Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Cultural Property Related Disputes: UNESCO Mediation and Conciliation Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market

Abstract

In the field of cultural property restitution, the most promising and adapted means of dispute settlement seem to be those encompassed by the expression of cultural diplomacy, such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, good offices and inquiry. Not only is the utilisation of these procedures useful when given international instruments are not applicable, but it is also encouraged by these instruments. In 1978 UNESCO established the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. This body has an advisory nature and is available to Member States and Associate Members of UNESCO. Among other purposes, it is responsible for seeking out ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin. Pursuant to this purpose, in September 2010, the UNESCO Committee adopted the Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation in Accordance with Article 4, Paragraph 1, of the Statutes of the UNESCO Committee. The aim of this contribution is to scrutinise and critically assess the most important features of these procedures, investigating their travaux préparatoires and comparing them to the apparently similar mechanism established by the ICOM–WIPO Mediation Rules.

The Author participated in the negotiation of the UNESCO mediation and conciliation procedures within the Italian delegation. However the views expressed in this contribution are the personal views of the Author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Italian delegation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Scovazzi (2011), pp. 341–395; Stamatoudi (2009), pp. 116–119.

  2. 2.

    International law scholars seem to utilise the expression of diplomatic means of dispute settlement as a synonym of alternative dispute resolution procedures, because sometimes they are very similar and their features get mixed up. Due to space limits, this contribution will not focus on the differences among these mechanisms. Suffice to say that diplomatic means of dispute settlement concern inter-state procedures while alternative dispute resolution procedures may also include other subjects, including museums or private actors. For practical reasons, in this contribution, most of the time but not always, as the international doctrine does, we will utilise these expressions as synonyms.

  3. 3.

    Cornu and Renold (2010), p. 12. Cornu and Renold refer to the mediation process used to reach an agreement between Saint-Gall and Zurich over ancient manuscripts and other cultural property that had been in the possession of the latter since 1712. Stamatoudi (2009), pp. 117 and 118. Stamatoudi lists seven reasons to prefer alternative dispute resolution procedures to national judicial proceedings. Among them the Author recalls the diversity of legal traditions and cultures, the cost of judicial proceedings and the difficulties of enforcing judgements in other legal systems. Stamatoudi also quotes a successful list of cases of cultural diplomacy, including, among others, the return of the Obelisk of Axum from Italy to Ethiopia, of the soapstone birds from Germany to Zimbabwe, of the ancestral human remains from the Royal College of Surgeons to South Australia and of the mask of the Kwakwaka’wakw people of Vancouver Island from the British Museum to Canada.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Treves (2005), pp. 581–601; Treves (1999).

  5. 5.

    1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (hereinafter: UNESCO Convention), Art. 17, para. 5: ‘At the request of at least two States Parties to this Convention which are engaged in a dispute over its implementation, UNESCO may extend its good offices to reach a settlement between them’. 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (hereinafter: UNIDROIT Convention), Art. 8, para. 2: ‘The parties may agree to submit the dispute to any court or other competent authority or to arbitration’.

  6. 6.

    Zedde (2012), pp. 108–117; Delepierre (2012), pp. 65–79; Scovazzi (2011), p. 375; Cornu and Renold (2010), p. 3.

  7. 7.

    Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or Its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, UNESCO doc. CTL/CH/INS-2005/21 (hereinafter: UNESCO Committee Statutes), Art. 1.

  8. 8.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 4, para. 1.

  9. 9.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 3, para. 2.

  10. 10.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 3, para. 1.

  11. 11.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 4, para. 1.

  12. 12.

    During the 15th session a Working Group was established to negotiate on the draft. Then between the 15th and the 16th sessions of the UNESCO Committee, an ad hoc Sub-Committee was established to continue the negotiation.

  13. 13.

    Recommendation of the Expert Meeting and Extraordinary Session in Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (…): Its Past and Future, UNESCO doc. CLT-2008/COMEX.1/Recom. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001827/182743E.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2013. See also Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea (2010), pp. 21–22.

