2011 International Forum on the Return of Cultural Property: Strategies to Build the International Network for the Return of Cultural Property

Transcription

1 Summary Report 2011 International Forum on the Return of Cultural Property: Strategies to Build the International Network for the Return of Cultural Property Date/Venue: 19 July, 2011/ Seoul, Republic of Korea Organizers: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea, and the Korea National Commission for UNESCO Sponsor: UNESCO Opening Remarks Jihon Kim, Assistant Programme Specialist of the Culture & Communication Team of the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, started the proceedings with a thank you to the organizing institutions and sponsors and a brief introduction of the moderators, presenters and discussants. Kim then invited Kwang-Shik Choe, Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea, and Bonghyun Kim, Deputy Minister for Multilateral and Global Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Korea to speak. Kwang-Shik Choe, took the floor first. He extended the thanks of the Korean Government for all those that have travelled for the conference. He spoke about how this year is a milestone in the Korean effort to have cultural properties returned; the return of the Oegyujanggak from France and Uigwe from Japan were mentioned as examples of success. Choe explained the importance of viewing cultural properties in their native cultural and heritage context. He then went on to say that this was a significant part of any sustainable approach to cultural heritage. Choe finished with an extension of his thanks to the forum organizers. Bonghyun Kim began with expressing his appreciation for those present for their attendance at the conference. He spoke of culture as an important aspect of identity and the necessity of cultural properties being returned to the state of origin. This is clearly stated in the 1979 UNESCO convention, and Kim hopes that more and more states will be more active in the return of cultural assets. Korea has sought the restitution of 140,000 items, and so far, some 8,000 items have already been returned. He saw the conference as an opportunity to pool both wisdom and practice towards this end. He reiterated Choe s examples of the Oegyujanggak and the Uigwe as strong examples of successful restitution. Welcoming Remarks The welcoming remarks began with Taeck-soo Chun, the Secretary-General of the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, described the hosting of the event as an honour and expressed his gratitude for those who were attending the forum. He noted in the realm of cultural restitution that mediation and cooperation, in both the public and private spheres, was increasing. However, Chun also noted that several of the major holding states are still reticent in regards to restitution. This could mean that current efforts may not be as effective as we could hope, but, the work done today is

2 something that could continue to be built upon. Following Taeck-soo Chun, Yoon-Sun Cho, a member of the Korean National Assembly, detailed in her own welcoming remarks the importance of persistence and patience in seeking the return of cultural properties. Cho then explained that it would be most ideal if the total ownership of cultural properties could be transferred to Korea. Cho suggested that there are other approaches one can take and offered the establishment of the Overseas Korean Heritage Affairs Division at the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea as an example. Keynote Speech: Development of International Cooperation for the Return of Cultural Property Speaker: Lyndel V. Prott, Honorary Professor, University of Queensland Professor Prott was welcomed to the podium with applause from the assembled delegates. She began her presentation by remarking how wonderful it was to see all the patience and persistence that Korea has exercised in its pursuit of the restitution of its cultural artifacts. The Professor noted that the forbearance of Korea is a great example others can follow. Professor Prott then went on to talk about the continuing importance of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and some of the weaknesses in the subsequent 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Then there was a brief coverage of the history and themes of cultural artifacts restitution. The Professor entitled her keynote presentation Getting it Back, a thorough and practical guide to cultural artifact restitution. The Professor started by noting that aggressive approaches appear to be counter-productive, but, suggested that a methodical and well thought out approach was the best route to success. Professor Prott explained the importance of a requesting state performing an inventory of cultural aspects in order to identify gaps in collections and to provide priorities in regards to returns. This should be followed up with very thorough research into the items selected for return, from the history of the item to its legal status in both jurisdictions, as well as the attitudes of the public and courts towards cultural returns. The Professor explained that approaching a state where the chances of success are higher is likely to be more rewarding in the long-term as it can help to set a precedent. If the item is part of a museum s collection, the opening up of a dialogue and negotiations for both access and collaboration and to engage in further research into the cultural artifact can be beneficial as part of a wider effort to have the property returned. Professor Prott then went on to explain in detail why a well thought out and assembled argument is key to a successful restitution. If the state seeking restitution is able to present compelling Cultural, Ethical and Legal arguments for the item(s) return then the possibility of success is higher. Professor Prott, cautioned that presenting the Economic case for return can be counterproductive as the cultural property may not provide as significant of an economic advantage to the state seeking its return as is first perceived and that an economic argument might concern the holding state as to the use the cultural property is put to on its return. It was also suggested that tying negotiations for restitutions into political bargaining such as restricting, or denying, excavation permits to archaeologists from holding states. As well as linking restitutions to non-cultural cooperation such as trade and support in international affairs can be useful. However, this stratagem can encounter internal political problems

