Potentiating Loopholes: How Erratic and Piecemeal Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention Has Failed to Protect Cultural Antiquities

William Kuzma
{"title":"Potentiating Loopholes: How Erratic and Piecemeal Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention Has Failed to Protect Cultural Antiquities","authors":"William Kuzma","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V42I4.1986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite centuries-old international concerns, American protection of international cultural antiquities is a relatively recent phenomenon. For example, the United States joined a 1954 multilateral treaty on the protection of cultural antiquities only once the treaty had become binding international customary law, and thus likely binding on the United States nonetheless. The United States has been reticent to join many of the major treaties that protect cultural antiquities, and its adoption of these treaties remains piecemeal and inconsistently enforced. \n \n \n \nThere are loopholes in the present international system that continue to permit looting and pillaging to take place worldwide. In this Note, I posit that the current implementation scheme of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership and Cultural Property (1970 UNESCO Convention), both in the United States and in other countries, creates these loopholes, which in turn render the entire system ineffectual. Despite the many attempts at creating broad, multilateral conventions to globally protect cultural antiquities, the United States is only party to two sections of the 1970 UNESCO Convention,9 and it only joined the 1954 Hague Convention in 2009. Additionally, joining the 1954 Hague Convention was merely a formality for the United States because several provisions had already become customary international law and were thus binding on the United States nonetheless.10 As I will show below, the United States’ failure to fully adopt international law on the protection of cultural antiquities hinders the judiciary, as well as our fellow signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, in protecting international cultural antiquities.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V42I4.1986","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Despite centuries-old international concerns, American protection of international cultural antiquities is a relatively recent phenomenon. For example, the United States joined a 1954 multilateral treaty on the protection of cultural antiquities only once the treaty had become binding international customary law, and thus likely binding on the United States nonetheless. The United States has been reticent to join many of the major treaties that protect cultural antiquities, and its adoption of these treaties remains piecemeal and inconsistently enforced. There are loopholes in the present international system that continue to permit looting and pillaging to take place worldwide. In this Note, I posit that the current implementation scheme of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership and Cultural Property (1970 UNESCO Convention), both in the United States and in other countries, creates these loopholes, which in turn render the entire system ineffectual. Despite the many attempts at creating broad, multilateral conventions to globally protect cultural antiquities, the United States is only party to two sections of the 1970 UNESCO Convention,9 and it only joined the 1954 Hague Convention in 2009. Additionally, joining the 1954 Hague Convention was merely a formality for the United States because several provisions had already become customary international law and were thus binding on the United States nonetheless.10 As I will show below, the United States’ failure to fully adopt international law on the protection of cultural antiquities hinders the judiciary, as well as our fellow signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, in protecting international cultural antiquities.
漏洞不断扩大:1970年联合国教科文组织公约的不稳定和零敲碎打的执行如何未能保护文化文物
尽管国际社会已经关注了几个世纪,但美国对国际文化文物的保护是一个相对较新的现象。例如,美国在1954年签署的保护文物的多边条约成为具有约束力的国际习惯法之后才加入该条约,尽管如此,该条约很可能对美国具有约束力。美国一直不愿加入许多保护文化文物的重要条约,而且它对这些条约的加入仍然是零敲碎打的,执行起来也不连贯。目前的国际制度存在漏洞,继续允许在世界范围内进行抢劫和掠夺。在本说明中,我认为目前在美国和其他国家执行1970年教科文组织《关于禁止非法进出口和转让所有权和文化财产的方法的公约》(1970年教科文组织公约)的办法造成了这些漏洞,从而使整个制度无效。尽管美国曾多次尝试创建广泛的多边公约,以在全球范围内保护文化文物,但美国只是1970年联合国教科文组织公约的两个部分的缔约国,而它直到2009年才加入1954年的海牙公约。此外,加入1954年的《海牙公约》对美国来说只是一种形式,因为其中的一些条款已经成为习惯国际法,因此对美国仍然具有约束力我将在下面说明,美国没有完全采纳保护文物的国际法,这妨碍了司法部门以及1970年联合国教科文组织公约的其他签署国保护国际文物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信