Misappropriation : legal limitations on the return of cultural objects stolen in times of peace and conflict

Tools

Cardoso Squeff, Tatiana and Creuz, Derek Assenço; Sadowski, Mirosław M. and Bonaviri, Gianluigi Mastandrea and Ceccotti, Filippo, eds. (2025) Misappropriation : legal limitations on the return of cultural objects stolen in times of peace and conflict. In: Heritage in War and Peace IV. University of Strathclyde Publishing, Glasgow. ISBN 9781914241802 (https://doi.org/10.17868/strath.00093383)

[thumbnail of Squeff-Creuz-HWP-IV-2025-Misappropriation-legal-limitations-on-the-return-of-cultural-objects]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Squeff-Creuz-HWP-IV-2025-Misappropriation-legal-limitations-on-the-return-of-cultural-objects.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (870kB)| Preview

Abstract

The misappropriation of cultural property, both in times of peace and armed conflict, poses complex challenges to International Law, cultural justice, and collective memory. From the Parthenon Marbles to the looting of museums in contemporary conflict zones such as Syria and Yemen, cultural objects have been displaced under claims of preservation, conquest, or scholarship. Despite growing international awareness, legal mechanisms have proven insufficient to ensure the restitution of stolen artefacts. This article investigates the legal limitations on the return of cultural objects removed under coercive circumstances, examining the inconsistencies between international instruments – including the 1954 Hague Convention, UN, UNESCO, and UNIDROIT frameworks – and national legal regimes. Using doctrinal and case law analysis, this study explores the barriers that hinder restitution, such as the principle of non-retroactivity, the challenge of identifying rightful owners or possessors, and the permissiveness of some domestic markets regarding the trade of artefacts of uncertain origin. It also critically assesses political, diplomatic, and institutional resistance to restitution, as well as arguments grounded in the concept of “universal heritage” that seek to justify the retention of cultural goods in foreign collections. The research finds that, while International Law provides a normative basis for the return of cultural property, enforcement remains fragmented, inconsistent and selective. The discussion underscores the need for a more coherent legal approach and ethical commitment by States and institutions to restore heritage to communities dispossessed by colonialism, war, and exploitation. Ultimately, the return of misappropriated cultural property is not merely a legal obligation but a matter of justice, identity, and historical redress.

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)