Archaeology Magazine - November/December 1993 - 82

preted against not only the background of the Second
(that between nations often embodied in multilateral
or bilateral treaties). Initially, the Soviet Union in- World War, but the entire experience of mankind in
the field of restitution, as well as the range of multinasisted that the looted artworks were just compensation
for destroyed Soviet treasures. Although it might be tional conventions and agreements.
The two most significant international agreements
reasonable to require reparations for lost treasures, to
use treasures as reparations is contrary to the princi- that attempt to protect cultural property are the 1954
ples of international law. In 1992, Boris Yeltsin estab- Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in
the Event of Armed Conflict (the "Hague Convenlished a State Commission on Restitution. Official
Russia
and
between
tion") and the Unesco Convention on the Means of
Germany
concerning
negotiations
the mutual return of cultural property were started on Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Transport, ExFebruary 10, 1993, in Dresden where the German Min- port and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,
ister of the Interior and the Russian Minister of Cul- adopted in 1970. The Hague Convention also applies
to international trafficking during peacetime in culture signed a protocol reaffirming previous obligations
tural property unlawfully seized
under the German-Soviet
armed conflict.
of
1990.
during
Cooperation Treaty
The Hague Convention explicitly
Under article 15 of that
prevents making an art object a war
treaty both parties undertake to return unconditiontrophy and compels the return of art
to its originili owner with compensaally all treasures of art or
tion paid by the "looting" nation. A
cultural objects illegally
transferred from both terriprotocol to the Hague Convention
was signed by the USSR and the
tories and that are on both
Federal Republic of Germany, but
territories. Russia claims it
not the United States.
is missing some 200,000
The Unesco Convention is the
artworks plundered by Nazi
international response to the loss
Germany, and requests reof significant cultural artifacts to
turn or compensation for
the illicit art market. Its purpose
For its
these treasures.
is to protect artifacts in situ for
part, Germany estimates
that the Red Army forces
scholarly research. Article 7 prohibits nations who sign the constole half a million pieces of
vention from acquiring cultural
art from castles, galleries,
and libraries in Soviet-occuproperty that has been illegally
exported and prohibits the import
pied Germany. The Gerof cultural property stolen from a
man government
said it
museum or a religious or secular
might consider offering
monument. It further requires
Russia financial compensaA medieval manuscript was among the church
tion for some of the most
any signatory, at the request of
valuable items that are un- treasures from Quedlinburg, Germany, taken by a the state of origin, to take approU.S soldier at the end of World War IL
traceable, but it would not
priate steps to recover and return
any such cultural property. There
buy back the objects taken
are 78 state parties to the Unesco Convention. The
from Soviet-occupied Germany. Different working
groups for libraries, archives, museums, and legal mat- former Soviet Union and the German Democratic Reters will be set up to deal with implementation of the public (East Germany) were signatories. The Federal
treaty. Another meeting of the German-Russian com- Republic of Germany has not ratified the Unesco Convention. (The U.S. implemented the Unesco Convenmission is envisaged for later this year. Not surprisingly, since the majority of works removed from Russia tion in April 1983, and thus in the U.S. the Convention
are now scattered in private collections throughout the applies only to objects stolen after that date.) Alworld, the Russians argue for a broader legal framethough the Hague Convention and the Unesco Conwork than the Soviet-German accord, which in any vention are not controlling in the case of Priam's
event may no longer be binding on the newly recog- Treasure, they emphasize the importance that current
international law places in restricting international
nized republics. Valéry Kulishov, a member of the State
Commission on Restitution, in an interview with Anne trafficking in stolen art and act as a reminder that calBarnard of MoscowTimes, suggests that article 15 of the lous disregard for the property, history, and culture of
treaty is open to conflicting interpretations: much of others cannot be tolerated by the world community.
the German art was not "illegally taken" at all, but was
under the authority of the Joint Allied Commission. He Barbara Hoffman receivedherJ.D.from ColumbiaUniverregrets that Russia has not established clear legal title. sity and MA. in international relationsfrom Johns Hopkins
Moreover, he states that restitution must be interUniversity. She teachesand practicesart law in New YorkCity.
40 Archaeology
Archaeology Magazine - November/December 1993

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - November/December 1993