3 when a state seeking restitution is prioritizing other bilateral cooperation from the holding state, for example, in the receipt of foreign aid. The presentation also included details on common counter arguments and responses, which are both openly stated and unstated, from holding states, The examples given by the Professor were that the claimant state may not be a member of the conventions on the restitution of cultural properties, and that the claimant state may not be able to provide adequate accommodation, maintenance and conservation for the cultural property. Also, a claimant s record on good governance, from stability, corruption and extreme poverty, may be a cause for concern in the holding state. Addressing these concerns is vital to improve chances of success. The Professor ended the keynote presentation with a brief description of the common conditions placed on the return of cultural artefacts. An example that was provided include facing saving measures such as the inclusion of the term of permanent loan of acultural property, allowing the holding state to detail the artefact as only being loaned to the claimant state while the claimant can point to the permanent nature of the arrangement. The professor also hoped to talk about the means of pursuing a request, criminal proceedings and networks; however, unfortunately due to time constraints, these matters were not addressed. Details on these issues which Professor Prott wished to address can be found in the handbook provided at the forum. SESSION 1: The Recent Trend of Domestic and International Activities for the Return of Cultural Property Moderator: Ho-Young Song, Professor of Law, Hanyang University Speakers : Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Professor of Law, University of Western Australia Hye Moon, Head of the Committee for the Return of Cultural Property Maria Andreadaki-Vlazaki, General Director of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage at the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Greece Discussants: Gyooho Lee, Professor of Law, Chung-Ang University Kwang-Pyo Lee, Deputy Head of the Culture Department, DongA Daily Kil Bai Lee, Director of Overseas Korean Heritage Affairs Division, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea Jin Sung Jeon, Head of Culture & Communication Team, Korean National Commission for UNESCO Professor Ho-Young Song, the moderator, reopened the forum with the first session after a short break for photographs. He began the proceedings by telling delegates that it is a great honour to be a moderator in front of such distinguished speakers and guests. He explained the first session to be part of our need to know the current situation regarding the return of cultural property before talking about the future. He then introduced the distinguished presenters and panel members who would contribute to session one.

4 Restitution of Cultural Properties Trafficked During Colonization: A Human Rights Perspective Speaker: Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Professor of Law, University of Western Australia Professor Ana Filipa Vrdoljak was the first to take the stage during the Session 1. She started by commenting that we are witnessing a greater resurgence for, and success in, the process of restitution. At the same time we are also seeing a coalescence of international human rights law and cultural artefacts. The Professor noted that by looking back at colonisation and how it impacts claims, things are very much defined by European colonial powers due to their former ability to define international law and colonial status. Professor Vrdoljak explained that the narrative developed by European colonial powers from the late eighteenth century onwards through the articulation of modern international law to justify the occupation of foreign lands and peoples is clearly discernible in leading treatises of the period. The evolution of this legal narrative related not only to the territory, resources and its inhabitants but covered their cultural heritage, also. Indeed, the cultural heritage of these territories gradually became an indelible component of central justification for European colonization and the narrative s argument of its intrinsic benevolence of European colonization the spread of progress and civilization to these occupied territories. Professor Vrdoljak noted that it was the process of decolonisation that led to an awakening of a process of restitution. While not always having been successful, more recent achievements mean that we should look forward by redefining the past. Some former narratives in relation to cultural restitution have been revoked, and there is an opportunity for a reconsideration of all old narratives. The Professor noted that old interpretations in particular, such as those due to the Cold War, have ended, and that there is a shift of economic power. This has created a moment of flux which we must grasp. Professor Vrdoljak noted that we must review/reinterpret the following: i) The act of removal (to provide more appreciation of the illicit nature of a removal) ii) The foreign occupation (the failure of restitution is a continuation of colonial occupation) iii) Property (individual ideas of ownership vs. communal claims of ownership) iv) Self-determination The Professor also noted that Human rights law in cases of cultural restitution are the most important of international law. This is because within those there are rights to both property and to selfdetermination. Newly independent states wanted to ensure that their sovereignty covers their cultural development and to regain rights over their cultural patrimony. Professor Vrdoljak summed up by saying that this period of change provides an opportunity to redefine the previous arguments and work towards restitution. Congratulations were also offered to Korea for their success in regards to the long and difficult negotiations with France that have recently been resolved for the return of the Oegyujanggak.

