Will Starmer restitute the Marbles to Greece? Remember the mess Blair’s government made acting against Foreign Office policy, see ‘How did Labour Opposition support for return become Labour Government Policy against?’, discussed under the para headed ‘The Present Government Position’ on p.50 of ‘The Marbles: Elgin Or Parthenon? IAL Annual Lecture, December 2000’ by William G. Stewart, Vol. 6, Issue 1 Art Antiquity and Law, March 2001, 37 to 56. In Mr Graham’s words (on p.51) – ‘What had happened was an example of the great British cock-up.’ It is a stellar example of breath-taking political incompetence by people who paid no attention to detail! If you read the article you will discover that politicians nearly always make things worse in the world of art restitution. In any event, legally the British Museum Trustees (‘BMT’s’) have their hands tied, see my article ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ on the page of teh same name at www.carlislam.co.uk. The BMT’s cannot simply hand the marbles back. It is not as simple as that. As I explain in my article, ‘At the epicentre of the restitution dialogue is a struggle between two competing theories under International Cultural Heritage Law:
(i) Cultural nationalism’ – Proponents of this view believe that cultural objects belong within the boundaries of the ‘source’ nation of origin

[source – UNESCO Convention 1970, Article 2 & the Preamble]

; & (ii) ‘Cultural internationalism’ – Proponents of this view regard cultural property as being in the words of the 1954 Hague Convention – ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’ [Source: Preamble of the Hague Convention 1954 & UNESCO Convention 1970, Article 4]. If legislation is required it will be preceded by a debate. Notwithstanding a future poll demonstrating that an overwhelming majority of the British public favour return – as does the Foreign Office, the British establishment does not, see Malcolm, Sir Noel The Elgin Marbles – Keep, Lend or Return? An Analysis, Policy Exchange (2023). I expand this point in my comments below.

Malcom based his arguments upon:
 
 – Merryman, John Henry ‘Thinking about the Elgin marbles’, 83 Mich L. Rev.1881(1985). (‘Merryman (1985)’).
 – Merryman, John Henry ‘Two ways of thinking about cultural property’, 80 AM. J. Int’l L. 831 (1986).

– Merryman, John Henry ‘Cultural property internationalism’, 12 Int’l J. Cult Prop. 11, (2005).

‘The Elgin marbles symbolise the entire body of unrepatriated cultural property in the world’s museums and private collections. Accordingly, the preservation and enjoyment of the world’s cultural heritage and the fate of the collections of the world’s great museums are all in some measure at stake in a decision about the Marbles.’ (‘Merryman (1985), p.1895).

So, anybody who thinks/believes that Starmer is simply going to
‘hand the Marbles back to Greece’ is in my opinion not only naive in the extreme, but quite frankly deluded, because there are larger issues at stake & powerful vested interests who can & will act in concert as a lobby to obstruct this – including HNW private owners
of art & cultural property.

Diplomatically, Britain + the US are ‘Cultural internationalists’ (notwithstanding the historical desire of the Foreign office to restitute the Marbles to Greece). So, there is going to be powerful opposition on both sides of the Atlantic. As I have explained, restitution decisions by museum trustees are made in the shadow of larger geopolitical issues & dynamics. If Trump is elected he is likely to be lobbied by powerful vested interests to discourage restitution. Starmer will not dare to defy the US establishment. So politically, will Parliament simply push this further down the line, thereby delaying any decision until after 2029?
 
I also recommend that you read Herman, Alexander (2023) The Parthenon Marbles Dispute, Hart.

 Alexander Herman was my Tutor for the Diploma in Art Law
 course at the Institute of Art & Law.

This struggle between competing ‘global’ interests does not preclude the negotiation of creative restitution deals in Mediation that take place behing closed doors see:

Table – ‘Ethical Principles’;
Table – ‘Issues for the Mediator to discuss during a Pre-Mediation Zoom Call about preparatory steps and agreeing ‘criteria’ i.e. applicable ‘Principles of Restitution’;
Table – ‘Tools & Precedents’,

on the ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk

As a Cultural Property Dispute Mediator, I am of course ideologically agnostic & politically neutral as I have no skin in the game.

It should be a Chancery Barrister who is also a TEP (‘CBTEP’).

Well you would expect me to say that because this is what I am.

Now unless a Mediator (‘M’) has a solid grasp of estate planning principles & Inheritance Tax Law (& I am the author of 5 bestselling books on these subjects – ‘Tax-Efficient Wills Simplified’ – which is available form Amazon folks as a Kindle book you can read it wherever you are whether on the beach or stuck in an airport etc) then there are 2 problems:

1^st – If during a pre-mediation Zoom call with each participant (‘P’) M ask each P – ‘How would you like to make the best use of the time available on the day/days?’ (NB a Zoom mediation unlike a mediation in person can be paused i.e. you can take breaks & the P’s can dip in & out so it can be spread of time-zones & days) & P.1/P.2/P.1 & P.2  reply ‘I would like to spend part of the time exploring the possibility of creating synergy in order to expand the estate pie through tax-efficient post death re-structuring of legacies & bequests’ – then unless M is a CBTEP he/she will not have a clue what each p is asking him/her to do because he/she does not speak the language of tax & estate planning & has no knowledge of estate planning tools – which may require the evolution of bespoke & sophisticated asset holding structures. That is problem 1 – M is useless because he/she is totally out of their depth.

2^nd problem – Preparation. While M will not be providing any tax advice to either P, in my experience, the mediation of all trust/estate disputes engages both a facilitative & to some extent an evaluative style. While a CBTEP (who is multi-lingual in the law of tax, trusts & estate planning) does not need to prepare i.e. because he/she is not giving any technical advice, each P does. Not least because if they get it wrong & their client later suffers from ’buyer’s remorse’ there is going to be trouble! Now as a mediation advocate I make it clear in my client care letter that I exclude the provision of tax and estate planning advice from my retainer with the solicitor & their lay client. When engaged I also make it clear that where settlement is likely to require the input of a CTA that the solicitor should involve a CTA before the mediation day in order to discuss with us the development of tax-efficient proposals at a meeting to develop a ‘settlement range.’ So, unless M is CBTEP he/she may be completely blind to the opportunity of discussing with each P at that stage not only whether they wish to use part of the day engaging in a conversation in order to expand the estate pie for distribution by creating synergy, but also about  what preparation each p needs to take in order to enter into such a conversation intelligently.

Failure to prepare = a lost opportunity to settle on terms whereby each P can maximise their potential gains & avoid losses by undertaking tax-efficient post death restructuring of estate assets.

Interdependence can result in 2+2 = 6. That is because of ‘synergy’, i.e. the participants can each gain more by working together than by working against each other. In the Mediation of a probate dispute synergy takes many different forms. It of course includes: (i) preserving the capital value of an estate by avoiding the incurrence of costs – which is why Mediation should be entered into before significant costs are incurred; and (ii) creative expansion of the estate pie through a tax-efficient post-death restructuring of estate assets i.e. to maximise any available IHT exemptions & reliefs within the available time window – which is another reason why Mediation should be entered into early, otherwise the opportunity is lost. So, a Mediation Advocate needs to be able to spot an estate planning opportunity when he sees one & then to take expert advice from a CTA. I have dedicated an entire chapter in my new book to this subject. It will not turn you into an estate planning expert overnight, but I hope that it will open your eyes to the creative opportunities that exist, which can be explored in Mediation if the participants each approach & enter into the process with an open and enquiring mind. The ‘interdependence’ dynamic transforms competitors into partners who focus on the problem & not the people & thereby are able to turn a challenge into an opportunity for mutual gain.  This requires the participants & their legal advisors to work with rather than through or against the Mediator & to prepare in advance to explore the existence of common ground which could potentially expand the estate pie.

Many thanks to Dr Hugh Series of the Faculty of Law at Oxford University – https://lnkd.in/eYGXAUNN, for contributing a Practice Note & Chronological Tables about ‘Mental Disorders.’

This will appear as an Appendix to the 2nd Ed of the book.

Both myself & my editor at the Law Society recieved this 22.07.2024 – which was my Birthday! So the timing could not have been better.

In the past, as defence Counsel, I have had the pleasure of working on cases with Dr Series, and rate him as being the foremost practising expert in this field in the UK today.

Although this subject is discussed in paras 4-026 to 4-040 of the 19th ed of Theobald On Wills (2021), Hugh is the first NHS Hospital Consultant & old age psychiatrist that I am aware of, to write about this since the 4th ed of Assessment of Mental Capacity – A Practical Guide for Doctors and Lawyers was jointly published by the BMA & Law Society in 2015.

So, any and every legal practitioner in this field who is worth their salt, should read what he has written.

Ellen Radley is a world class expert on forensic analysis of handwriting & forgery. She has contributed a Practice Note about ‘Forensic examination of handwriting and questioned documents.’

We had a long conversation before she wrote this, about how judges & barristers approach the analysis of expert forensic evidence in fraud cases
& corresponded about this. Her contribution contains fresh & valuable insights for judges & barristers about rigour in the analysis of expert forensic
evidence.

If there is a book launch both Ellen & Hugh will be invited to attend as honoured guests, and if you are on the list of solicitors & judges invited to attend you will be able to meet them in person.

Once again many thanks to both Ellen & Hugh for making these invaluable contributions to knowledge in our highly specialised field.

