Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T11:21:04.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artwork, Cultural Heritage Property, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2007

Charlene A. Caprio
Charlene A. Caprio
Affiliation:
Columbia Law School. Email: cac2145@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent developments in U.S. case law have strengthened the power of private individuals to sue foreign sovereigns in U.S. courts over claims for artwork and cultural heritage property. Traditionally, however, the U.S. government granted a large amount of deference to foreign sovereigns regarding ownership rights in such property. Principles such as grace and comity with other nations, respect for cultural heritage property ownership, and increasing public access to art are reflected in U.S. legislation. For example, the adoption of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) all demonstrate a strong position held by the United States to recognize and protect ownership rights in cultural heritage property.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 285 - 309
Copyright
© 2006 International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

“Austria ‘May Return Looted Art.’” BBC News, April 7, 2006. 〈http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4883488.stm〉 accessed November 15, 2006.
“Embattled Tablets.” Archaeology, (September/October 2006): 12.
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Identity and Cultural Property: The Protection of Cultural Property in the United States.” Boston University Law Review 75 (1995): 559–688.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Andrew; Warmbir, Steve. “Terror Victims claim U. of C. relics: Group wants valuable Iranian Artifacts to cover $71 million suit.” Chicago Sun-Times, December 13, 2005.
Kimmelman, Michael. “Klimt Sale: The Roads Not Taken by Heirs.” International Herald Tribune, Sept. 20, 2006.
Meier, Barry. “Antiquities and Politics Intersect in a Lawsuit.” The New York Times, March 29, 2006.
Merryman, John H. “Cultural Property Internationalism.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005) 11–39.Google Scholar
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 〈http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/SPECIAL/International.htm〉 accessed November 15, 2006.
Noonan, Rebecca. “Immunity from Seizure.” In Who Owns the Past, edited by Kate Fitz, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005.
Slevin, Peter. “U.S., Iran Form Unlikely Alliance to Protect Artifacts From Seizure in Bombing Lawsuit.” Washington Post, July 18, 2006.
Vincent, Steven. “Indian Givers.” In Who Owns the Past, edited by Kate Fitz, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005.
Vogel, Carol, “$491 Million Sale at Christie's Art Auction Record.” The New York Times, November 9, 2006.
Waxman, Sharon. “A Homecoming, in Los Angeles, for Looted Klimts” The New York Times, April 6, 2006.