in order for the United States to fulfill its obligation under the 1970 UNESCO Convention, it must stop conducting a war on antiquities (sic) - and those who acquire them ": Discuss.
It surely depends whether the people in question are acquiring antiquities following procedures ensuring their procurement is done in full compliance with all laws or not.
Ms Vitelli ignores the significance of what obligations the US accepts by becoming party to this convention. Or are they in reality just empty words?
True, the USA when it became party did so after making the longest list of exceptions so far recorded in the case of this convention, all of which are designed so as not to come in conflict with the dealers' lobby:
“United States reserves the right to determine whether or not to impose export controls over cultural property”. The United States understands the provisions of the Convention to be neither self-executing nor retroactive.’ The problem for Ms Vitelli's thesis is that it does not except the USA from accepting obligations under article 8. But the ACCG are doing their best to see what they can do about that.
The United States understands Article 3 not to modify property interests in cultural property under the laws of the States parties.
The United States understands Article 7 (a) to apply to institutions whose acquisition policy is subject to national control under existing domestic legislation and not to require the enactment of new legislation to establish national control over other institutions. The United States understands that Article 7(b) is without prejudice to other remedies, civil or penal, available under the laws of the States parties for the recovery of stolen cultural property to the rightful owner without payment of compensation. The United States is further prepared to take the additional steps contemplated by Article 7(b) (ii) for the return of covered stolen cultural property without payment of compensation, except to the extent required by the Constitution of the United States, for those states parties that agree to do the same for the United States institutions.
The United States understands the words “as appropriate for each country” in Article 10 (a) as permitting each state party to determine the extent of regulation, if any, of antique dealers and declares that in the United States that determination would be made by the appropriate authorities of state and municipal governments.
The United States understands Article 13(d) as applying to objects removed from the country of origin after the entry into force of this Convention for the states concerned, and, as stated by the Chairman of the Special Committee of Governmental Experts that prepared the text, and reported in paragraph 28 of the Report of that Committee, the means of recovery of cultural property under subparagraph (d) are the judicial actions referred to in subparagraph (c) of Article 13, and that such actions are controlled by the law of the requested State, the requesting State having to submit necessary proofs.
No comments:
Post a Comment