The ‘Host’ is the negotiator (‘HN’) who asks the questions.
The ‘Guest’ is the negotiator (‘GN’) who answers them.

These roles have nothing to do with the venue.

By asking questions, HN can steer the conversation toward his own interests (i.e. the ‘red-line’ terms of his pre-determined ‘settlement range’ [‘PSR’).
If HN listens to GN & ask questions, then GN will usually take the bait & offer more.

So:

– HN enquires,
– GN offers.

Thereby, HN controls the agenda.

HN is the Cat.
GN is the Mouse.

Paradoxically, GN (the Mouse) thinks that he is leading (i.e. that he is the Cat & HN the mouse). That is because GN is doing all of the talking.

In reality the opposite is true.

That is because the person i.e. HN, who is controlling the conversation & steering it in the direction of his own PSR is the negotiator who is asking the questions & listening.

What is actually happening, is that with each question being asked & answered, GN is being irresistibly drawn into HN’s PSR & further away from his own PSR.

Now, it is not smart for a mouse to sit next to a cat & of course in Mediation the negotiators do not have to meet in person or face to face by Zoom.

As a mediation advocate i.e. negotiator, your natural impulse is to take the lead by assuming the role of ‘Host’.

You are the Cat & your opponent is the Mouse.

In order to do this through a mediator you will prepare to invite the Mediator to ask your opponent questions thereby placing your hands & not those of your opponent on the steering wheel from the outset.

You take control of the mediation car & never allow your opponent to get into the driving seat.

Sorry to mix my metaphors!

So, in the mediation of a probate dispute, the Cat is HN. Not the Mediator.

If you appoint a Mediator who is not an experienced negotiator & does not know about the ‘Host’ & ‘Guest’ dynamic & if the Mediator then does HN’s bidding, he becomes a servant of the Cat.

So, a competent Mediator will always expose the game & thereby neutralise the ‘Cat & Mouse’ i.e. ‘Host’ v. ‘Guest’ manipulation dynamic, by asking the Cat, i.e. HN – ‘how does asking that question progress the resolution of this dispute?’

The answer to this question will reveal whether the Cat is planning to eat the mouse.

The Mediator can then use his skill to facilitate a paradigm shift, whereby the Cat & Mouse are transformed into partners who use their time & energy to focus upon: (i) preservation of the ‘cream & the cheese’ i.e. the estate assets; & (ii) allocation of the ‘cream & the cheese’ between them. This requires parties in dispute to work with the Mediator, by 1st exploring what each party values, needs & prioritises. They may be asymmetrical, because the Cat wants the cream & the mouse wants the cheese. It may also reveal the existence of common ground, i.e. instead of running around they can both enjoy their cream & cheese in peace.

The smallest detail e.g. how your opponent actually speaks & appears in person v. on paper, can reveal more about their needs, priorities, and constraints, than what is in a position statement & bundle. So, in mediation – focus on the person & not the paperwork. Do not let the smallest of details pass you by. This of course is linked to the skill of active listening, emotional intelligence & instinct. It cannot be taught, but it can be practised.

My aim is to write a practical handbook about the law & practice of Art Cultural Heritage & Music business transactions & dispute resolution.

The ‘Art & Cultural Heritage Law Research Bibliography’ appears on the ‘Art & Cultural Heritage Law’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

The Music Law ‘Research Bibliography’ appears on the ‘Music Law’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

I was planning to get this new writing project underway in March 2025. However, I am currently on schedule to start work on the book in November 2024.

I have started to pull together the threads of my reading about ‘Negotiation’ & to place them in the context of Mediation Advocacy in a trust/estate dispute.

I have also started to draft the Speaking Notes for my online talk to the SCMA worldwide in October about ‘Mediation Advocacy in Trust & Estate Disputes’.

This is an extract from the ‘Introduction’:

Introduction
·       The structure of this talk mirrors the structure of ‘facilitated’ negotiation
during the mediation of a trust/estate dispute – it has:
–     A beginning.
–     A middle.
&
–     An end.
1. Beginning – What is Mediation Advocacy?
2. Middle – Skills?
3. End – Strategies & Traps for the unwary?

The 1st point I will make is that ‘Mediation Advocacy’ = ‘Facilitated Negotiation’. In other words it is not the same as one-dimensional commercial negotiation.

If a negotiator (‘N’), knows how to work ‘with’ instead of ‘against’ the Mediator [‘M’], that opens the door to another dimension – a ‘deal-making’ dimension [‘DMD’].

The DMD is not the same as N’s ‘Deal-Making Zone’ [‘DMZ’].

So, it is a ‘rookie’ mistake to assume that you can somehow get M on your side & then use M to force your opponent into your DMZ by legally ‘bashing them’ on the head’ on your behalf.

