Conditional return is a potential outcome in claims for the return of cultural property of which the rightful owners were previously illegitimately dispossessed. Conditions might include a prohibition on an object’s sale or the repayment of compensation. Despite its use, there is a noticeable lack of critical discussion on the appropriateness of conditional return in these claims. Imposing conditions on the rightful owner of cultural property is impractical, ignorant of the context, and ultimately at odds with ownership and its associated rights. Drawing on examples from Nazi-era claims and Native American claims, I show that the use of conditional return is inappropriate and ultimately unhelpful in achieving the goals of restitution and fair and just solutions. This article further reveals the covert and malignant forms of conditional return that hide under power structures and assumptions of authority and expertise. Both overt and covert conditional return ought to be prohibited given their inappropriateness and impracticality in these contexts.

Law and society scholars have examined how nonlegal actors, or “legal intermediaries,” construct the meaning of compliance as they translate law into organizational practice and policy. This article applies the legal intermediaries framework to analyze how higher education professionals navigate federal and state immigration law to mitigate the impact of illegality on undocumented students at the institutional level. We find that staff work within the underdefined, flexible, and often complex dimensions of immigration law by developing “creative solutions,” or university-specific policies and practices that interpret and apply existing legal frameworks in ways that broaden access to opportunities for undocumented students. Staff proceed through four steps within this process: developing an understanding of one’s legal and professional context, implementing and troubleshooting solutions, raising awareness and mobilizing support across and beyond the institution, and institutionalizing workarounds. In the process, staff shape broader understandings and organizational treatment of (il)legality at their respective institutions. Through this analysis, we extend the literature on legal intermediaries to the immigration context. We also refine the processes involved in the organizational intermediation of compliance and identify the set of contextual factors that may facilitate or hinder the creative solutions process within and beyond higher education.

This Article examines the evolving stance of Russia and China on the use of sanctions, highlighting a notable shift from their traditional opposition to unilateral coercive measures toward increasingly employing such tools themselves. While both countries have consistently criticized sanctions not endorsed by the UN Security Council, recent practices reveal a growing reliance on national legal frameworks to impose retaliatory and strategic sanctions. China, for instance, has introduced targeted measures against foreign officials and companies, particularly in response to perceived threats to its sovereignty, such as arms sales to Taiwan. Russia, in turn, has enacted counter-sanctions against Western states through export bans and travel restrictions. The Article explores this duality and analyzes its implications for international law, contending that the gap between rhetoric and practice may signal a reconfiguration of the normative landscape surrounding unilateral sanctions.