The Cultural Heritage Center website carries news about a proposed renewal of import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. CPAC's public session will take place on May 14th.
The Federal Register notice formally announcing the renewal is to be released on April 1st.
Somehow that is fitting. I'm all for the Chinese populace collecting rather than destroying (remember the Cultural Revolution) artifacts like the bazillions of cash coins that are found all the time in China, but hope CPAC recognizes that current restrictions have done little but to provide Chinese auction houses and dealers with a leg up on their foreign (especially US) competition.
Is it about protecting the archaeological record or encouraging the continued movement of the trade in Chinese artifacts to China and other major market countries?
Showing posts with label auction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auction. Show all posts
Should the Shultz Conviction Be Vacated?
In order to convict Fred Shultz of theft of Egyptian cultural property, the Government put on testimony that Egyptian Law 117 of 1983 unequivocally asserted state ownership of all antiquities and that private ownership, possession and disposal of such antiquities was prohibited. See United States v. Shultz, 178 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
Now that the Mubarak regime has fallen, however, an Egyptian academic has asserted that Mubarak, along with his predecessors, gave antiquities from the Egyptian museum away as gifts. Arguably then, because Fred Shultz's conviction was based on incomplete-- if not false testimony-- from Egyptian officials, in the interests of justice it should be vacated.
Interestingly, while Egyptian cultural authorities deny artifacts were gifted by President Mubarak, they do admit that antiquities were gifted before that time.
If so, shouldn't this news also support the dismissal of the Government's case against SLAM because it indeed shows the possibility that artifacts owned by the Egyptian government were gifted in the past?
Overaggressive US Prosecutors Basing Sotheby's Seizure on Repealed Foreign Law?
It appears that the US Government is hinging its seizure of a valuable statue from Sotheby�s based upon French colonial era laws that were repealed when the Khmer Rouge took power. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/arts/design/sothebys-caught-in-dispute-over-prized-cambodian-statue.html?ref=design
However, even assuming such colonial era laws vested absolute title over the statue in question in the Cambodian state, there is a real question whether they remain in force today. This is what a UN Report has to say on the subject.
According to Article 158 of the 1993 Constitution, laws and regulations which safeguard state property, as well as the rights and property of private individuals, and are consistent with the national interest, continue to be in force unless and until they are amended or repealed, except to the extent that they are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. There have been sharp disagreements in the interpretation of this Article, between those who would prefer to limit its effect to those laws and regulations which were actually in force immediately before the entry into force of the 1993 Constitution, and those who seek to use its provisions to revive laws which had been in force prior to the Khmer Rouge regime, but have in effect been repealed by the Khmer Rouge. It is an issue which would need to be addressed and successfully resolved, through passage of fresh legislation, if need be, if the objectives of the publication of laws are to be fully achieved.
See http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004695.pdf
This issue obviously requires additional research, but it again raises the legitimate question whether collectors, museums, dealers and auction houses should be subject to civil and/or criminal liability based on the vagaries of foreign law.
However, even assuming such colonial era laws vested absolute title over the statue in question in the Cambodian state, there is a real question whether they remain in force today. This is what a UN Report has to say on the subject.
According to Article 158 of the 1993 Constitution, laws and regulations which safeguard state property, as well as the rights and property of private individuals, and are consistent with the national interest, continue to be in force unless and until they are amended or repealed, except to the extent that they are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. There have been sharp disagreements in the interpretation of this Article, between those who would prefer to limit its effect to those laws and regulations which were actually in force immediately before the entry into force of the 1993 Constitution, and those who seek to use its provisions to revive laws which had been in force prior to the Khmer Rouge regime, but have in effect been repealed by the Khmer Rouge. It is an issue which would need to be addressed and successfully resolved, through passage of fresh legislation, if need be, if the objectives of the publication of laws are to be fully achieved.
See http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004695.pdf
This issue obviously requires additional research, but it again raises the legitimate question whether collectors, museums, dealers and auction houses should be subject to civil and/or criminal liability based on the vagaries of foreign law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)