition of the “illicit import, export and the property originates or by the party with valid transfer of ownership of cultural property” as “one title to such property.”54 of the main causes of the impoverishment of the In its December 2016 decision, the Amsterdam Dis- cultural heritage of the countries of origin”.51 The trict court concluded on this point that the term Convention’s pillars are: “illicit import” in the Dutch Heritage Act should be • Adopting protective measures, such as creat- interpreted broadly and in such a way as to include ing national inventories of cultural property a situation where the illegality is created by the (Art. 5). (The Museum Fund in Ukraine, for example); non-return after the expiration of the loan contract or export licences. To come to this interpretation, • Control of the movement of cultural property through a system of export certificates and laws the court argued that to exclude a situation like the prohibiting the import of stolen objects (Art. present would be contrary to the aim of the 1970 6-9). (As Ukraine issued temporary export licenses with regard to the Crimean treasures.) 52 E.g. P. J. O’Keefe, Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention • The interstate return of illicitly transferred cul- on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export tural property (Art. 7). and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Leicester Institute of Art and Law, 2007). I. Stamatoudi, op. cit., 2011.

53 Law of Ukraine on Exportation, importation and restitution of cultural values, Art. 23 (Vidomosti Verkhovna Rada (…), 1999, No. 48, p. 405): “Those cultural values, which were temporarily exported from Ukraine and were not returned in the period provided by the contract, are considered unlawfully exported.”

54 Act of 9 December 2015 Relating to the Combining and Amendment 49 Russian Federal Law (Feb. 12, 2015) No. 9-FZ “On regulation of Rules Regarding Cultural Heritage (Dutch Heritage Act) (December of relations in the matter of culture and tourism as related to the 9, 2015). Article 6.7. Article 6.3 reads: “It is prohibited to import into annexation of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation. …” The Netherlands cultural property which: a) has been removed from the 50 Irini A. Stamatoudi, Cultural Property Law and Restitution: A territory of a State Party and is in breach of the provisions adopted by Commentary to International Conventions and European Union Law that State Party, in accordance with the objectives of the 1970 UNESCO 33 (Edward Elgar Publ., 2011). Convention in respect of the export of cultural property from that State Party or the transfer of ownership of cultural property, or b) has been 51 UNESCO 1970, Art. 2. unlawfully appropriated in a State Party.

- 2017 © -

In . 1 by the o 61 or the verdict states Art. Art. states the verdict VOL. 18, N VOL.

NB CLAIM?

JOURNAL their return in Ukraine. For IFAR® after RETURN 60 collections. Art. 1012 Rv [Dutch Code of Civil Procedure] implements Art. 13 Art. implements of Code Procedure] 1012 Rv [Dutch Civil Art. Verdict 4.8, 4.16, 4.17. 4.16, 4.8, Verdict

60 [ of discussed above the 2014 EU Regulation the EU slightly it differs from However, be a mistake]. must 12 which of“Ownership the cultural return object after that reads: provision State.” of Member the law the requesting by shall be governed 61 EU DirectiveEU – stating that “ownership the of cul tural object that is subject a return to request by a State Party will be decided after upon return by the national laws the of state that claimed for return.” its Thus, according the to court, only the claim for the return the of objects the by State Ukraine of can be acknowledged and claims non-state by rights-holders, like museums the or Autonomous Republic Crimea, of standing. have not do other words, that the system international of return illicitly of transferred cultural objects as envisaged UNESCO the by 1970 Convention is an interstate affair based cooperation on between national authorities and aimed at the protection of national Ukrainian law – creates a situation “illicit of import” within the meaning the of Dutch Heritage Act. The next question crucial of – importance – is who can rightfully claim the return cultural of objects that are unlawfully retained in the Netherlands? On this point, Articlethe of 6.7 Dutch Heritage Act states that return may be claimed “the by State Party from which the property originates party with valid title seemingly such to property,” facilitating return claims Parties. non-State by The Dutch dismissed court, however, this rul view, ing that only States can claim return cultural of objects; the question title of and ownership should be decided upon this, the court the invoked of Article Dutch 1012 Code Civil of Procedure – implementing the 2014 - - - should

