This review begins with a statement that might appear tautological: only Lucas Lixinski could have written the book A Research Agenda for Cultural Heritage Law authored by Lucas Lixinski. Yet when academic achievement is too often measured in terms of sheer output and artificial intelligence increasingly presents itself as the seductive apple of hyper-productivity, it is a remarkable accomplishment to craft a scholarly work such as this, in which the intellectual imprint of its author is unmistakably evident.

Lixinski fully embodies the ambitions of the Elgar Research Agendas series, in which ‘[l]eading scholars are given the space to explore their subject in provocative ways, and map out the potential directions of travel. They are relevant but also visionary.’

In the first part, ‘What’, the author encourages us to think ‘outside the box’, delving into four key binaries that he considers unhelpful: national versus international, property versus heritage, tangible versus intangible, and public versus private. Lixinski presents arguments that allow him to ‘shake up’ the foundations of these well-established binaries, occasionally resorting to tools that traditional scholars might deem risky: feminist jurisprudence, critical race theory, or queer theory.

In the second part, ‘How’, the author examines four research methods: doctrinal analysis, legal-historical analysis, critical legal analysis, and pragmatism, with an illustrative case study: the return of colonial cultural objects currently located in Portugal to one of its five former colonies in Africa. The restitution of cultural heritage is a particularly pressing issue not only in academic circles but also in public debate, and a body of high-quality literature on the subject is emerging; when addressing issues inherent to restitution, Lixinski repeatedly and with deep conviction draws upon Third World Approaches to International Law, which is crucial not only for understanding but also for undoing the power asymmetries that exist in the field of cultural heritage.

In the third part, ‘Why’, the author suggests some topics in cultural heritage law that merit further doctrinal analysis and demonstrates how this field connects with other disciplines: its relationship to disasters, the impact of interculturality on future developments in cultural heritage law, and the connection between the latter and issues of social justice and the pursuit of social objectives such as redistribution.

Given the book’s conceptual sophistication and the intricate web of connections it develops, novice readers may occasionally find themselves challenged by the depth and intensity of its analysis. At first sight, it seems more plausible that this distinctly personal work will accompany its readers throughout a long-term research project or even across the span of an entire academic career. What is beyond doubt is the book’s remarkable capacity to yield new insights and nuances and its contribution to the formation of new intellectual communities.