5 Challenges Faced During the Repatriation Process of the Joseon Wangsil Uigwe (Royal Protocols of the Joseon Dynasty) Speaker: Hye Moon, Head of the Committee for the Return of Cultural Property Mr. Hye Moon took the floor after Professor Vrdoljak and started by saying that it is great to be here and gave thanks for the opportunity to speak at this important function. He wanted to talk to the speakers about an approach he took, which is not legal or academic and is different from that demonstrated by those who have spoken before. There is no theory of restitution, and he hopes to present a good example from the experience he had. Mr. Hye Moon spoke about the recent case of the return of Joseon Wangsil Uigwe (Royal Protocols of the Joseon Dynasty), which were illicitly trafficked during Japanese colonial period in Korea. Hye Moon regards this case as an ideal example of the return of cultural properties as Uigwe was voluntarily returned by the Japanese government. The Japanese government returned it as a token of an apology for colonisation. Mr. Hye Moon defined that Finding the Right Home for Cultural Properties is a movement for the return of illicitly trafficked cultural properties during and after the 19th century imperialism and colonisation. Following the spirit of a capitalist society, things move from the poor to the wealthy. Thus, treasures from colonised countries were illicitly moved to the museums of western countries, for example, Louvre Museum in France, Museums in Briton, and Metropolitan Museum in New York. What is the essence of this movement? The Buddha has come to his rightful place, and this translates as the return of everything to its rightful place (a Buddhist-Socialist approach). He assumes Korea is so keen on getting all these cultural items returned because of the unfair treaty in 1965 between Korea and Japan that limits the options for Korea to request the return of cultural properties from Japan. The treaty did allow the restitution of some cultural properties in , but these 1400 items all had little significance and value. The case of Uigwe can serve as a benchmark for other cases in the international movement for the return of cultural properties. The return of the Uigwe with its political symbolism, cultural values and history of civil activities represents a deeper meaning to the movement. The case of the Uigwe represents how a return of cultural properties can act as a means of reconciliation in political and cultural disputes between countries. The case represents not only a victory for the Koreans but can also be considered a victory for both Korea and Japan, who both are very much concerned with resolving the problems related to their intertwined past. Greece s Recent Cases of the Restitution of Cultural Porperties and the Process of the Cooperation Speaker: Maria Andreadaki-Valazaki, General Director of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage at the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Greece Dr. Maria Andreadaki-Valazaki spoke next and after thanking those present for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Greece, she provided delegates with an insight into their experience of the

