The International Movement of Cultural Objects

Lyndel V. Prott*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    61 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The view that “cultural property internationalism” (Merryman) is represented by the Hague Convention 1954 and that it has been departed from in later UNESCO instruments can be challenged. Words which carry particular connotations can distort the argument—property is one of them, so cultural property is already a loaded term. The historical sources used to buttress the modern argument for more liberal trade in cultural objects bear other interpretations. Similarly, UNESCO's mandate has been narrowed in a way not justified by its constitution. UNESCO's later instruments, such as the 1970 Convention, do not represent an aversion to the art market, as is witnessed by its development on an international Code for Dealers. However, the art trade at present is based on the secrecy of transactions, and this has led to a number of scandals. Neither assessment of the interests at stake nor treaties on human rights or trade require tolerance of these practices.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)225-248
    Number of pages24
    JournalInternational Journal of Cultural Property
    Volume12
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The International Movement of Cultural Objects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this