{"title":"功利主义:融合民族主义与国际主义文化财产观念的二分法","authors":"Afolasade Abidemi Adewumi","doi":"10.1163/17087384-bja10067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.","PeriodicalId":41565,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilitarianism: Merging the Dichotomy between Nationalist and Internationalist Conception of Cultural Property\",\"authors\":\"Afolasade Abidemi Adewumi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/17087384-bja10067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-bja10067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-bja10067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Utilitarianism: Merging the Dichotomy between Nationalist and Internationalist Conception of Cultural Property
The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.
期刊介绍:
The African Journal of Legal Studies (AJLS) is a peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary academic journal focusing on human rights and rule of law issues in Africa as analyzed by lawyers, economists, political scientists and others drawn from throughout the continent and the world. The journal, which was established by the Africa Law Institute and is now co-published in collaboration with Brill | Nijhoff, aims to serve as the leading forum for the thoughtful and scholarly engagement of a broad range of complex issues at the intersection of law, public policy and social change in Africa. AJLS places emphasis on presenting a diversity of perspectives on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems of human rights and governance, as well as emerging issues, and possible solutions to them. Towards this end, AJLS encourages critical reflections that are based on empirical observations and experience as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.