6 restitution of cultural properties and the process of cooperation that takes place for that end. Dr. Andreadaki-Valazaki first described the situation in Greece in respects to the wealth of cultural properties that exist in the country. The presentation then included details of what Greece has been involved in internationally, from the signing of conventions to bilateral arrangements related to the restitution of cultural properties. The presentation also included details of what Greece was doing internally from legislation, enforcement and education on matters of cultural artefacts. The presentation then included several examples of different types of restitutions, such as those that involve judicial procedures after the illicit removal of cultural artefacts and an attempt to auction those (often online). Examples of when an item is recovered in the possession of antiques dealers without an auction taking place were also presented; this is often through the support of agencies such as Interpol. Other examples included donations of cultural property to Greece from individuals or institutions. Maria Andreadaki-Valazaki, commented that in the case of donations the management of these restitutions is easier when the various stakeholders are few. Dr. Andreadaki-Valazaki noted that repatriations occur after surveying and proving that an artefact has been illicitly moved from its country of origin and its current ownership is, therefore, illegal. It is in these cases that the International Conventions prove their worth and significance. It was then further noted that negotiations with the holders of these cultural artefacts can be long, difficult and rather complicated, since on the one hand, some objects are poorly or not at all documented and on the other hand, the possessor may bring several hard, but not impossible to fight arguments, such as suspicious authentication of an object or invalid export licenses. Dr. Andreadaki-Valazaki then went on to note that even once a return has been agreed, the matters of transportation, handling and packing of the items, are issues that must never be underestimated. The insurance of the object to be transported as well as the documents necessary for its legal export, import or transit from a country is crucial for a smooth repatriation. Her presentation then concluded with the comment that interference in the market for cultural properties through the implementation of regulations that demand dealers and auction houses to produce all the necessary evidence in regards to the items providence, according to established international ethics, could hit the root of the problem. Ecuador s Recent Cases of the Restitution of Cultural Properties and the Process of the Cooperation Speaker: Gustavo Adolfo Benitez Alvarez, Alternate Representative of the Ecuador National Committee against Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods Dr. Alvarez spoke next in regards to Ecuador s experience. He detailed the sites in Ecuador that have been listed by UNESCO as sites of beauty for mankind due to its cultural and natural heritage. This was followed by a listing of the national and international legal protections, as well as the enforcement measures and institutions, adopted by Ecuador to ensure the protection of cultural and natural heritage resources. Dr. Alvarez explained a brief list of the various restitution routes: i) Diplomacy

7 ii) Mutual Cooperation iii) Civil Proceedings iv) Criminal proceedings He then provided a thorough conclusion of his assessment of the difficulties in the restitution of cultural artefacts. i) The difficulties faced when dealing with different domestic laws, even with the implementation of international legal instruments. To overcome this Mr. Alvarez called for a harmonisation of international laws in order to remove barriers and delays. ii) A lack of commitment from diplomatic, judicial and administrative agents. He suggested that greater training, specialisation and the promotion of the process of reciprocity in the field of cultural restitution would improve the situation. iii) A lack of specialised colleges, denying a thorough education for many of those involved in the restitution of Cultural artefacts in the latest developments in the field of cultural property restitution. Mr. Alvarez called for more institutions of specialized cultural heritage educational institutions, either as part of a domestic or international effort. iv) A shortage of experts able to identify cultural artefacts, particularly with a global breadth of knowledge. v) The difficulty faced in the restitution of a cultural property that was removed as part of an illicit or clandestine excavation, where a formal registration of the item was not possible. vi) The legal difficulties faced over matters of illegal importation or exportation and an unlawful import or export. Discussants Gyooho Lee, Professor of Law, Chung Ang University Professor Gyooho Lee was the first of the discussants invited to speak, and after noting the importance of Human Rights Law as part of international law, he asked two questions directed to Professor Vrdoljak. 1) In view of human rights standards, how much support will the proprietor of cultural properties be able to receive in restituting their cultural objects according to different periods: pre-international law, colonial era, post-colonial era? 2) In the case of a country relinquishing the right to file a claim of personally-owned cultural properties according to an intergovernmental agreement between colonizing and colonized countries, what different logic are applied to different periods mentioned above? Professor Vrdoljak responded by saying that both questions were excellent and they were in fact interrelated. She answered that we should reformulate international law in a postcolonial structure, which used to be defined and formulated by colonial powers to justify colonial rules in the past. Professor Vrdoljak argued that human rights law and human dignity, which would have been accepted by former colonial powers, are important due to the intrinsic nature of that body of law because they