  14. 14.

    It is worth recalling that at the time of the negotiation of the UNESCO Procedures, the ICOM–WIPO Mediation did not have the current form. Actually, at that time, the International Council of Museums (hereinafter: ICOM) had already established an international mediation discussion group on the relevant issues concerning the return and restitution of cultural objects in museum’s collections which were stolen, illegally exported or otherwise wrongfully expropriated. A draft guidance note had been prepared by the ICOM Legal Affairs Committee explaining practical aspects of utilising ICOM Mediation Policy and encouraging the amicable and preventive resolution of disputes concerning the ownership of cultural property in museum collection which were allegedly stolen or illegally exported from the country of origin. Mediation Rules were finally adopted in the framework of ICOM–WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program, established between the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter: WIPO) and ICOM. Under that Programme the two organisations established their collaboration in a number of fields and in particular copyright, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression, the digitisation of cultural artefacts and dispute resolution. The current ICOM–WIPO Mediation were launched in July 2011. Theurich (2012), p. 47; Slimani and Theurich (2012), pp. 53 and 55.

  15. 15.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2.

  16. 16.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 4, para. 1.

  17. 17.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, para. 1.

  18. 18.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, para. 3.

  19. 19.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, paras 2 and 4.

  20. 20.

    Treves (2005), pp. 589 and 592–594.

  21. 21.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, paras 2 and 4.

  22. 22.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 7.

  23. 23.

    UNESCO Procedures Art. 10, para. 4.

  24. 24.

    UNESCO Procedures Art. 10, para. 4.

  25. 25.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 4, para. 1, and UNESCO Procedures, Art. 10, para. 3.

  26. 26.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 17, para. a).

  27. 27.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 17, para. b).

  28. 28.

    Slimani and Theurich (2012), p. 63.

  29. 29.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 1.

  30. 30.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 3. Associate Members of UNESCO are defined in Art. 2, para. 3, of the UNESCO Constitution as ‘[t]erritories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations (…)’. UNESCO Constitution, 4 UNTS 275 (1945).

  31. 31.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 3.

  32. 32.

    Zedde (2012), p. 110; Scovazzi (2011), p. 375.

  33. 33.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 2, para. 1.

  34. 34.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 4.

  35. 35.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 4, para. 1, and Art. 1.

  36. 36.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 1.

  37. 37.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 4, para. 3.

  38. 38.

    Among the supporters of this initiative were Italy and South Korea. In this regard, Italy recalled how important had it been for the return of its cultural objects that the negotiations had been conducted directly with the American museums. So far, Italy has concluded five bilateral agreements for the restitution of important archaeological objects with: (1) the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2006); (2) the Museum of Fine Art of Boston (2006); (3) the Princeton University Art Museum (2007); (4) the J. Paul Getty Museum (2007); and (5) the Cleveland Museum of Art (2008).

  39. 39.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Washington DC, 1965 575 UNTS 159.

  40. 40.

    Such as Canada, Japan and the United States.

  41. 41.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 2, para. 1.

  42. 42.

    UNESCO Committee Statutes, Art. 4, para. 1.

  43. 43.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 32.

  44. 44.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 7, para. 3.

  45. 45.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, paras 2, 4 and 6. A List of Mediators and Conciliators Designated by Their Country has been published the 16 January 2013 and it is available on the website: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/mediators_conciliators_enfr_20130116.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2013.

  46. 46.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 7.

  47. 47.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 5 (a), and 3, para. 2.

  48. 48.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 5 (b).

  49. 49.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 7, para. 3.

  50. 50.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 7, para. 5.

  51. 51.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 7, para. 2.

  52. 52.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 7, para. 2.

  53. 53.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 11.

  54. 54.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 8, para. b) ii).

  55. 55.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 8, para. c).

  56. 56.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 2, para. 5.

  57. 57.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 3, para. 4.

  58. 58.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 3, para. 4.

