Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article focuses on the ancestral human remains of Indigenous peoples that were taken by European invaders during the colonial era. It begins by considering the notion of human remains. It then describes the two types of heritage that result from the removal of human remains: the tangible heritage made of the remains exhibited or stored in the museums or universities of former colonial States, and the intangible heritage made of the collective memories of the surviving communities and their descendants about the removal (and the absence) of the stolen remains. The article next examines the role of national and international laws with respect to the restitution of human remains by exploring the concept of transitional justice. This article argues that transitional justice can facilitate the meaningful repatriation of ancestral human remains and hence the healing of past injustice.

Contemporary migration flows and the related humanitarian emergency have received overwhelming media coverage and political attention. It appears, however, that the sorrow provoked by the heart-breaking stories of migrants has been all too often quickly replaced by the rhetoric that describes this influx as the principal cause for the problems that Western States face today – unemployment, crime, drugs and violent extremism – and as a threat for national culture and identity. This article looks at the cultural rights of migrants and at the international instruments that regulate one or more aspects of the phenomenon of migration and the protection of cultural heritage. Its objective is to challenge existing prejudices against migrant communities and to answer the question whether migration and migrants are a burden or a blessing for the culture of receiving States.

Abstract:In the art field the centuries-old concepts of property and state immunity are interwoven in an ambivalent relationship. Immunity rules may constitute a shield for the works of art that have been temporarily sent abroad for exhibition purposes. The obverse of the same coin is that the same rules may thwart the legal actions filed by individuals against foreign states to retrieve art objects lost in the past as a result or in connection with grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This article examines this conundrum and argues that the relationship between property rights and immunity rules should be reconceptualised and aligned with the values and priorities of the international community, such as the protection of human rights, the reparation of massive and violent crimes and the respect for cultural heritage.

On October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court rendered a decision on the constitutional legitimacy of certain domestic norms that required Italy's compliance with the rule on state immunity sanctioned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the Judgment Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). The Constitutional Court declared that the international customary obligations on state immunity from jurisdiction can be applied automatically within the Italian legal order only as long as they are in conformity with the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.

Two years ago, German authorities conducting a routine tax investigation stumbled on the largest trove of missing artworks since the end of the Second World War. The collection of paintings and drawings was discovered in a Munich apartment owned by Cornelius Gurlitt, the late son of Hildebrand Gurlitt, one of the art dealers approved by the Nazis. It is likely that most of these artworks were plundered from German museums and Jewish collections in the period 1933-1945. The discovery triggered heated debates about the obligations of the German State and the property rights over this art collection. This article looks at the ongoing Gurlitt case from an international law perspective and discusses two different but interrelated issues. First, it traces the genealogy and extrapolates the influence of the international legal instruments that have been adopted to deal with the looting of works of art committed by the Nazis. Second, it examines the available means of dispute settlement that can lead to the "just and fair" solution of Holocaust-related cases in general and the Gurlitt case in particular. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate that international law plays a key role in addressing and reversing the effects of the Nazi looting.

Abstract:In Italy, churches, chapels, and monasteries are often rich in precious artifacts. However, these religious buildings cannot be easily protected from theft because either they have no antitheft measures or they are abandoned. This article examines the problematic state of the holy heritage in the Italian territory from a legal perspective. In particular, it looks at Italian legislation and the international instruments entered into by the Italian State. The article argues that this protective legal regime is affected by various shortcomings and loopholes that mostly relate to the implementation of existing legal standards. Notably, it appears that these problems originate from the fact that most of the holy heritage situated in Italy belongs to the Catholic Church, and at the same time, it constitutes the historical and artistic patrimony of the Italian State. The article calls for a more efficient management of such precious vestiges by the stakeholders involved and for a revision of the domestic legislation with a view of properly incorporating the achievements of international cultural heritage law.