Publication date: 11 December 2018
Do colonial artefacts from 55 African countries have to be returned by museums in the Netherlands and beyond? If so, what is the (legal) basis for restitution?
Since the recent publication of a French report commissioned by the French President on the above question, France has made a modest start in returning colonial art from French museums. The debate on this matter has been underway for some time. The French President considered the “theft” of art from African countries “a crime against humanity”. This was the reason for him to return colonial art from French museums. His motto is, France will face its past, France recognizes the crimes from the past and France comes to term with it, and thus France will again be on equal footing with the 55 African countries. The President of France cries out against theft of African cultural heritage, but at the same time he says that many artefacts have been preserved because of this theft!
A multitude of legal issues are in play in restitution of African heritage and play a major role in this: When and under which circumstances was this art purchased, by whom and how? In what way was this documented (or not) and administered in the country of origin and the museums in this country? Or is to be established that this cannot be established anymore? How do these transactions have to be qualified? How about the limitation period which is one of the pillars of legal certainty in trade in the Western world? Did the countries of origin ever request restitution? To name but a few aspects.
Does this always concern African cultural heritage or looted art? And how is “looted art” and African cultural heritage to be described in a legally correct way, both nationally and internationally? Can countries mutually agree on criteria or will the legal issues be treated per country and per object?
The conclusion that all art from Africa is cultural heritage, originates from theft and therefore “is looted art” is way too simplistic, although many cases might have borne marks pertaining to this. But how do you look for and find an internationally accepted criterion (as the Washington Principles regarding World War II looted art) to treat equal cases equally and settle them?
The discussion about African heritage is expanding across Europe.
In the beginning of December 2018, Congo demanded from Belgium to return its heritage when the renewed Africa Museum located in Tervuren near Brussels reopened. Restitution of colonial cultural heritage to African governments is no longer taboo for Belgium. This is what Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium and Minister of Development Cooperation Alexander De Croo said when the Africa Museum was reopened.
It is a matter of time that these issues will be discussed in the Netherlands in a similar way and everyone owning colonial cultural heritage is well-advised to work out his or her position in this, also in this respect, changing world.
Do you have any questions in response to this blog or would you like to resolve a dispute regarding colonial or other artefacts? Please contact Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M. (email@example.com) or fill in the form below.
Russell Advocaten has for the 17th consecutive year in a row been included in The Legal 500. We are pleased with the recognition for the quality of our legal services by experts and clients. Please read what they say about us:read on
The Dutch restitution policy returns to its original principles and is rightly becoming more generous. Cases that have already been settled can also be resubmitted. What will change in the policy?read on
The sale of a drawing by Rubens, owned by Princess Christina, at an auction in New York caused great indignation and a discussion about the policy for cultural heritage in the Netherlands. This resulted in two advice committees, the Pechtold Committee and the Buma Committee. The latter has issued an interim opinion, that, if adopted, could have serious consequences for art collectors and art dealers in the Netherlands.read on
Russell Advocaten noticed in its proceedings before the Dutch Restitutions Committee that the committee increasingly attached importance to the interest of the current owners. This is contrary to the Washington Principles. The committee appointed to evaluate Dutch restitution policy agrees with us in its “Striving for Justice” report.read on
Even if the Restitutions Committee recommends to return looted art, it is not certain that the work of art will actually return to its rightful claimants. It could be that the work of art is irreplaceable and indispensable to Dutch cultural heritage and may not leave the Netherlands.read on
At the online symposium of the Vereniging Kunst Cultuur Recht on the Heritage Act and the protection of cultural goods, Paul W.L. Russell, LL.M. threw a few stones into the pond. How useful are protective measures to keep cultural heritage in the Netherlands without making underlying purchase funds directly available? Is the designation procedure necessary?read on