8 provides us with a feasible solution to the issue. As an example of this argument, Professor mentioned the cases of Latin America and Africa and emphasised cooperation and settlement between states on the issues of the return of cultural properties as a means to move beyond painful colonial past. Kwang-Pyo Lee, Deputy Head of the Culture Department, DongA Daily Mr. Kwang-Pyo Lee tanked Mr. Hye Moon for his effort in returning cultural properties and praised his successful strategies used for returning them. Directing his comments to Mr. Hye Moon, Mr. Kwang-Pyo Lee noted that there has been some criticism of the 5 year nature of the Franco-Korean arrangement on Oegyujanggak Uigwe, and the use of language at the time of returning Joseon Wangsil Uigwe (through methods of donation not restitution ) to Korea. He then asked Mr. Hye Moon s opinion on the approach that we should rather delay the negotiation process of restitution of cultural properties by taking considerable length of time and the ways we can use that time to utilize them that are currently abroad. Mr. Hye Moon commented that we should approach the issues of retuning cultural properties through not only governmental organisations but also other means such as civil society and the media rather than only considering legal and academic approaches to suc- ceed in the returning process. Also, Hye Moon said that it is not wise to overemphasise on the languages used in the process of returning Joseon Wangsil Uigwe as it was returned as a token of an apology for the colonial past, therefore, we should take each different individual approach according to various circumstances in dealing with different cases of the return of cultural properties rather than persisting one fixed approach. Kil Bai Lee, Director of Overseas Korean Heritage Affairs Division, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea Mr. Kil Bai Lee provided no question as such, but expressed his respect and thanks to Ms. Vlazaki for providing useful examples of Greece in retuning cultural properties that will be useful reference for Korean government when dealing with restitution issues. Also, Mr. Lee said that Korean government is preparing an international forum titled Korea Conference in order to discuss the issues of restitution of cultural properties while arguing that it is very important to pursue not only effective cooperation between states but also international cooperation and networks. Jin Sung Jeon, Head of Culture & Communication Team, Korean National Commission for UNESCO Mr. Jin Sung Jeon called for stronger legislation, better training and systems as well as common understandings on the restitution of cultural properties. He directed two questions related to training in Ecuador to Mr. Alvarez. 1) Has Ecuador encouraged civic groups related to cultural restitution? 2) Has Ecuador improved training? Mr. Alvarez responded that Ecuador has organisations that work closely with Universities and provide programs. In regards to a training plan, there is one in place that targets individuals from both public and private institutions. This includes the Police, Judiciary, Customs and the Armed Forces. This builds upon a guide for the identification of cultural properties that has already been in place.

9 After the panel discussion moderator Professor Song took the opportunity to ask Dr. Maria Andreadaki-Valazaki for her thoughts on how to achieve better results. Dr. Andreadaki-Valazaki answered that there should be an introduction of a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Question from the Floor The forum was then opened to a question from the delegates. Jong-Jae Lee, as a person with interest in the subject matter, noted that the world is getting smaller and that the goal of restitution of cultural artefacts is something that we can share. Our culture is part of our global identity, which can help us. He also questioned if the return, by the UK, of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, may have helped Greece during the current difficulties. Dr. Maria Andreadaki-Valazaki responded that in the case of the reunification of the monument. Athens is still awaiting for the return of the Parthenon marbles from the UK, and that the museum where they will be housed is both ready and waiting. She ended her response by noting that the best place to see cultural artefacts are in their natural environment. SESSION 2: Strategies to Build the Network on the Restitution of Cultural Properties and its Importance Moderator: Keun-Gwan Lee, Professor of Law, Seoul National University Speakers : Manilo Frigo, Professor of European Union and International Law, University of Milan Beatrice Kaldun, Programme Specialist of Culture, UNESCO Office Beijing. Pyung-Woo Hwang, Director of Korea Cultural Heritage Policy Research Institute Discussants: Jae-Bok Chang, Minister-Counsellor & Deputy Permanent at Delegate Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO Nayoung Kim, a member of the Committee for the Restitution of the Icheon Five-Story Pagoda(Absent) Jae Kyoung Lee, Professor of Law, Konkuk University Carlo Emilio Piazzini Suarez, Director of the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History The Moderator, Professor Keun-Gwan Lee, opened the second session of the forum with comments on how events such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the looting of cultural artefacts as well as the attempts of restitution for those properties have led to an increase in media interest in the wider subject of restitution of cultural properties.