P.J. O’Keefe O’Keefe P.J. and the e.g. e.g. 56 bothof which lex originis 57 ” in other countries, creating a Not that the 1970 UNESCO itself that Not provides In addition, the court drew inspira In the present case, this means that 55 59 – the viewthat the supra. 58 imported means that the object should be seen as and L.P.C. Belder’s doctoral thesis “The of Legal protection thesis doctoral Belder’s and L.P.C. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally or Stolen on Exported Cultural Convention UNIDROIT Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Parliament 2014/60/EU of Directive the European The verdict at 4.15 reads “(I)t is not without importance that at 4.15 reads The verdict This seems, at present, a generally accepted view: a generally accepted at present, This seems, See Art. 2, 2, Art. See Guidelines for the implementation of the 1970 Convention, adopted at adopted of the implementation for the 1970 Convention, Guidelines 2015 (Resolution meeting May 18-20 of on the third Parties the States 26). (nr. exported if they have not returned after the lapse ofexportedif after not returned time limits they have … in exportmentioned licenses” 59 and is in line with (2011); the Operational Stamatoudi I. (2007), Ukraine is not a signatory. 58 […] objects will Ukrainian law to be illegally deemed according purposes such as exhibition, research or restoration, under a permit under restoration, or research purposes as exhibition, such its export the purpose regulating for its law to according issued of its cultural heritage in accordance not returned and protecting with been of illegally the terms that permit have shall be to deemed signed did not ratify but the Convention; The Netherlands exported.” 57 cultural object has been which “A 1995 24, June 5.2 (2), ObjectsArt. the territory for temporarily exported from of State, the requesting protection of national treasures or in breach of (EC) of in breach or Regulation protection treasures national of at the end (b) not returned or 116/2009; a period ofNo lawful of governing breach condition another any or temporary removal temporarysuch removal. Council of 15 May 2014 relating to the return of the return to 2014 relating of cultural objectsCouncil 15 May the territory and from State of a Member removed unlawfully “unlawfully 2: Art. in states 1024/2012, (EU) No Regulation amending (a) removed means: the territory from State” of a Member removed of the territory in breach from its rules State the of on a Member cultural heritage in international law and its implementation in Dutch in Dutch and its implementation cultural heritage law in international not published). (2014, Law” 56 Parties undertake, at the request of of at the request Party take the State to origin, undertake, Parties cultural property such any and return recover to steps appropriate of the interpretation for however, The court relied, imported,[…].”. (2007), O’Keefe of opinion the scholarly on P.J. the 1970 Convention supra, 55 “State Article 7 in very clarity that terms general stating in much by the loan agreement – illicit export under sufficient basis return for claims under the UNES system. CO the non-return the of artifacts after the lapse of determines the legal status the of object; “illicit export” “illicitly implicity be decisive: the country domestic origin’s law of returned the at a period of end lawful of tempo rary removal.” In doing so the court confirmed – although explicitly include in their definition “unlawfully of removed” cultural objects, objects that “not were tion from the 2014 European Directivetionfrom Union the 2014 on unlawfully cultural removed objects, UNIDROIT1995 Convention, Convention. “In its 14 December 2016 decision, THE VERDICT the District Court sided with Ukraine. In its 14 December 2016 decision (FIG. 7), the District As expected, … in January 2017, Court sided with Ukraine and ruled the following: the Crimean Museums filed an appeal.” • the loan agreement between the Crimean Muse- ums and the AP Museum is dissolved; Whether litigation in the present case can lead to • the AP Museum shall transfer the loaned objects a lasting or ”fair” solution remains to be seen. to the National Historical Museum of Ukraine in Within the context of cultural heritage claims, Kiev in its capacity as custodian of the Crimean objects designated by the Ukraine State; adversarial litigation procedures are generally considered a last option, only to be entered into after • pending an appeal, the artifacts shall remain in good-faith negotiations and Alternative Dispute storage at the AP Museum; Resolution methods are exhausted, and precisely • Ukraine shall pay storage and insurance costs to because of the non-legal (cultural, historical and the AP Museum.62 other) aspects that are at stake. On this point, the As expected, and as noted above, in January 2017, “Operational Guidelines” to the 1970 UNESCO the Crimean Museums filed an appeal.63 Convention, adopted in May 2015, explain that:

