Two international events on cultural heritage protection took place in Gdańsk, Poland—the first conference focused on the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (UNIDROIT Convention) and the second on private art collections.Footnote 1 The conference on the ratification and implementation of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention was part of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention’s Academic Project (UCAP), and the conference on private collections from a historical and legal perspective was included in the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law’s (UNIDROIT) work program for the triennial period 2017–19. The events were organized under the honorary patronage of the Polish Deputy Minister of Culture and National Heritage—General Inspector of Cultural Heritage and the Polish National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The conferences were organized in cooperation with UNIDROIT, the University of Gdańsk, and the University of Opole (UNESCO Chair on Cultural Property Law).
Welcoming speakers and participants, Piotr Stepnowski (vice-rector for research and foreign cooperation at the University of Gdańsk) highlighted that the events gathered world-class specialists in the field of cultural heritage protection, including the president of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Toshiyuki Kono. He thanked the partners and sponsors of the event.
DAY 1, SESSION 1
Kamil Zeidler (University of Gdańsk) introduced the first session of the conference on the ratification and implementation of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. It was chaired by Wojciech Kowalski (University of Silesia in Katowice).
Marina Schneider (UNIDROIT) introduced the aim of the UCAP and highlighted the reasons for drafting the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, its aims, and the main solutions that it provides to combat the illicit trafficking in cultural property. The introduction included key differences between the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.Footnote 2 While the 1970 UNESCO Convention was a starting point for the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, the latter approached the differences in private law and loopholes in restitution law, especially the notion of a bona fide purchaser protected in many legal systems. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention imposes the unconditional duty to return stolen or illegally exported objects, lists conditions for the assessment of due diligence, and enables private owners to bring a claim. Moreover, the UNIDROIT Convention is applicable directly and does not require transposition.
Manlio Frigo (Universita degli Studi di Milano) spoke on the role and significance of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention in fighting the illicit trafficking and in controlling international circulation of cultural property. Illicit trafficking is not only related to stolen or illegally exported cultural property but also to the property that has not been re-imported when due. The legal obstacles in fighting the illicit circulation are not only linked to the disparities of rules applicable to good faith acquisitions but also to standards of due diligence for market players and the lack of regulations in the case of online sales. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention is a benchmark document in case law, even if the parties involved are not a state party to it.
Edouard Planche (UNESCO) introduced the history behind drafting the 1970 UNESCO Convention and developed the topic of UNESCO’s cooperation with the art market in the fight against illicit trafficking. The 1970 UNESCO Convention was drafted in response to the lack of heritage protection instruments in newly formed states. It faced reluctance of the market; however, adopting the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention has increased the number of ratifications of the former convention as a way of pushing back the effectiveness of the latter.
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk (University of Opole) provided an in-depth analysis on due diligence measures provided under the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and stressed the standard-setting role of the document in this regard as the main tool for responding to illicit trafficking in cultural property. Moreover, the tools to exercise due diligence—for example, “Natlaws,” directly searchable and non-directly searchable object-based databases, the INTERPOL database, the International Council for Museums Red Lists, the World Customs Organization’s Archeo, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s Sherlock—were presented. The recommendations presented in the summary included creating a “roadmap” for the process of establishing the obligation of due diligence in national legal systems, drafting a document providing guidance on the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and regulating the application of due diligence measures, thus making the restitution “pillar” of the 1970 Convention more operational.
DAY 1, SESSION 2
The second session was chaired by Marcílio Toscano Franca Filho (Federal University of Parabia). Luis Javier Capote Pérez (Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife) spoke on the Spanish experience of accession to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. Spain acceded to the Convention in 2002. According to the speaker, it did not introduce significant changes in Spain’s internal rules on stolen or illegally exported objects due to the previously transposed European Union laws and classifying Spain as an exporting country.
Ren Yatsunami (Kyushu University) provided a comparison between the current cultural property law in Japan and the solutions present in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and considered the ratification of 1995 UNIDROIT Convention in Japan. The main differences relating to looted cultural property when comparing Japanese law and the 1995 Convention is that, in the 2006 Japanese Public Interest Litigation Act, reference to the applicable law is either in the place where the property is situated (as in the case of Japanese law) or where the excavation took place (UNIDROIT). The time limit for recovering stolen or lost property and compensation, as defined in the Japanese Civil Code, were also discussed.
Wojciech Kowalski presented the issues related to ratifying the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention in Poland. The attempt to ratify the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention would require the revision of the application scope as far as the goods in question are concerned. The differences between the current legal definition of “monuments” in Poland and “cultural objects” covered under the 1995 UNIDROIT affected the operational decision to reject the possibility of ratifying the document in the past.
In the conference closing, Kamil Zeidler (University of Gdansk) focused on the problems of the ratification of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and stressed the importance of the ratification in Poland.
DAY 2, SESSION 1
On the second day of the conferences, the first session was chaired by Manlio Frigo. As the first speaker, Marina Schneider introduced UNIDROIT’s mission in private collections. Toshiyuki Kono (ICOMOS, Kyushu University) moved on to the notion of collections in the context of cultural heritage and stressed the importance of integrity in cultural heritage. The case of the Ataka collection was indicated as a reference point for discussing the notion of “integrity” of a collection as a factor influencing the assessment of the cultural and economic value of heritage.
Elina Moustaira’s (Kapodistrian University of Athens) book was fundamental to launching the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention’s Academic Project, so her speech was very important to all of the participants. She focused on the comparative aspects of the subject.
Piotr Stec (University of Opole) defined the term of collections and approached it from the perspective of private law.
Wojciech Kowalski shared the perspective of a collector and discussed the proposal of a legal framework for a transparent, mutually beneficial public-private partnership, the assistance of public museums in inventorying collections or the legal protection of private collections equal to the protection of public collections.
Andrzej Jakubowski (Polish Academy of Sciences) presented the ethical codes of the art market.
Jacek Friedrich (University of Gdańsk) spoke on the history and current situation of St Mary Church in the Gdańsk collection, which is one of the biggest churches in the world with a magnificent collection of original Gothic art.
DAY 2, SESSION 2
The second session was chaired by Andrzej Jakubowski. Marcílio Toscano Franca Filho spoke on private art collections in Brazil. In the presentation, he introduced the scope of art theft and its geographic distribution; the conclusion was that South America is the origin and destination of numerous thefts of works of art. The legal situation of museums as opposed to other “visitable” collections was discussed.
Luis Javier Capote Pérez shared the view on collections in Spain, their historical evolution, and social perspective. The legal view on collecting art included cultural heritage law aspects—that is, issues of export, limits of private ownership, intellectual property law—that is, moral rights—and tax law.
Miriam Kellerhals (Germany) spoke on the legal context of private art collections in Germany. She referred to the historical development of German and European cultural heritage protection law and introduced the current German Act on the Protection of Cultural Property and its main effect on private collections.
Dejan Nikolovski (Ministry of Interior of the Republic of North Macedonia) shared the experiences and practice related to private art collections in Macedonia in the context of implementing laws applicable to private art collections.
The final speech was delivered by Monika Drela (Univeristy of Wrocław), who focused on private collections in Poland.
In the final discussion, the audience noted that the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention’s Academic Project has to be continued and developed in the future. Marina Schneider elaborated on the future activities of UNIDROIT in this field.