M is not a ‘post-box’ & there is always ‘risk’ in any litigation for both parties – not least the Judge you both get.

Effective Mediation is also a more subtle & sophisticated process. That is because your opponent must want to enter into your DMZ – which at some point may overlap with their DMZ.

So, you don’t ‘force’ – instead you ‘attract’, i.e. you ‘draw’ your opponent in.

Thus, to be effective N must be skilled in working ‘with’, rather than ‘through’ or ‘against’ M.

In order to develop this skill in the context of a trust/estate dispute – N
must 1st put himself/herself in the shoes of M. In other words in order to
prepare as a negotiator, a negotiator must 1st prepare as if he/she were the
Mediator.

From October, I should be fully available to act as a Mediator & Negotiator. If you would like to meet me at your offices in London, Leicester, Birmingham, Leeds or Newcastle, or for me to present a short lunchtime talk to your firm in person or by Zoom about ‘Mediation & Negotiation skills’, please email carl@ihtbar.com.

Over the next 3 weeks I am completing my reading of books about negotiation which I have collected over the last 4 years. 4 more to go – books I mean!

I also have a handbook of my own, that I wrote & which accompanied me overseas when I was an itinerant in-house negotiator working for Rolls Royce & Alstom in Paris.

I glance at this from time to time & today was reminded of the
following insight which I noted down in the handbook in 1996 –

‘The only way to get someone to do something is to make the other person want to do it.

So:

1. See things from your opponent’s angle.
2. Understand their point of view.
3. Ask yourself – ‘How can I make this person want to enter my ‘deal-making zone?’

In other words, ‘bait the hook to suit the fish!’

This requires rigorous preparation, charm, subtlety, patience, trust & flexibility.

What you are in effect doing, is manipulating your opponent without him realising it, i.e. because he thinks your proposal was his idea.

So, the 1st key skill in mediation advocacy is ‘listening’!

I am going offline at the end of this week for 2 months to complete work on the 2nd ed of the Contentious Probate Handbook which is currently in a 6-8 period of editorial review. I am also preparing notes for a talk I am giving online at 4pm GMT on Thursday 24 October 2024 to the SCMA worldwide about ‘Mediation Advocacy in Trust & Estate Disputes.’

Time permitting in July & August I will post further short extracts from my handwritten ‘Negotiation Handbook’.

I like to think of this as being both a trusted old friend & a book of ‘secret’ techniques for negotiators. However the more I read, the more I discover that these techinques are based upon ancient wisdom – including of course the strategies of Sun Tzu. So – there is nothing new under the ‘Sun’!

From August 2024, I am writing a new practical handbook that I will offer for publication – ‘Performers’ Rights & Mediation of Music Disputes.’

The book is about legal & commercial negotiating principles for parties, legal representatives & mediators involved in a music business dispute.

For more information please visit the ‘Performers’ Rights & Mediation of Music Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

At the top of the page you will also find links to my articles published earlier in the year in the Law Society Gazette:

– ‘Golden rule in commercial mediation.’
– ‘Commercial Mediation of Music Disputes.’

These are free to read online – just Google.

I started work on the negotiation principles content for the new book in June.

Depending upon my available free time, I plan to complete the writing of the book before 1 January 2025. Work in researching the book began over 12 months ago.

From 1 March 2025 I also plan to write a book for academic publication entitled – ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’. See the ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

Both books have their genesis in the Diploma in Art Law course which I undertook part time at the Institute of Art & Law in London for 3 years and completed in December 2023. The legal principles underlying fiduciary duties owed by managers & their companies to artists are well known to Chancery practitioners. However what Chancery practitioners who have not studied Art Law may not realise, is that many of the same legal principles which underly the rights of visual artists, i.e. of artists who paint, draw, take photographs, or make sculptures, also apply to the rights of performers in the music industry. I made this connection when I was studying the ‘Artists Rights’ (including copyright and moral rights) module of the course. To my surprise and delight, many of the cases were in fact about music disputes. For ‘Music Law Geeks’ – of which I am proud to be one, there is a table of cases on the ‘Performers’ Rights’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk. The negotiated settlement of a music dispute is not a ‘nil-sum’ game. If you understand these legal principles – which are complex and multi-jurisdictional, you can imagine/facilitate the exploration & discovery of contractual solutions that are more commercially advantageous to the parties in dispute than going to court. Unless either the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down or the will does not exist to collaborate and ‘do a deal’, then as in the words of the late and great George Michael, commercial mediation can not only – ‘Heal the pain’, it can also liberate the parties, by enabling them to work out a creative deal to their mutual advantage. This can be achieved by maximising ‘joint-gains’ in a way that furthers each party’s individual interests. This I hope, is where my next book will add value!