  59. 59.

    Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Stockholm, 15 December 1992, 32 ILM 551 (1993) Article 24. For commentary, see Treves (2005), p. 594.

  60. 60.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 14, para. a). The ICOM Code of Ethic for Museum was adopted in 1986 and revised in 2004. http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/mpr/code2006_eng_02.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2013.

  61. 61.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 32.

  62. 62.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, paras 4 and 5.

  63. 63.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 4.

  64. 64.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 5.

  65. 65.

    Urbinati (2009).

  66. 66.

    Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1522 UNTS 3; 26 ILM 1550 (1987). The Non-Compliance Procedure was adopted by Decision X/10, Review of the Non-Compliance Procedure, UNEP doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.10/9. In this decision paras 12 and 13 establish that ‘12. [t]he Parties involved in a matter referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 or 4 shall inform, through the Secretariat, the Meeting of the Parties of the results of proceedings taken under Article 11 of the Convention regarding possible non-compliance, about implementation of those results and about implementation of any decision of the Parties pursuant to paragraph 9.13. The Meeting of the Parties may, pending completion of proceedings initiated under Article 11 of the Convention, issue an interim call and/or recommendations’. http://ozone.unep.org/Meeting_Documents/mop/10mop/10mop-9.e.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2013.

  67. 67.

    Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, 18 ILM 1442 (1979). The Non-Compliance Procedure was adopted by Decision 2006/2, Implementation Committee, Its Structure and Functions and Procedures for Review, UNECE doc. ECE/EB.AIR/2006/2, where in its para. 12, entitled Relationship to Settlement of Dispute, it is established that ‘[a]pplication of the present compliance procedures shall be without prejudice to the settlement of disputes provisions of the protocols’. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2006/eb/EB/EB%20Decisions/Decision%202006.2.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2013.

  68. 68.

    Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 1989 UNTS 310. The Non-Compliance Procedure was adopted by Decision III/2, Review of Compliance, UNECE doc. ECE/MP.EIA/6, where paras 14 and 15 concern the relationship to settlement of disputes and the inquiry procedure and provide that ‘[t]he present compliance procedure, as a non-adversarial and assistance-oriented procedure, shall be without prejudice to the settlement of disputes provisions in Article 15 of the Convention. 15. Where a matter is being considered under an inquiry procedure under Article 3, paragraph 7, of the Convention, that matter may not be the subject of a submission under this decision’. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2004/eia/ece.mp.eia.6.e.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2013.

  69. 69.

    Urbinati (2009), pp. 297–298.

  70. 70.

    Treves et al. (2009), pp. 503–504; Urbinati (2009), pp. 18–19.

  71. 71.

    Urbinati (2013), pp. 462–466.

  72. 72.

    UNESCO Procedures, paras 4 and 5 of Art. 6.

  73. 73.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 11, para. 1.

  74. 74.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 11, para. 1.

  75. 75.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 11, para. 2.

  76. 76.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 29.

  77. 77.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 26.

  78. 78.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 27.

  79. 79.

    http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/index.html. Accessed 23 April 2013.

  80. 80.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 26, para. c).

  81. 81.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 26, para. b).

  82. 82.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 27, para. b).

  83. 83.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 27, para. a).

  84. 84.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 28.

  85. 85.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 3, para. 1, and Art. 6, para. 1.

  86. 86.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 3.

  87. 87.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 1.

  88. 88.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 2.

  89. 89.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 1.

  90. 90.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 3, paras a) and b). Para. c) of the same provision establishes that ‘[c]ommunication of the Request for Mediation may take place by any means that provide a record of the communication, including by e-mail or other online options. This applies to all other communications in writing under these Rules’.

  91. 91.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 1.

  92. 92.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 2.

  93. 93.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 3.

  94. 94.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 4.

  95. 95.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 5.

  96. 96.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 9.

  97. 97.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 10.

  98. 98.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, paras 8 and 9.

  99. 99.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 8, para. 9.