10 Role of International Network and its Importance in the Recent Italian Cases Speaker: Manlio Frigo, Professor of European Union and International Law, University of Milan Professor Frigo, as the first presenter of the 2nd session of the forum, began his presentation by extending thanks for the glamorous hospitality of the organisers. He noted that the case of Italy is quite interesting as Italians were both victims and perpetrators of looting of cultural artefacts. To illustrate his point he provided both examples ofwhere Italy, as a colonial power had removed cultural property and has since returnedthose to the claimant states. He then went on to detail where Italy had been successful in the restitution of Italian Cultural Property. Professor Frigo spoke first of the case of the Obelisk of Axum, taken from Ethiopia in 1937 and erected in Rome. He provided excellent detail on the arrangements made in 2004 for the return of the Obelisk, including the responsibility of each of the parties in the logistics and financing of the return of the item to Ethiopia as well as the detailing of the re-erection of the Obelisk with technical support from both Italian and UNESCO experts. Next, Professor Frigo provided details on the return of the Venus of Cyrene to Libya, removed from Libya in 1915 and returned under an agreement made in 1998 pursuant to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. There was also an explanation of the legal difficulties in returning the statue due to the judicial claims of Italia Nostra, which were overcome by the existence in a customary international law ruling that there was a duty to return cultural properties taken during the colonial domination when in violation of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and of the self-determination of peoples principle. Finally, the Professor detailed some examples of restitution of cultural properties to Italy, the importance of agreements with museums and the complexity of the contractual arrangements for restitution. He spoke of the material aspects of restitution from duration to cultural cooperation in the form of exchanges and assistance in research. Professor Frigo concluded with a summing up of the types of agreements/contracts of cultural cooperation, multilateral International Conventions, EU legislation, police cooperation, bilateral agreements, national legislation and international codes of ethics. Challenges of International Network on the Restitution of Cultural Properties Speaker: Beatrice Kaldun, Programme Specialist of Culture, UNESCO Beijing Office Ms. Beatrice Kaldun opened her presentation by noting that most of the speakers today have been quite positive about UNESCO and that there has been no criticism of the organisation; this is likely due to the tools for cultural restitution and against illicit trafficking that UNESCO uses. These tools were introduced as a direct result of the International Conventions. Ms. Kaldun, presented on the concept of Networks and the challenges that these face from the perspective of UNESCO. UNESCO was the first international organisation, during peace time, to

11 assist in the cooperation of cultural matters between states. There are currently 150 member states committed to cooperation in the cultural sphere. UNESCO provides mediation as well as expertise. It is intergovernmental institutions that UNESCO works closely with, and which forms the basis of the network that Ms. Kaldun presented on. These were listed as: i) Interpol (of special importance is the stolen works of art database) ii) UNIDROIT (International institute for the unification for private law), 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Cultural Restitution iii) WCO World Customs Organisation iv) International Centre for Study for Preservation and ICCROM in Rome advisory body to UNESCO Non Governmental Organisations: i) The International Council of Museums over 30,000 members, active in 130 countries, produced an important code of professional ethics. National organisations: i) Carbanari in Italy or French OCB, ii) Korean Cultural Administration. Ms. Kaldun also reminded us of the importance of private partners such as private museums, foundations and individuals. It was stressed that these should not be underestimated as partners for cooperation. Of particular interest to East Asia is the Intergovernmental Committee for promoting the return of cultural properties to its country of origin or its restitution in case of illicit appropriation. There are 22 members, and most East Asian States are members of this committee. It acts as a mediator in difficult circumstances when conventions do not apply, and it is funded by voluntary contributions. Ms. Kaldun then began to discuss the challenges (normative, political, and diplomatic) that these networks face. Due to a shortage of time she was only able to briefly list these. More in-depth details can be found in the forum handbook. i) The number of UNESCO and UNIDROIT ratifications is still not enough. ii) Aggressive approaches are counter-productive. iii) International moral pressure can help. Strategy to Build International Network for Public and Private Organizations Speaker: Pyung-Woo Hwang, Director of the Korea Cultural Heritage Policy Research Institute The Director began his presentation with reference to the numerous activities that are taking place globally for the return of cultural properties that have been looted or displaced abroad during the colonial era. He noted that this was based on the ideas of universalism, but not the Western Civilization s concept of Universalism, which calls for the display of assets at a central and well managed facility such as the Louvre or the British Museum. Rather, for Mr. Hwang, this means the

