Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:20:56.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measures against the illicit trade in cultural objects: the emerging strategy in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2015

David Gaimster
David Gaimster*
Affiliation:
Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BE (Email: dgaimster@sal.org.uk). Dr Gaimster acted as a senior policy advisor in the Cultural Property Unit, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), from 2002-2004)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Until recently the UK was notorious for its illicit market in unlawfully removed art and antiquities from around the globe. Today the UK marketplace is operating in a very different climate. The UK has recently become a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and is now introducing a package of measures designed to strengthen its treaty obligations, central to which is the creation of a new criminal offence of dishonestly dealing in cultural objects unlawfully removed anywhere in the world. These also include the development of effective tools to aid enforcement and due-diligence. Recent events in Iraq have also forced the UK Government to announce its intention to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention.

Keywords

illicit tradeart market1970 UNESCO ConventionDealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 20031954 Hague Convention

Information

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 78 , Issue 301 , September 2004, pp. 699 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brodie, N., Doole, J. & Watson, P.. 2000. Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in Cultural Material. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, K. 2003. The Iraq (United Nations) Sanctions Order 2003 – is it Human Rights Act-compatible? Art, Antiquity and Law, VIII, Issue 4: 357–368.Google Scholar
Cms Select Committee 2003. Cultural objects: developments since 2000. First Report of session 2003–04, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (Hc 59). London: Tso.Google Scholar
Dcms 2004a. The 1970 UNESCO Convention – Guidance for Dealers and Auctioneers in Cultural Property. London: Cultural Property Unit, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (Downloadable from http://www.culture.gov.uk/cultural_property/illicit_trade.htm)Google Scholar
DCMS 2004b. Dealing in Tainted Cultural Objects – Guidance on the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. London: Cultural Property Unit, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (Downloadable from http://www.culture.gov.uk/cultural_property/illicit_trade.htm)Google Scholar
DCMS/HO 2004. Government Response to ‘Cultural objects: developments since 2000’ (HC 59). Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Session 2003–04. Department for Culture, Media and Sport/Home Office. London: TSO.Google Scholar
Gaimster, D. 2004. Protecting the Past in Times of war. Uk progress towards accession to the 1954 Hague Convention, Institute of Field Archaeologists Yearbook and Directory 2004: 35–36. Reading: Institute of Field Archaeologists.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar