Fourteen years after the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention came into force, the first special meeting as envisaged under Article 20 of the Convention was held at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris on 19 June 2012. Article 20 provides that “The President of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) may at regular intervals, or at any time at the request of five Contracting states, convene a special committee in order to review the practical operation of this Convention.” Appropriately, the first special committee meeting took place at UNESCO's head office, preceding by a day the second meeting of States Parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership Cultural Property, which convened in Paris on 20–21 June 2012. The UNIDROIT Convention was initiated at the request of UNESCO to fill the gap in the 1970 Convention relating to the private law aspects of the return and restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural property.

The 1995 Convention is silent as to the composition of the special committee. However, following the instructions given by the Governing Council, the Secretariat invited States Parties, Signatory States, but also UNIDROIT and UNESCO Member States, whether or not Parties to the 1995 Convention, as well as a number of international intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations interested in the operation of such Convention. It was felt important to raise awareness of the largest number of states on the Convention, more so as only 33 states are currently Member States. As the UNIDROIT Secretariat's document for the committee states, the first meeting provided an opportunity to recapitulate the solutions offered by the Convention and to take stock of the implications of its adoption, on the one hand, and for states to exchange views, to compare practical experiences, and to discuss any difficulties that may have been encountered in implementing the Convention in practice, on the other hand. The presentations and the roundtable session addressed all these issues.

Ridha Fraoua talked about the ambivalent attitude of Arab States to the UNIDROIT Convention. Recall that at the diplomatic conference that adopted the Convention on 24 June 1995, four Arab States—Algeria, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco—voted against the adoption of the Convention because it was not cogent enough to combat illicit trafficking in cultural property. Unsurprisingly, at the moment, no Arab country is a State Party to the UNIDROIT Convention. Fraoua stressed that the strategic priority of Arab States should be the strengthening of the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and accession to the UNIDROIT Convention. Staffan Lunden, member of the Research Group Global Heritage Studies, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenurgh, Sweden, spoke insightfully on how to raise public awareness on the illicit antiquities trade. Folarin Shyllon, in his paper, urged African countries to hasten to join the UNIDROIT Convention as well as the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The roundtable presided over by the influential scholar in the field, Lyndel Prott, had among the discussants Keun-Gwan Lee of the School of Law, Seoul National University; Marc-Andre Renold, Director of the Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva; and Manilo Frigo of the University of Milan. The panel discussed the impact of the UNIDROIT Convention on the antiquities trade and combating illicit trafficking in cultural property, focusing on, among other issues, the development of good practices in the antiquities trade and the effectiveness of both the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNESCO Convention on the international protection of cultural property.

Given the compatibility and complementary nature of the two Conventions, it was sensible to have the meetings considering their effectiveness closely follow each other. It must be emphasized, though, that the two Conventions are not substitutes for one another. Nonetheless, it is suggested that in the future the meetings of the two monitoring bodies should dovetail with each other. This will provide members the opportunity to compare practical experiences and any difficulties they may have encountered since the previous meetings. The recommendation, if followed, will solidify further the partnership against illicit trafficking in cultural objects between UNESCO and UNIDROIT.Footnote ¹