The term “cultural heritage” contains an inherent tension. On the one hand, “culture” suggests something dynamic: it represents the diverse values and practices of different social groups, which continually evolve as they interact with others and their membership changes. On the other hand, “heritage” (and likewise “property”) implies something more clearly defined and static: it refers to a specific object or tradition passed on from generation to generation with little to no significant change. The difficulty in resolving these opposing forces—change versus stability—underlies why protecting, controlling, and possessing cultural heritage is so difficult to regulate in law, policy, and practice.

Now that it is being relaunched after a two-year hiatus in publication, the International Journal of Cultural Property (IJCP) finds itself forced to confront this tension with regard to its own mission. With increased attention paid to the “intangible heritage”—encompassing expressive styles, folklore, and traditional knowledge—and not just “tangible” objects such as art and monuments, “cultural property” has given way to “cultural heritage” as the preferred term for this evolving subject. Moreover, “property” carries with it Western notions of individual ownership and authorship often not shared by all parties in heritage disputes. Yet the phrase “cultural property” in the Journal's title still stands precisely because it is part of the Journal's own heritage, and, as is the case with many “real world” cases, both practical and philosophical considerations come into play. For instance, in many of the cases addressed in this journal, cultural heritage has been, and will continue to be, treated in law and practice as “property” and that legal and practical perception often forces the discussion to be about rightful “ownership” rather than other approaches to the experience of heritage. So more than just making it simpler for maintaining subscriptions lists and ISSN numbers (which it does), keeping the title directly acknowledges the difficult negotiation between law and culture embedded in the Journal's history, the groundbreaking efforts of those involved in its founding fifteen years ago, and the contributions of authors published in its first eleven volumes.

Beginning with Volume 12, of which this is the first issue, the IJCP aims to expand its scope in two fundamental ways. First, we broadly construe “cultural property” to include areas of growing interest and concern such as indigenous knowledge and other “intangible” practices. Michael Brown's essay in this issue provides an introduction to current problems on this subject. It is also important to place disputes over both “tangibles” and “intangibles” in a larger context and consider topics such as tourism, development, cultural diversity, and political and human rights as they impact, and are affected by, cultural heritage. Thus my intention is that we publish pieces focusing on how the past is used in the present to achieve political aims, and how policies dealing with cultural heritage ought to acknowledge such political interests.

The second way the IJCP will expand its scope is to include a wider range of voices and perspectives. Though the Journal has published authors from different disciplinary backgrounds, the majority of articles were on legal topics by law professionals.¹

The extralegal concerns at the heart of most “cultural property” disputes, however, have led to the realization that the law, on its own, has been an unsatisfactory mechanism for resolving them.² As illustrated in Joe Watkins's article in this issue, not all groups share the same approach to dealing with such disputes, and because of this difference, nonlegal resolutions may often be a more productive way forward. For these reasons, the IJCP seeks to publish a full range of views on cultural heritage and provide a forum where they may engage with one another. In a step toward achieving this goal, the editorial board has been expanded to include individuals from the many fields involved in the debates, including anthropology, archaeology, art history, museum studies, public policy, and political science, as well as the law. These individuals represent a variety of perspectives—Western, non-Western, and indigenous; academic, professional and amateur; consumers of heritage as well as creators.

Expanding the editorial board and the scope of the IJCP requires changes in its mechanics as well. First, diversity in readership, authors' expertise, and subject matter mean that many readers will not be familiar with some of the Journal's content. As a result, many articles will allot more space for explaining the context of the contribution than might otherwise be necessary. Specialized knowledge and discipline-specific conventions and jargon will be explained or avoided. Case Notes for example, long a feature of the IJCP, will describe the background of the case in ways nonlegal readers will understand. For the same reasons, citation and bibliographic conventions of the Journal have been modified to conform to a basic humanities-style system, to ensure that the references may be clearly understood by any reader. A new feature is the addition of a bibliography for each article, to facilitate finding of cited works.

In spite of these changes in form and content, the Journal will continue to publish the kinds of articles that have established its high reputation: those concerning “tangible” cultural property, the trade in works of art, and the legal regimes aimed at protecting and regulating those objects and their international movement. In the opening article in this issue, John Merryman, founder of the International Cultural Property Society, revisits cultural internationalism two decades after his seminal exploration of the concept.³

Meanwhile, Robert Paterson reviews work by the International Law Association in the context of ongoing efforts by other nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations such as UNESCO to resolve cultural property disputes. Paterson's essay also illustrates the kind of article the IJCP seeks, as described in the “Instructions for Contibutors” at the end of this issue. Namely, we hope to publish articles that illustrate a subject's relevance to a wide audience and explore the pragmatic, “on-the-ground” implications of the issue, preferably with new policy proposals. The goal of publishing articles that propose pragmatic solutions or “hard compromises” is premised on two reasons.

