Effective International Law & Cultural Artifact Repatriation

Abstract

Cultural artifact repatriation and the role of international law is a contentious debate across both academic and public conversation. Economic incentive, lax enforcement of international law, and conflicting philosophies have obscured ownership laws, and as international law continues to institutionalize historical precedents, these conflicts now dominate the conversation. Two major agents of artifact collection, being museums and private collectors, impede, in differing ways, regulators’ ability to investigate claims of ownership, mismanagement, and illicit trafficking. Museums and private collectors often function as market drivers of the illicit art trade by curating public consumption and thus determining which artifacts are in demand. Cultural internationalists, who claim to prioritize universal ‘human heritage’ and public access conflict with cultural nationalist, who claim that artifact repatriation is tantamount to ethical heritage protection law. However, protections ratified by UNESCO and other IO’s struggle to find practical enforcement in international courts when they’re contending with the structure of country-by-country legislation. This paper will focus on the effectiveness of international law and its various genres, specifically governmental and ethical, at managing the ongoing case studies of the Benin Bronzes and the Elgin Marbles.