“The Convention does not attempt to establish ROAD(S) NOT TAKEN priorities where more than one State may regard The Dutch verdict makes clear that the legal frame- a cultural object as part of its cultural heritage. work, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, Competing claims to such items, if they cannot be

CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS settled by negotiations between the States or their does not address issues that are at the heart of the relevant institutions … should be regulated by out present case, such as partition of a country or dis- of court resolution mechanisms, such as media- connect between the territorial or cultural-histor- tion … or good offices, or by arbitration. There is ical link of the object to (groups of) people(s), as no strong tradition for the judicial settlement of that legal framework is based on the notion that the such differences in cultural matters. State practice national state is the key “rights holder” to cultural would suggest a preference for mechanisms that allow consideration for legal, as well as cultural, heritage where it concerns claims for return. Most 65 historical and other relevant factors.” of the time, this will work efficiently but, some- times, it may be to the detriment of other interests, A preference for a non-formalistic approach can like groups who do not feel (anymore) represented also be found in the proposal for “Guiding Prin- by their national government. Interestingly, and ciples Relating to the Succession of States in respect perhaps exactly because of this “gap” in the tradi- of Tangible Cultural Heritage”.66 If not directly, tional model, a parallel system of soft-law instru- then surely of indirect interest to the present case, ments signals another trend, of acknowledgement this proposal by scholar Andrzej Jakubowski pro- of (group or individual) rights of non-state actors to motes equitable principles and alternative methods their cultural heritage.64 for dispute resolution regarding cultural heritage

62 Verdict, 4.20 and 5.

63 Crimean Museums Appeal Court Ruling Returning Scythian Gold To Kiev, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (Jan. 26, 2017) confirmed by 65 The Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the attorney G.J. van den Bergh by email to the author. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 64 E.g. rights of indigenous peoples to their lost cultural heritage (UNESCO, Paris, 1970), adopted at the third meeting of the States (rights based on restitution provisions in the United Nations Parties on 18-20 May 2015 (Resolution3.MSP.11), nr. 26. In the same Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN GA Res. 61/295, sense, the International Law Association advises ADR methods for September 2007), and rights of victims of the Holocaust to works of resolving cultural heritage disputes in its “Principles for Cooperation art confiscated by national government agents based on the so-called in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material,” Washington Conference Principles of 1998, promoting “fair and just” reproduced by J.A.R. Nafziger in an article by that name in: 8 Chi. J. solutions and ADR methods for solving ownership issues, reproduced Int’l L. 147 (2007-2008). in E. Campfens (ed.) Fair and Just Solutions, Alternatives to litigation in Nazi-looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, (The 66 A. Jakubowski, State Succession in Cultural Property (Oxford Hague Eleven Publishers), (2014). University Press) (August 4, 2015), Annex.

CONCLUSION from occupied territo ries safe-keeping for and until the situation has stabilized, and cultural property “shall never be retained as war repara tions”; therefore, it should be usednot as hostage in a conflict. principles Such would seem fit to the pres ent dispute. Undeterred the by pending appellate decision regard ing the Crimean artifacts recently announced its loaned the to AP Museum, the British Museum JOURNAL 69 IFAR® Press Release, “The British Museum Forthcoming Exhibitions Exhibitions Forthcoming “The British Museum Release, Press

the ruling, observing that “grossly it violates the principles international of exchanges between museums and the right the of Crimea of people to 69 [Spring 2017]. 2017” plans exhibit to “Scythians: Warriors Ancient of Thematerials Siberia” in intended September 2017. displayfor in excavated London, from the Scyth ian in tombs Siberia and Kazakhstan, will be loaned primarily from the State Hermitage Muse um in Petersburg. St Law students quickly learn that hard cases make the For time bad law. for being, the Russian Fed eration seems a firm have to the on hold Crimean peninsula. The viscerally satisfying may solution be keep to the Scythian that gold was to lent Amsterdam away from Russian control, although this result comes the at expense severing of the cul tural-historical link between the objects and their place origin of (Crimea). Archaeologists involved in ongoing excavations in Crimea and the study the of artifacts, however, lamentedhave the Amsterdam District Court’s decision return to the Scythian artifacts Kiev. to The Russian Minister Culture, of denounced too,

