International trade in cultural material

Nafziger, James A. R.; Paterson, Robert K.

doi:10.4337/9781781007341.00008

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nafziger's academic reputation clearly lent credence to the claim, and most subsequent authors accept him as a reliable source without further comment. Nafziger's first use of the factoid is sceptical, but his later works display uncritical acceptance of the factoid: Somewhat melodramatically, the narrator [of an ABC news documentary] expressed the ‘most generally accepted view’ that smuggled art is second in total value only to narcotics (Nafziger 1983: 372). The total value of stolen or smuggled objects d'art involved in international trafficking, running over $1 billion annually, is second only to narcotics (Nafziger 1985: 835). Illegal trafficking in stolen cultural property is second in value only to narcotics and generates its own transboundary tensions (Nafziger 1987: 636). …”

Section: Origins Of the Factoidmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The illicit trade in antiquities is not the world's third-largest illicit trade: a critical evaluation of a factoid

Yates

Brodie²

2023

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that the illicit trade in antiquities is the third largest, second only to arms and narcotics, is widely repeated. But where does this claim originate and what is the evidence for its veracity? The authors present a ‘stratigraphic excavation’ of the claim by systematically searching through academic articles, popular press and policy literature to reveal the factoid's use and reuse over the past five decades. The authors find that the claim is not based on any original research or statistics, and it does not originate with any competent authorities. The analysis demonstrates how the uncritical repetition of unsubstantiated ‘facts’ can undermine legitimate efforts to prevent looting, trafficking and illicit sale of antiquities.

show abstract

Section: Origins Of the Factoidmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total value of stolen or smuggled objects d'art involved in international trafficking, running over $1 billion annually, is second only to narcotics (Nafziger 1985: 835).…”

Section: Origins Of the Factoidmentioning

confidence: 99%

The illicit trade in antiquities is not the world's third-largest illicit trade: a critical evaluation of a factoid

Yates

Brodie²

2023

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This rule has not been the subject of analysis by a GATT or WTO panel or WTO Appellate Body, so its precise scope remains unclear. Nafziger and Paterson (2014), p. 22. 55 TFEU, Art.…”

Section: Unesco Conventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Cultural Objects? Introducing Heritage Title for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Campfens

2020

Neth Int Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural objects have a special, protected, status because of their intangible ‘heritage’ value to people, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the first days of international law and, today, there is an extensive legal framework to protect cultural objects and to prohibit looting. Despite this, for as long as demand exists and profits are high, cultural objects continue to be looted, smuggled and traded. At some point, their character tends to change from protected heritage in an original setting to valuable art and commodity in the hands of new possessors. In this new setting, the legal status of such objects most likely will be a matter of ownership and the private law regime in the country where they happen to end up. This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and people, distinct from ownership, and is informed by international cultural heritage and human rights law norms. The proposition is that, whilst ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, legal tools are lacking to address heritage interests and identity values that are acknowledged in international law. Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solve title issues over contested cultural objects. The notion of ‘heritage title’ in a human rights law approach can act as a bridge in that regard.

show abstract

“…The contemporary cultural heritage law, embodied by domestic legislation as well as international agreements, expanded in response to the risk of transforming objects of heritage into a smuggled commodity to the detriment of, ultimately, their preservation and thus possibility of being cherished by the peoples of the world. Nowadays, UNESCO framework dominates the cultural heritage international law, addressing issues of protection, cooperation, rectification, criminal justice and dispute resolution, complemented by the fundamental law of international trade (the "WTO Agreement"), which accommodates in its non-discriminative rhetoric a discriminatory treatment for "national cultural treasuries" (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014). Merryman (1986) notes that although both the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property aim to protect the cultural property/heritage, each of them attaches to the term "protection" different meanings, embodying different and somewhat dissonant sets of values.…”

Section: Cultural Heritage Laws Within Nationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The international flow of cultural heritage goods is regulated by a number of self-standing treatise and international conventions, but also by special provisions that amend the general rules that apply to most other goods (Nafziger and Paterson, 2014). For instance, according to WTO rules, the "General Exceptions" stipulated in Article XX of the GATT exempt cultural goods from the interdiction of applying any prohibition to the export or import of goods -the so-called "National Treasuries" clause.…”

Section: Civilization As Cultural Diversity: On Ex/changing Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural heritage markets: are traders traitors? Winners and losers from cross-border shifts of historical artefacts

Jora

Apăvăloaei

Iacob

2018

Management &Amp; Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of cultural heritage covers the tangible and intangible things bequeathed from the past generations along with a spiritual signification, beyond any other serviceableness. Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers and aesthetes are the critical reviewers of the field, while legalists and economists contribute with their own concerns: regulation and evaluation. Be it of tangible nature – i.e., buildings, sites, paintings, sculptures or various other artefacts – or of an intangible one – i.e., traditions, practices, beliefs, literary or musical compositions –, the cultural heritage has challenged the economists urging them to offer sophisticated tools to assess its value, to make cost-benefit analyses with respect to its preservation, restoration or reuse. The supporters of regulation in the cultural goods market justify it through the fact that the market cannot provide in an efficient manner this type of goods, the solution being national government intervention – i.e., for the regulation and finance of cultural/heritage goods – or even international government regulation, in cases when national states’ failure is encountered. A widespread opinion is that heritage is communal, par excellence, this view implicitly adjusting the acceptation that private property has in the cultural realm. The present paper addresses the reality and the necessity of ownership and movement of heritage goods especially in the international markets, considered as a dangerous vacuum for national cultural treasuries.

show abstract

International trade in cultural material

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The illicit trade in antiquities is not the world's third-largest illicit trade: a critical evaluation of a factoid

The illicit trade in antiquities is not the world's third-largest illicit trade: a critical evaluation of a factoid

Whose Cultural Objects? Introducing Heritage Title for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Cultural heritage markets: are traders traitors? Winners and losers from cross-border shifts of historical artefacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About