Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T13:11:11.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rise of Safe Havens for Threatened Cultural Heritage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

Nikolaus Thaddäus Paumgartner  and
Raphael Zingg
Nikolaus Thaddäus Paumgartner
Affiliation:
Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland; Email: nikolaus.paumgartner@pestalozzilaw.com
Raphael Zingg
Affiliation:
Waseda University, Institute for Advanced Study, Tokyo, Japan; ETH Zurich, Center for Law & Economics, Zurich, Switzerland; Email: rzingg@ethz.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In light of the recent rise of destruction and looting of cultural property, a need for formalized heritage protection has arisen. Increasingly popular in the debate has become the instrument of international assistance known as “safe havens.” These temporary refuges for at-risk cultural goods in a third country have recently been implemented by Switzerland, France, the United States, and the Association of Art Museum Directors. We assess the contributions and shortcomings of these four regimes using a comparative approach. Mainly, we find that, despite variations in their scope and structure, none of the models accounts entirely for today’s major difficulties in protecting endangered cultural properties. We draw recommendations for future safe haven states against the backdrop of the existing models and hope to see the instrument used in practice as a way to safely isolate cultural property from destructive conflicts.

Keywords

Safe havenscultural heritage protectioncomparative law
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 323 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banteka, Nadia. 2016. “The Parthenon Marbles Revisited: A New Strategy for Greece.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 37, no. 4: 1231–71.Google Scholar
Castel, Jean-Gabriel. 1974. “Polish Art Treasures in Canada – 1940-1960: A Case History.” American Society of International Law Proceedings 68: 121–26.Google Scholar
Chechi, Alessandro. 2015. “Rescuing Cultural Heritage from War and Terrorism: A View from Switzerland.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2, no. 1: 83–100.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram. 2014. Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubin, Rachel. 2010. “Museums and Self-Regulation: Assessing the Impact of Newly Promulgated Guidelines on the Litigation of Cultural Property.” University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository 18: 101–41.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Sophie. 2010. “Safe Haven für gefährdete Kulturgüter – Überblick über eine erste Vorlage zur Umsetzung sogenannter “sicherer Häfen” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Kulturgütern unbekannter Herkunft.” In Kulturgüterschutz –Kunstrecht – Kulturrecht, edited by Odendahl, K. and Weber, P., 55–82. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Koellreuter, Andreas, and Bucherer, Paul. 2008. “Asyl für afghanische Kulturgüter in der Schweiz.” Kulturgüterschutz Forum 12: 44–53.Google Scholar
Frigo, Manlio. 2009. “Ethical Rules and Codes of Honor Related to Museum Activities: A Complementary Support to the Private International Law Approach Concerning the Circulation of Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 16: 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lattmann, Eveline. 1974. Schutz der Kulturgüter bei bewaffneten Konflikten, Die Schweizerische Gesetzgebung und Praxis aufgrund des Haager Abkommens vom 14. Mai 1954 für den Schutz von Kulturgut bei bewaffneten Konflikten. Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James. 2007. “The Principles for Cooperation in a Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8, no. 1: 147–67.Google Scholar
Pabst, Friederike. 2008. Kulturgüterschutz in nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Paumgartner, Nikolaus, and Zingg, Raphael. 2014. “Die Schweiz als erster Safe Haven für Kulturgüter (Switzerland as first Safe Haven for Cultural Goods).” Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1375–83.Google Scholar
Perini, Silvia, and Cunliffe, Emma. 2015. Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses, vol. 3.Google Scholar
Renold, Marc-André, and Schönenberger, Beat. 2014. “Switzerland.” In Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade, edited by Nafziger, J. and Paterson, R., 408–36. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Williams, Sharon. 1977. “The Polish Art Treasures in Canada, 1940–60.” Canadian Yearbook of International Law 15: 146–72.Google Scholar