12 sharing of methods and techniques for the protection of cultural properties as well as ensuring the cultural properties wider access. Mr. Hwang noted that approaching the issue of return of cultural properties based on notions of nationalism and patriotism will only bring about further physical and emotional conflicts between nations. Hence, a state or civic organisation should promote restitution on the basis of cultural democracy. Mr. Hwang spoke in detail in regards to the concept and importance of cultural rights for both individuals and groups and how this relates to the return of cultural properties to the origin state. Mr. Hwang was very clear that cultural properties are national possessions, and a return of a cultural artefact should be returned to institutes that represent all the people and allow the greatest access. Items should not be taken into the private sphere. The presentation also included details on the Jinju declaration, adopted at the 5th Meeting of the Association for the Return of Cultural Properties (13 May 2010). The declaration was a statement on a shared responsibility for and a non-aggressive and cooperative methodology in the practice of cultural restitution. The declaration also clearly states that the return of cultural properties must be for the public interest. Mr. Hwang commented that the Government of Korea must, in the future, take a longer perspective in regards to the return of cultural properties, avoiding short-term populism and working closely with other states that also suffer from displaced cultural artefacts. Mr. Hwang further commented that the South Korean Government must ensure support for all public and civilian organisations that seek the return of cultural artefacts, regardless of political standing. The presentation then included details on Mr. Hwang s preferred restructuring on a network or foundation to support the restitution and protection of cultural properties. It was also suggested how this might be achieved in the fairest and most efficient manner. Mr. Hwang then rounded off his presentation with comments on the Asia Academy for Heritage Management, the importance of having a strategic approach towards network building, and the benefits that this would bring. Discussants: Jae-Bok Chang, Minister-Counsellor & Deputy Permanent at Delegate Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO Mr. Jae-Bok Chang began his discussion point with a thanks to the very knowledgeable speakers who have reminded us anew the importance of networks. He commented that there was a considerable requirement for funding in the initial stage from government. Jae Kyoung Lee, Professor of Law, Konkuk University Professor Lee Jae Kyoung commented that we have heard about the case of Italy where there are many examples of contracts between Italy and US Museums. He suggested that it would be a positive

13 development if UNESCO would be more involved in the mediation between contracting parties during cases of restitution of cultural properties. Carlo Emilio Piazzini Suarez, Director of the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History After thanking the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea, Mr. Piazzini began his presentation by explaining that the important cultural sites and objects of Colombia are formally protected by the constitution and laws of the state. Cultural artefacts belong to the Colombian Nation and do not as such belong to individuals; the sale and export of these properties is forbidden without state authorization. Nevertheless, many important items have been removed from the country and are contained in foreign private and museum collections. Mr. Piazzini explained the scenarios under which cultural artefacts have been removed from Colombia and the locations of major collections of Colombian artefacts in Museums, such as the Museum of America in Madrid, the Ethnographic Museum of Berlin, the Quai Branly in Paris, the British Museum in London and the Chicago Field Museum. The presentation then included details of the International Agreements on the restitution of cultural properties that Colombia is party to as well as details of local legislation. Mr. Piazzi then went on to provide examples of successful restitution. Mr. Piazzini explained the difficulties and high costs of legal proceedings in holding states with a very high burden of proof of providence placed on the claimant state. With this in mind, he recommended that the strengthening of bi-lateral and/or regional agreements for cooperation, as well as the fulfilment of international agreements and the establishment of networks such as the forum, are all of great importance in advancing the protection, recognition and restitution of cultural artefacts. It was also noted that it is important to consider that restitution of cultural properties by states must, to allow for the effective appropriation and management of cultural heritage on the part of local communities, take into account the legitimate interests and claims of local communities such as indigenous peoples in Latin America, who seek the return of cultural artefacts to their own territory within the wider state. Adoption of the Seoul Declaration The Forum was closed by Professor Keun-Gwan Lee with his reading of the Declaration of the International Forum on the Return of Cultural Property ( Seoul Declaration ). The Professor asked if any delegates had any objections to the adoption of the declaration, which led to a good natured laugh from the delegates. With no objections from those present, the Seoul Declaration was formally adopted by the forum. Through the Declaration, the participants at the forum agreed that recognizing cultural heritage as something irreplaceable has symbolic meaning to the people of the country of origin and is fundamental to their cultural rights. Participants decided to encourage better use of existing databases of stolen works of arts and to actively cooperate with experts, civil society, and nongovernmental organizations when updating inventories and to make continuous efforts to enhance intergovernmental cooperation to build the international network for the return of cultural property.