First, I hope that articles in the Journal will contribute in a concrete way to policy and practice. For example, a critical study that illuminates how a nation-state uses cultural objects to create a sense of national identity may be an important and insightful work of scholarly analysis. Indeed it may raise questions about nation-building in general and the veracity of modern interpretations of that nation's history in particular. But an article in the IJCP should go further to address, for example, whether such national agendas should be supported by other governments or organizations like UNESCO, whether explicitly through favorable treaties or implicitly in other ways. The intention here is for the IJCP to be a venue for sharing new ideas, proposals, and solutions to the increasingly complex problems relating to cultural heritage.

Second, I hope that the Journal will avoid rhetorical polarization that paralyzes constructive discourse. This goal is an insight learned from the current state of the antiquities trade debates, which became so polarized in the last two decades of the last century that even the traditionally close communities of archaeologists and museum curators found themselves on opposing sides, battlelines drawn.⁴

Despite the increased attention to issues of looting and repatriation, it became commonplace for articles and symposia on the subject to fall victim to name-calling and other rhetorical excesses. Some may argue that in the end, with the proliferation of treaties and other efforts aimed at stemming the antiquities trade, as well as crackdowns such as the criminal conviction of antiquities dealer Fredrick Schultz (discussed in a Case Note in this issue), the result was not so much a draw but a victory for those fighting against the antiquities trade. While this may be the superficial result, it is not yet clear whether these developments have had an impact on the ongoing problem of the looting and destruction of archaeological sites, which Colin Renfrew, one of the strongest voices against the trade, has recently observed “has increased rather than diminished in the thirty succeeding years” since the UNESCO Convention of 1970.⁵

“Pragmatic” content might include new proposals, as yet untested, to address ongoing problems surrounding cultural heritage, or might be a narrative recounting an attempt to resolve one. Even in cases where a satisfactory resolution was not achieved, the attempt may itself be illuminating. In all cases, the aim is that the contribution be just that: a contribution, to the ongoing dialogue and toward the development of better policies and practices. While not every article will be explicitly about policy, each one should seek to address the “so what?” factor: where does the analysis leave us? What are we to learn from it, and how should it guide future action?

Other features for promoting constructive debate and exchange of ideas include response articles, debate sections, and thematic issues. While these categories are neither fixed nor exhaustive, they represent a new variety in content. “Response” pieces may take up a topic or question posed by a paper published in the IJCP, or may be aimed at directly refuting or challenging it. “Debate” sections are similar, except that all the papers would appear in the same issue: a main position paper followed by a series of shorter comments and critiques. Finally, we also plan to publish issues devoted to specific topics, some of which may be overseen by a guest editor. These new features, I hope, will be of interest to readers and provide opportunities for the emergence of new ideas and a constructive, reasoned debate of cultural heritage concerns.

In the Editorial opening the first issue of the Journal in 1992, one particularly important goal stated was that it be a “journal of record,” a source of reference and discussion for all significant developments in the field.⁶

Over the years this effort became one of the Journal's great strengths, and, true to the Journal's heritage, this goal continues. As the general subject matter has expanded, however, documenting it must also expand, and that is no easy task, but the editorial board will make efforts to broaden this scope successfully. In this issue, two sections relate to this mission: a Case Note by Kelly Yasaitis on the trial of New York City gallery owner Frederick Schultz and the implications of his conviction in June 2003 and the 2003 Chronicles, on which the Journal's dedicated Chronicles Editor, Kurt Siehr, continued to work even while the Journal was out of publication.

In the future, as a result of the final change in the Journal's format, the annual Chronicle will appear in the final issue in each volume. Beginning with this Volume, the Journal will be published quarterly (rather than semiannually), the final issue reserved for documentary materials, such as the Chronicle, conference reports, significant new laws, and other documents of record. The intention is to provide a single issue to act as an annual report of the year's major developments. A secondary consequence of these changes is to permit the content of the other three issues to be more flexible, so that thematic issues, debate articles, and other special features may appear.

With the accelerating scale and speed of transglobal communication and travel, through which people, things, and ideas are constantly on the move, claims to cultural heritage will only grow in intensity. One consequence of globalization is that individuals and groups are increasingly searching for ways to express their uniqueness by borrowing cultural objects and ideas from others who, as a result, increasingly feel their uniqueness is in peril. In such an atmosphere, we hope that the International Journal of Cultural Property will play an important and positive role mediating the inevitable conflicts.