This article examines the issues surrounding the appropriation of indigenous culture, in particular art. It discusses the nature and context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art in Australia in order to establish why appropriation and reproduction are important issues. The article outlines some of the ways in which the Australian legal system has attempted to address the problem and looks at the recent introduction of the Label of Authenticity. At the same time, the article places these issues in the context of indigenous self-determination and examines the problematic use of such concepts as “authenticity.” Finally, the article looks beyond the Label of Authenticity and existing law of intellectual and cultural property, to sketch another possible solution to the problem.

In May of 1954, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) was adopted in an attempt to curb the destruction of movable and immovable cultural property during war. Recent conflicts, such as the continuing war in the Balkans, remind us that the Hague Convention is as relevant today as it was fifty years ago. Although this Convention is the most comprehensive and internationally recognized treaty to protect cultural property in time of war, the United States remains one of the few signatories that has yet to ratify it. In January 1999, former President William J. Clinton forwarded the Hague Convention to the Senate with the recommendation that it ratify the Convention and part of Protocol I. Although this presented perhaps the first real opportunity in nearly half a century for the United States to join one hundred countries and ratify the Hague Convention, its fate remains uncertain. Generally oriented towards the United States' policy and practice, this article broadly discusses the Hague Convention, its history, its weaknesses and strengths, and the current status of U.S. ratification.