March 27, 2012
The problems with the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act
Marc Masurovsky has helped me out, by going into some of the issues with the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.
The bill has now been introduced in the Senate as S. 2212. The worry is, that many of the successful cases that have been brought in the US in recent years, to secure the return of looted cultural property would no longer be possible. For those of you in the USA, the Senators supporting the bill are: Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch. As he points out, Fenstein has many major museums within her community, which includes San Francisco & Los Angeles.
As Marc says “It’s the end of art restitution as we know it.” Supporting such a bill would be a backward step for the country that is currently one of the more forward thinking (well compared to the UK at any rate) in terms of cultural property restitutions & the legal framework that allows them to take place. “After all, once you write a bill that carries with it select exclusions, it implies that you tolerate other forms of looted art to enter the US for display. Hence, the clarification to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act should either be all-inclusive or dropped entirely. It is absolutely critical for source countries to express themselves”.
Doubtless, many organisations such as the AAMD are unlikely to agree with this point of view.
More details of the act can be found in my original post on it.
- Who does the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act really protect? : May 10, 2012
- Revisiting S2212 – The flaws inherent in the Foreign Cultural Exchange Judicial Immunity Clarification Act : November 12, 2012
- Is our obsession to posses art above the law? Lecture by Marc Masurovsky : October 16, 2012
- US bill aims to protect looted art while on loan to US museums : March 26, 2012
- Dispute over Senate bill S. 2212 over looted artefacts loaned to museums : May 25, 2012
- The UK is not going to become a haven for looted art? : November 30, 2006
- Parliamentary bill on Nazi-looted art : April 23, 2009
- The importance of strategic protection of cultural artefacts in times of unrest : June 7, 2012
Pierre Ciric said,
05.09.12 at 10:51 pm
As a second generation holocaust survivor, I have concluded that S. 2212, in shielding any government-related foreign institution from ANY liability or suit in the United States for claims for artworks related to cultural exchanges, and subject to pillage, plunder or illegal excavation, is appalling.
In 1998, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and its members promised to perform in-depth provenance research for their entire collections, during hearings held by Jim Leach, Chair of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Not only did AAMD fail to honor those commitments, but it is now lobbying to continue the tragedy of the Holocaust and all subsequent genocides, by asking Congress to ensure that theft from owners in times of war and dictatorship and the greed resulting from its commercial exploitation are officially protected from justice.
The so-called Nazi carve-out in the bill gives the illusion that Nazi-looted art claims will be preserved, which is both untrue and unfair.
I am sponsoring the petition “Senate: Abandon S. 2212, Vote for the Stolen Artwork Restitution Act.” We reached 130 supporters in less than three days after the Petition was online. Supporters appear to represent a wide variety of interests across various social, age and cultural groups. The petition can be found at: https://www.change.org/petitions/senate-abandon-s-2212-vote-for-the-stolen-artwork-restitution-act.
Matthew said,
05.10.12 at 12:51 pm
Thanks for this info – very helpful to have feedback from people who have studied the bill in more detail than I have.