- - - - Under 1 Under “the property, property, “the “to provide “to “In case“In of disagree With regard the to settlement First Protocol (ratified by The Netherlands, Netherlands, (ratifiedby The Protocol First taken in this case, as yet. of 67 According the to First Protocol, not 68 The Amsterdam District Court’s December 14, 2016 decision. Image: Image: 2016 decision. 14, December District Court’s Amsterdam The Convention and its Protocols are specifi 7. that [Hague] Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the of Cultural the Protection for Convention [Hague]

In the first Principle the scope is being defined is as Principle being the scope the first In 68 Conflict, Armed of Event 1954. May Federation), Ukraine as well as the Russian (d) it clarifies to aim at situations like the present, being present, the like to aim at situations (d) it clarifies which is situated in the territory which to the succession of States or having originated displaced a was to relates, said territory, from different location State.” the predecessor by 67 interstate negotiations or multilateral bilateral guidance for general in facilitate to the conclusionorder of agreements and movable to related following succession of States.” property, cultural immovable States should take into custody cultural property that cally aimed situations at armed of conflict and occupation? And might where, one ask, does Hague the 1954 Convention and its Protocols fit in, given the fact In other words, a non-legalistic as approach, advo cated in soft-law instruments dispute for resolu tion, is a road commissions. The expert assistance of UNESCO is recommended.” strongly of disputesof the draft proposes: ment, the States encouraged … are to bring their disputes before impartial arbitration or mediation national state, example for as a result dissolution of a stateof war. or disputes in the changing of event a of borders FIGURE Sanders. Maarten 70 have access to their own cultural heritage.” Russia may have Crimea, but it can't If the December 2016 ruling is upheld by the appeal court, Ukraine will be entitled to receive have this ancient Scythian gold the Crimean gold from the AP Museum. But, is this the right course of action? Should not the antagonism between politicians and the national- ism fueled by Russian and Ukrainian propaganda yield to higher ethical considerations?

According to the Code of Ethics of the Internation- al Council of Museums (“ICOM”), to which the Dutch, Ukrainian and Russian museums subscribe, FIGURE 8. Headline from Andrew Roth's article in museum collections worldwide are repositories The Washington Post. and stewards of the public cultural heritage and, as such, “have a special position in law, which makes them protected by international legislation.”71 The outcome of the case in Amsterdam involving the to allow the Crimean treasures to remain in the Crimean loans as it now stands makes it unclear Crimean Museums. whether museum collections are indeed protected, Despite the momentary gratification of headlines and by what standards? like, “Russia may have Crimea, but it can’t have 72

CRIMEAN GOLD IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF GEOPOLITICS The treasures from Crimea have a permanent this ancient Scythian gold” (FIG. 8), the 2016 bond with the place where they were created, December decision leaves many questions unan- excavated and displayed, as do other treasures swered. Who is the true owner of the gold and excavated from Crimea and now stored in the cultural heritage at the heart of the Amsterdam State Hermitage Museum (Russia) or elsewhere dispute? Will Ukraine, if ultimately victorious, be in the world. Whether it is a long-term loan, joint able to reach a fair and just decision as to the final custody arrangement, or an exchange of property location of the artifacts— one untainted by the belonging to Ukraine but held in Russian Muse- injustice and loss it has suffered over the course of ums, the authors of this article believe that some its long and complicated history? Was the decision kind of fair “post-judicial resolution” is in order to go to court admirable or deplorable? Is this matter, au fond, a dispute that can be solved by adversarial court proceedings? 70 “Crimean gold must go back to Ukraine, says Dutch court,” BBC News Europe (December 14, 2016), available at http://www.bbc.com/ news/world-europe-38314491.

71 International Council of Museums, “The ICOM Code of Ethics for 72 Andrew Roth, “Russia may have Crimea, but it can’t have this Museums” (2004). ancient Scythian gold,” The Washington Post (December 14, 2016).

. . .