  100. 100.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 3, para. d).

  101. 101.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 13.

  102. 102.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 16, para. a).

  103. 103.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 16, paras b) and c).

  104. 104.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 3, paras 2 and 3.

  105. 105.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 3, para. 2.

  106. 106.

    ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf, judgment, 20 February 1969, para. 85 ‘the parties are under an obligation to enter into negotiations with a view to arriving at an agreement, and not merely to go through a formal process of negotiation (…); they are under an obligation so to conduct themselves that the negotiations are meaningful, which will not be the case when either of them insists upon its own position without contemplating any modification of it’.

  107. 107.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 3.

  108. 108.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 14, para. b).

  109. 109.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 2, and Art. 8, para. 6.

  110. 110.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 6, para. 2, and Art. 8, para. 7.

  111. 111.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 18–22.

  112. 112.

    Slimani and Theurich (2012), p. 63.

  113. 113.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 21.

  114. 114.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 22.

  115. 115.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 10, para. 1.

  116. 116.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 10, para. 2.

  117. 117.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 10, para. 3.

  118. 118.

    UNESCO Procedures, Art. 10, para. 4.

  119. 119.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 17.

  120. 120.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 23.

  121. 121.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 24, para. a).

  122. 122.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 24, para. b).

  123. 123.

    ICOM–WIPO Mediation, Art. 2, para. a).

  124. 124.

    For instance, Art. 8, para. 9 of UNESCO Procedures establishes that ‘[t]he Mediator(s) or Conciliators shall endeavour to bring the Parties to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute within one year from the date of his/her appointment unless otherwise agreed by the Parties’.

References

  • Cornu M, Renold M-A (2010) New developments in the restitution of cultural property: alternative means of dispute resolution. Int J Cult Property 17:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea (2010) ICPRCP expert meeting and extraordinary session in celebration of its 30th anniversary. Its past and future. Vita Books Co., Ltd, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Delepierre S (2012) Résolution des différends internationaux en matière de biens culturels: le Règlement sur la médiation et la conciliation de l’UNESCO. In: Renold M-A et al (eds) Resolving disputes in cultural property. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2011) Diviser c’est détruire: ethical principles and legal rules in the field of return of cultural property. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 341–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Slimani S, Theurich S (2012) The new ICOM-WIPO art and cultural heritage mediation program. In: Renold M-A et al (eds) Resolving disputes in cultural property. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 51–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi I (2009) Mediation and cultural diplomacy. Museum Int 61:116–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Theurich S (2012) The role of international institutional dispute resolution in art and cultural heritage matters: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and its arbitration and mediation center. In: Renold M-A et al (eds) Resolving disputes in cultural property. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (1999) Le controversie internazionali. Nuove tendenze, nuovi tribunali. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2005) Diritto internazionale. Problemi fondamentali. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves et al (2009) Non-compliance procedures and mechanisms and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati S (2009) Les mécanismes de contrôle et de suivi des conventions internationales de protection de l’environnement. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati S (2013) La contribution des mécanismes de contrôle et de suivi au développement du droit international: le cas du Projet du Canal de Bystroe dans le cadre de la Convention d’Espoo. In: Boschiero et al (eds) International courts and the development of international law. Essay in Honour of Tullio Treves. Springer, The Hague, pp 457–471

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zedde K (2012) UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee on return and restitution of cultural property and the mediation and conciliation of international disputes. In: Renold M-A et al (eds) Resolving disputes in cultural property. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 107–129

    Google Scholar 

Documents

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal National and International Sciences, School of Law, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Sabrina Urbinati (Post Doctoral Research Fellow in International Law)

Authors
  1. Sabrina Urbinati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina Urbinati .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Valentina Vadi

  2. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands

    Hildegard E. G. S. Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Urbinati, S. (2014). Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Cultural Property Related Disputes: UNESCO Mediation and Conciliation Procedures. In: Vadi, V., Schneider, H. (eds) Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45094-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation