As I have previously mentioned, novel ideas about potential ‘Tools’ in the Mediation of ‘Cultural Heritage Disputes’ are occurring to me fast, as I read about the Repatriation of Cultural Treasures.

So, one more idea before I go offline again!

Today, I have been reading about the plunder and destruction of Cultural Treasures excavated in Afghanistan.

‘The Kabul Museum covered about 50,000 years of history and was one of the most important museums in Central Asia. Over twenty years it lost three-quarters of its collections. Its Begram ivory galleries have been lost. … It appears most of the panels were smuggled out to London, New York and Tokyo. … ‘ (‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’, 3rd Edition (2007), by Jeanette Greenfield, p.272).

This triggered an idea about the ‘ad hoc’ creation through ‘Mediation’, of a ‘Cultural Heritage Trust’, to own and hold collections of Cultural Treasures that are at risk of plunder and destruction, for the benefit of both:

(i) the people of the source country; and

(ii) ‘universally’ – i.e. for all Mankind.

This would ensure preservation, academic and scientific research, and ‘accessibility’ through ‘loans’ (possibly linked to ‘cultural exchanges’) and travelling public ‘exhibitions’.

A collection held by such a Trust would of course also have a ‘safe haven’ in the event of armed conflict in the source country.

Legally, the artefacts would be owned by the Trustees, which would include Museum Trustees from the source country.

Perhaps such a legal entity could have some kind of ‘ad hoc’ designated UNESCO status?

Later in the summer I will be reading about Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage, and will also think about whether such a Trust entity could also be used to create IPR, e.g. by licensing images i.e. ‘photographs’ for production on postcards for sale in Museums, in order to generate revenue for the public benefit of the people of the source country, e.g. by using that money to build a medical facility/hospital.

See also:
·        UNESCO strengthens action to safeguard cultural heritage under attack: https://lnkd.in/eE-CxPgC
·        Stolen History: looting and illicit trade by Neil Brodie: https://lnkd.in/eQcbRYS7
·        my previous post – ‘Challenging conventional wisdom about the past – How far back in time does Antiquity actually go?’: https://lnkd.in/e3R4g_n7

I am now going back offline to research and write my Monograph  – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

In the course of my reading I occasionally come across archaeological sites and documents which appear to challenge conventional wisdom about the past, i.e. because they beg the Q. – ‘How far back in time does Antiquity actually go?‘

Here for your general interest are some examples, and over the summer if I come accross anything lse of interest I will mention it as a comment in this post:

·     ‘Dolmen of Guadalperal – Spain’: https://lnkd.in/eRZnzt_z
·     ‘Ġgantija – Malta’: https://lnkd.in/eh3gT9W7
·     ‘Göbekli Tepe – Anatolia’: https://lnkd.in/eRTp9gwc
·     ‘Nabta Playa -Sahara Dessert’: https://lnkd.in/ejzafzSU
·     ‘Adam’s Calendar – South Africa’s Stonehenge’: https://lnkd.in/ezxtDt2x
·     ‘Piri Reis Map’: https://lnkd.in/epNUaug3

See also – ‘4750-year-old megalithic stone plaza found in the Andes
by Dario Radley February 16, 2024′: https://lnkd.in/eJXmT8nC.

‘Their findings, detailed in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, shed light on a crucial period of transition in South America, where coastal fishing communities began interacting with emerging agricultural societies in the mountains. Carbon dating places the construction of the plaza around 4,750 years ago, predating iconic monuments like the Great Pyramids of Egypt and Stonehenge. Toohey emphasizes the plaza’s significance as a gathering place for early inhabitants of the Cajamarca Valley, who were primarily engaged in hunting and gathering activities while beginning to explore agriculture and animal domestication.’

The more I read, the more I realise how much awaits archaeological investigation and discovery, e.g. under the sands of the Sahara Dessert – which was a lush, green savannah during the African Humid Period between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago, see: https://lnkd.in/e5qiPDZH, and underwater i.e. through Maritime Archaelogy, see for example: https://lnkd.in/erMR8ewb
and https://lnkd.in/eeibRVBk.

See also my previous posts:

·     ‘What is an appropriate Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes?’
https://lnkd.in/e8QraBG6

·     ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes – The idea that ancient art possesses a Cultural Domicile of Origin.’: https://lnkd.in/eXHcTW5a

Out of curiosity I put the words – ‘Constructive Trust of Profits of Genocide?’ into Google.

To my surprise, the following ‘AI’ answer came up:

‘A constructive trust can be imposed on profits gained from genocide …. when it would be unconscionable for the perpetrator to retain those profits. … [T]he law recognizes a trust, not through formal declaration, but because it’s the fair and just outcome based on the circumstances. …

In cases involving genocide, a constructive trust might be applied to profits derived from activities that enabled or facilitated the genocide.

For example, if a company profited from supplying goods or services that were used in the genocide, a constructive trust could be placed on those profits.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory has called for an end to trade and financial ties with Israel, including an arms embargo, due to … an “economy of genocide”.

This highlights the idea that certain economic activities can be directly tied to human rights abuses and that those profiting from such activities should not be allowed to retain those profits. …

The core principle is that it would be unconscionable for the individual or entity to keep the profits. …

There must be a clear link between the profits and the genocide. …

In essence, a constructive trust in the context of genocide aims to prevent unjust enrichment by those who have profited from atrocities.’

As I explain in my book, the ‘Contentious Trusts Handbook’ (2020) published by the Law Society:

‘English law provides no clear and all-embracing theory of constructive trusts. The boundaries have been left perhaps deliberately vague so as not to restrict the Court by technicalities in deciding what the justice of a particular case might demand. (Carl Zeiss Stifung v. Herbert Smith & Co [1969] … . There are established categories of circumstances in which it has been held that a constructive trust will arise. The categories are not closed. The categories include constructive trusts arising from:

(a)    impugned transactions/payments (without a prior fiduciary relationship);
(b)    a prior fiduciary relationship; and
(c)    a prior agreement or understanding.

The constructive trust is not a rigid doctrine. Instead it is deliberately built on a flexible, high level principle of good conscience. In Paragon Finance Plc v. DB Thakerar & Co [1999] … at [409], Millett LJ explained that,

“A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another.” …’ (Para 7.7.2 – The Common Intention Constructive Trust).

So, doctrinally, how is it possible that a ‘Constructive Trust of Corporate Profits of Genocide’ could arise under English Law?

Any thoughts?

See also my previous post – ‘Corporate Legal Accountability for Genocide’: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7346839255316348929/

I made this enquiry of Google out of sheer curiosity. The thought came to me in an idle moment of contemplation earlier this afternoon, while I was watering plants in the garden. So, I was surprised by the reply. I am not aware of any precedent for the declaration under English Law of the existence of a ‘Constructive Trust of Corporate Profits of Genocide’. Perhaps one exists in another jurisdiction? – although I would doubt it. If you know of any precedent please comment. Even if the legal argument could be made, there would be significant ‘threshold issues’ to overcome at trial, including: ‘locus standii’ of the claimant(s); and ‘jurisdiction.’ However, that does not mean that there insuperable obstacles to a claim being made. If the ‘equitable remedy (which is of course discretionary) is available, then so is ‘tracing.’

Gaza: Israeli soldiers admit to deliberately killing unarmed aid seekers
Soldiers say commanders ordered them to shoot starving civilians at ‘killing field’ aid sites: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-soldier-admit-deliberately-killing-unarmed-aid-seekers.

‘According to soldiers and officers who spoke to Haaretz, commanders instructed them to open fire on people seeking food at aid distribution points despite knowing they posed no threat.
One soldier described the distribution centres as a “killing field”.
“Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day,” the soldier told Haaretz.
“They’re treated like a hostile force, no crowd-control measures, no tear gas. Just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars.” …’

So, according to this first hand testimony – starving women and children have been gunned down with heavy machine guns and blown-up by rocket-propelled grenades.

Bulldozing History – see: ‘Render it unusable’: Israel’s mission of total urban destruction – While airstrikes account for mass casualties, bulldozers and explosives are flattening Gaza from the ground — what soldiers say is a systematic campaign to make the Strip unlivable, a joint investigation reveals.’: https://www.972mag.com/israel-gaza-total-urban-destruction/ –

‘The systematic destruction of residential buildings and public structures has become a central part of the Israeli army’s operations, and in many cases, the primary objective.’

In my essay – ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy & IHL – Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’, I argue that there is an unspoken connection between the complete obliteration of Cultural Heritage and:

(i) ‘Ethnic Cleansing’; and

(ii) ‘Genocide’.

What is being ‘obliterated’ from history in Gaza, is an entire ‘civilization’.

In other words, what is being done = ‘Cultural Genocide.’

See also www.artandcivilization.tv‘.

I am planning to record and broadcast a video programme about this on YouTube after I have launched the ‘Art Civilization & Law’ Channel on Youtube, toward the end of 2026.

See also – ‘Bulldozing history: How Israel uses archaeology to entrench occupation – Heritage destruction is but one of the many mechanisms in which Israel maintains domination over the Palestinians’: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/bulldozing-history-how-israel-uses-archaeology-entrench-occupation

‘Archaeology is but one of the many mechanisms in which Israel maintains domination over the Palestinian people. The use of this biblical narrative is being manipulated as a smokescreen for the Zionist settler-colonial project.

Furthermore, the practice of carrying a bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, which began with the British colonial archaeologists, is being continued by Israel.

To this end, Israel wants to manipulate the historical narrative to serve its interests in the present and to eliminate the possibilities of a Palestinian future.’

See also about the Theft and Illicit Trade in Palestinian Antiquities and Cultural Treasures:

·    Exposing & Resisting Israel’s Theft, Erasure & Appropriation of Palestine’s Archaeology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evgPNg0qC7g

·    Israeli Forces Display Stolen Gaza Artifacts in Knesset – Reports: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-forces-display-stolen-gaza-artifacts-in-knesset-reports/

·   The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities: https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/77873

See my previous posts on LinkedIn:
·        ‘What is an appropriate Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes?’: https://lnkd.in/e8QraBG6
·        ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’ https://lnkd.in/edDC55rX

My ‘1st Principle of Repatriation’ – which was formulated today is:

Putting:

(i) Law;
(ii) Politics; and
(iii) National Feeling,

all on one side – what is the nexus between:

(a) the ‘Cultural Soul’ of the Claimant community/people/state; and
(b) the ‘Cultural Homeland’ of the artefact?

‘Cultural Soul’ – In a sense, every claim for the return of an artefact, is a claim about the return of something that forms part of the ‘Cultural Soul’ of a claimant community/people/state, today.

‘Cultural Homeland’ – Today, where, if anywhere, is the ‘legitimate place’ to which a historical artefact ‘belongs’, and therefore as a matter of Ethics, should be returned?

In other words, if there is one, where is the ‘Cultural Homeland’ of the artefact?

The idea of the existence today, of a ‘Cultural Homeland’, is based upon two philosophical concepts under International Cultural Heritage Law that I will examine in my Monograph:

(i)          ‘Patrie’; and
(ii)         ‘Lex Originis’.

‘Cultural Domicile’ – Every disputed historical artefact came from somewhere. So, by analogy to the concept of ‘Domicile of Origin’ in Private Law, which is attributed at birth, an artefact can artificially be imbued with a fictional ‘Cultural Domicile of Origin’. Arguably, just as a person’s domicile can change during their lifetime through e.g. choice, a Cultural Domicile of Origin can be altered through legitimate transfer.

My 2nd Principle of Repatriation is – ‘Provenance and Cultural Significance.’

–     What is known about the Provenance of the artefact?
–     What ancient people in Antiquity created the artefact, and for what purpose?
–     What is the cultural significance of the artefact and to whom today?’
–     What cultural beliefs, myths and legend are associated with this artefact?
–     What ritual/practice of veneration, is the artefact believed to have been involved /used in?
–     What spiritual/magical qualities have been attributed by Folklore to this artefact?

Patrimonial Disputes are about both: (i) a claim to the past; and (ii) a relationship with a wider international community in the future.

In that sense, while the Mediation of these disputes may involve a combination of both facilitative and evaluative styles of Mediation, the ‘Commercial Model of Mediation’ is not appropriate.

That is because these disputes are about a value that cannot be fully understood and evaluated in terms of money alone.

So, what is an appropriate Model of Mediation for a Patrimonial Dispute?

I think this requires some ‘innovative’ i.e. orginal and creative thinking, as I have not yet found one in any of the published academic literature.

In other words, a ‘Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes’, needs to be developed, based upon a ‘foundational’ bedrock of principles and precedents.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am now going offline for three months to work on the writing a Monograph about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, for publication in 2026. See the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

My next live Zoom webinar to be presented to members of the Standing Conference of Mediation Advocates worldwide in 2025 is entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview.’ This is scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday 11
November 2025.

I mention this, because the development of an appropriate ‘Model of Mediation’ i.e. a Mediator ‘Methodology’, for Mediating Patrimonial Disputes, is the starting point for both the Monograph and the Talk.

As my ideas about this evolve over the summer, I will post them as comments on this post.

In Mediation, the possibilities are only limited by the ‘imagination’ of the participants and their Mediation Advocates, and of course the skill and knowledge of the Mediator, in facilitating ‘synergy’ between them.

Therefore, a logical place to look for inspiration is documented ‘creative deals’ that have been negotiated and agreed in the past in the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes.

I have started to compile a Table of Precedents.

With one exception, I have found that negotiations (whether Mediated or not), have been protracted over many years.

That is because of the ‘Stakeholder Interests’ involved, and the changing dynamics of both the underlying ‘Ethical’ and ‘Political’ dimensions of these disputes.

So, an obvious challenge for a Mediator in a Patrimonial Dispute, is how to facilitate an ‘alignment’ of these dynamic and competing ‘interests’, by somehow ‘revealing’ common ground, that can become the foundation for the ‘building’ i.e. ‘facilitated negotiation’, of a ‘Framework of Agreed Repatriation Principles’, for practical implementation.

So, I have also started to draft a ‘Table of Repatriation Principles’, based upon ‘Precedent’.

These Tables will form the foundation of both my Monograph and Talk.

First a word of caution about a Mediator [‘M’] ‘projecting’ their own ‘values’ (i.e. ‘Western Values’ if M was educated and grew up in the West), upon a participant [‘P’], i.e. from the ‘Global South’. While ‘Repatriation Principles’ may provide a Mediator with ‘tools’ for steering the ‘P’s toward recognition of ‘common ground’, M must not ‘pre-label’ each P’s values. That is because ‘pre-labeling’ could result in loss of trust from the outset of the Mediation process. What the Mediator needs to do, through ’empathetic listening’ and ‘careful and educated questioning’, is to get each P to talk openly to him in private sessions about their ‘values’, so that eventually in conversation with each other in a plenary session, the P’s – through M, can recognise the existence of an ‘overlapping framework of principles’, which can be used to develop a creative, practical and lawful solution that when viewed as a ‘coherent whole’, is ‘sufficient’ to ‘satisfy’ and thereby ‘reconcile’ their competing interests, ambitions, imperatives, and priorities.

I am now going offline for three months to work on the writing a Monograph about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, for publication in 2026.

See the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

In the Monograph, I will also discuss IOMed, see the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation.

The working title of my next book is – ‘Art Civilization & Law’ – see the ‘Art Civilization & Law’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

My next live Zoom webinar to be presented to members of the Standing Conference of Mediation Advocates worldwide in 2025 is entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview.’

This is scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday 11 November 2025.

See also:

‘Secret of the Incas, unveiled …. William Sullivan’ – Episode 1: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Secret+of+the+Incas%2c+unveiled+….+William+Sullivan+(1)+youtube&mid=55709439A16719FCCC0155709439A16719FCCC01&mcid=E3A4608B75EC4867937DA6C4896474B7&FORM=VIRE

‘Secret of the Incas, unveiled …. William Sullivan- Episode 2’: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=william%20sullivan%20upaide%20down%20invisible%20inca%20pyramid%20secret%20of%20the%20incas%20book&mid=0DE81CC73FA2E2B5AA1C0DE81CC73FA2E2B5AA1C&ajaxhist=0

Look out for the ‘optically’ invisible Inca Pyramid hidden in Ollantaytambo, the Sacred Valley of the Incas.

Another interesting book to possibly add to your summer reading list is – ‘The Secret of the Incas: Myth, Astronomy, and the War Against Time’ by William Sullivan, who holds a BA from Harvard College and a doctorate from the Centre of Amerindian, Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of St. Andrews.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Incas-Myth-Astronomy-Against/dp/0517888513

‘At its peak, the Inca empire was the largest on Earth. Yet in the year 1532, it was conquered by fewer than 200 Spanish adventurers. How could this happen? Approaching the answer clue by clue, William Sullivan decodes the myths of the Incas to reveal that they embody an astoundingly precise record of astronomical events.

In the 15th century, the Inca priest-astronomers read the sky and saw signs of an apocalypse. So the Incas took a desperate gamble: If events in the heavens could influence those on Earth, perhaps the reverse was true. In The Secret of the Incas, Sullivan shows that the Inca rituals of warfare and human sacrifice were nothing less than an attempt to stop time, to forestall the cataclysm that would sweep away their world. This is a work of rare erudition and imagination that will reshape our understanding of the past.’

Anecdotally – I briefly met Graham Hancock at a lecture, after returning to the UK from working for two years in Paris in the mid 1990’s. Throughout my time in Paris, I was a member of The Société des Amis du Louvre, and visited the museum at least once a month. On my visits I also bought books in the Louvre shop, including one which when translated is entitled, ‘The Passage to Eternity.’ This contained detailed photographs of what was discovered on the walls of Egyptian Temples in the Nile Delta by two French amateur archaeologists who were also keen photographers. I mentioned to Hancock that I was puzzled, because the book contained pictures of several images of what appeared to me to be either scribes or priests, who had distinctly East Asian features. This remains an enigma to me, but he had made the same observation elsewhere. What were people from East Asia doing appearing on the walls of an Egyptian Temple on the banks of the river Nile? I still do not know the answer?

See also ‘How Were the Ancient Civilizations of Egypt and China Similar?’: https://historypeak.com/how-were-the-ancient-civilizations-of-egypt-and-china-similar/

For Ark aficionados see also – ‘Hancock proposes that the ark was removed from Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem by temple priests during the reign of the evil King Manasseh of Judah around 650 BC, and then it spent about 200 years in a purpose-built temple in Elephantine, Egypt. It was removed around 470 BC to Ethiopia via tributaries to the Nile River, where it was kept on the Jewish island of Tana Qirqos for about eight hundred more years as the centre of a strong Jewish community there. It finally came into the hands of the young Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the 5th century, who took it to their capital of Axum, where it supposedly remains there to this day in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. The Ethiopian Church believes that the Ark is indeed held today in that church, but as opposed to the book, they believe that it was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I, stolen from Solomon’s Temple during the reign of King Solomon himself, some 200 years earlier than the events proposed by the book.’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sign_and_the_Seal

‘Legend’ can take you on a journey to unexpected and exotic places, see – ‘The pharaoh’s daughter who was the mother of all Scots’: https://www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/the-pharaohs-daughter-who-was-the-mother-of-all-scots-2507668.
An item of Cultural Property, including surviving fragments of the manuscript of an ancient saga/myth, can therefore form part of a historical ‘jigsaw’ puzzle, helping us to unlock the past and reveal its hidden secrets and lessons.

Tomorrow, I am reading about a 400-year-old wooden tablet (a ‘Tabot’), sacred to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which was returned in 2003 by the St John’s Scottish Episcopal Church in Edinburgh, to a delegation of Ethiopian priests. The Tabot represents the Ark of the Covenant in which the Israelites carried the Ten Commandments.

For Ark of the Covenant aficionados, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion

‘The Church of Saint Mary of Zion claims to contain the original Ark of the Covenant. … [Although some scholars believe this to be a replica].

The Ark was moved to the Chapel of the Tablet adjacent to the old church because a divine ‘heat’ from the Tablets had cracked the stones of its previous inner sanctum. …

According to pious tradition, the Ark came to Ethiopia with Crown prince Menelik I after he visited his father King Solomon in Jerusalem. …

At present, only the guardian monk may view the Ark, in accordance with the Biblical accounts of the dangers of doing so for non-Kohanim. …

The guardian monk is appointed for life … [and] is confined to the chapel of the Ark of the Covenant for the rest of his life, praying before it and offering incense.’

I thought I would share what I learned today about the return of the ‘Stone of Scone’, which is also known as the ‘Coronation Stone’, and as the ‘Stone of Destiny.’ The stone was inscribed in Latin with the words – ‘If Fates go right, wher’er this stone is found The Scots shall monarchs of that realm be crowned.’ What I learned today, is the principle that a ‘patrimonial connection’ may exist through ‘legend’, and therefore that ‘mythology’ may form a ‘powerful’ part of the rich historical tapestry of an item of cultural property. In this case, legend identifies the stone with the pillow of Jacob at Bethel, the stone upon which the biblical patriarch laid his head when he had his dream about the ladder stretching to heaven. The stone was taken to Egypt by a Greek, who married the Pharaoh’s daughter Scota (from whom the name of Scotland was derived), then to Spain and Ireland and finally to Scotland, which it was supposed to have reached about 330BC. It was then taken in AD 846 by Kenneth II to Scone where it was later used in the coronation of all Scots Kings. The first known documented use of the stone for a coronation was that of Lulach the Simple, the half-witted stepson of Macbeth, who reigned for only seven months in 1057.

I thought I would share what I learned today about the return of the ‘Stone of Scone’, which is also known as the ‘Coronation Stone’, and as the ‘Stone of Destiny.’ The stone was inscribed in Latin with the words – ‘If Fates go right, wher’er this stone is found The Scots shall monarchs of that realm be crowned.’ What I learned today, is the principle that a ‘patrimonial connection’ may exist through ‘legend’, and therefore that ‘mythology’ may form a ‘powerful’ part of the rich historical tapestry of an item of cultural property. In this case, legend identifies the stone with the pillow of Jacob at Bethel, the stone upon which the biblical patriarch laid his head when he had his dream about the ladder stretching to heaven. The stone was taken to Egypt by a Greek, who married the Pharaoh’s daughter Scota (from whom the name of Scotland was derived), then to Spain and Ireland and finally to Scotland, which it was supposed to have reached about 330BC. It was then taken in AD 846 by Kenneth II to Scone where it was later used in the coronation of all Scots Kings. The first known documented use of the stone for a coronation was that of Lulach the Simple, the half-witted stepson of Macbeth, who reigned for only seven months in 1057.

See also the ‘Research Bibliography’ (23.05.2025) on the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk

See ‘Osborne says ‘95% of Parthenon Marbles deal agreed,’ but final hurdles remain’: https://lnkd.in/eCgKwaVA

I am currently reviewing the legal literature about claims for the repatriation of Cultural Heritage, for a Talk to the SCMA worldwide online on 11 November entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview’; and for a Monograph I am writing for publication in 2026 entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

Although at Uppingham School, I was taught by the same English Literature Master as he was, and have great respect for his writing, ‘Legally’, it is not as simple as Stephen Fry appears to believe. See Chapter 2 – ‘The Elgin Marbles debate’, of ‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’, Third Edition (2007), by Jeanette Greenfield, Cambridge University Press.

If, as I suspect, the ‘legal mechanics’ of repatriation are not implemented before there is a change of Prime Minister or of the governing party in power in the UK, and if ‘Reform’ form part of a coalition government following the next general election, then politically the will to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles is likely to rapidly evaporate.

That will take Greece back to square one.

What is required to ensure repatriation is skilful negotiation/Mediation Advocacy, and not rhetoric.

As I wrote in a post on LinkedIn two years ago:

(i) there is no such thing as a ‘Statute of Limitations’ in International
Law; and

(ii) Greece could argue that as a general principle of International Law, there is a prima facie presumption of public policy, that title to ‘immoveable property’ never passes, regardless of how it was acquired.

The comparative analogy in English Planning Law, is the distinction between a ‘fixture’ and a ‘fitting.’

In the Talk and the Monograph, one of the Mediation Advocacy Tools that I will explore and discuss is whether the risk of an application being made to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for an ‘Advisory Opinion’ about the existence of this principle, and its application to Greece’s claim, is real.

In other words, what legal validity and substance does it have as an argument, in a Mediated negotiation?

Notwithstanding the validity of the legal argument, as Aristotle observed, there is a powerful ‘ethical’ argument in repatriation, that the ‘the whole’, e.g. of a ‘monument’, is ‘aesthetically’ greater ‘than the sum of its parts’:
https://lnkd.in/emXNjKHk.

The ‘Parthenon’ was erected and served as a ‘public monument’.

Notwithstanding the validity of the legal argument, as Aristotle observed, there is a powerful ‘ethical’ argument in repatriation, that the ‘the whole’ e.g. a statue is ‘aesthetically’ – greater ‘than the sum of its parts’:

It is not entirely clear from the academic literature whether Greece has ever advanced these arguments in the alternative. If you know the answer to this, please comment below and cite your source.

Underlying every claim for the Repatriation of Cultural Heritage is a long , complicated and significant history.

Today I have been reading about the return of the Icelandic Manuscripts by Denmark to Iceland.

The significance of these treasures to the people of Iceland is impossible to exaggerate.

Witten on vellum and later on paper, they not only symbolize Iceland’s great heritage of medieval prose and poetry, but are also perceived to be ‘symbols’ of Iceland’s ‘nationhood’ and ‘cultural identity’.

‘To understand the great importance of the manuscripts to Iceland one must
appreciate the history of enormous literary activity of that comparatively
small country and the ultimate rarity of its medieval works … [As] the great
Danish historian, Saxo Grammaticus, writing about 12OO in … Inopiam ingenio pensant [observed] … [the people of Iceland] “make up for their poverty by their wits”. … Later scholars and historians elaborated on this
observation, taking the view that traditional Viking vigour and aspirations,
pent up in the isolated island, found an outlet in memories, imagination and
story-telling. Indeed the “bookishness” of the Icelanders, both in
earlier and later centuries, came to be regarded as a national characteristic.
… [The Saga Manuscripts] have been the roots and stock of Icelandic culture,
the life-blood of the nation, the oldest living literature in Europe,
enshrining the origins of Icelandic society. The sagas not only preserved the
old language as a living tongue and a written language which is closer to
modern Icelandic than Shakespeare is to modern English; they also helped keep alive the Icelanders through the worst centuries of natural disasters and
colonial oppression.’ (Greenfield, Jeanette (2013) The Return of Cultural Treasures 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press).

So, the starting point for all participants involved in the Mediation of a Cultural Heritage Dispute, is to have an awareness and understanding of the ‘Philosophy of Cultural Identity’, and of how the ‘National Identity’ dynamic operates in these disputes.

However, it is not quite as simple as that, because there is a twist! – see my comment below.

Activate to view larger image,

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.

v.

(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.

One of the ancient manuscript treasures returned to Iceland in 1971 by the Royal Library in Copenhagen, is the ‘Flateyjarbok Codex,’ which is a compilation of sagas made in the north of Iceland in the 1390’s.

A page from the Codex shows the start of the ‘Graenlendinga Saga’, which tells the story of the expedition of ‘Leif the Lucky’ to Vinland (North America), and of the ‘Norse’ discovery of the New World five hundred years before Columbus.

So – who owns history?

Does ‘Cultural Nationalism’ trump ‘Cultural Internationalism?’

I will explore this conflict in my Monograph – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes’, see the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

To accompany the first series of planned Video Programmes for www.artandcivilization.tv, I am currently writing a Monograph for publication in 2026, about the ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

In the Monograph, I will also discuss IOMed, see: https://lnkd.in/ecraaKxX and the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation, see: https://lnkd.in/epnf_cgw.

The Research Bibliography is set out on the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk, along with the current Chapter Structure (06.06.2025):

1. Introduction – Unpacking Cultural Heritage Disputes.
2. Title & Patrimonial claims – Restitution.
3. Moral claims – Repatriation.
4. Parties.
5. Stakeholders – Interests, rights & consultation.
6. Paradigms, Perceptions, Beliefs & Cognitive Errors.
7. International Cultural Heritage Law framework & principles.
8. Museum Trustees’ Duties & Powers in decision-making.
9. Fiduciary Duties of State Actors under International Law as Custodians of Humanity – including ‘co-operation.’
10. Commercial issues (including IPR) & costs.
11. Ethics in Repatriation.
12. Repatriation criteria.
13. The Geopolitical Dimension & Cultural Heritage Diplomacy.
14. Mediation.
15. Benefits.
16. Ad Hoc Mediation.
17. Institutional Mediation.
18. Choice & appointment of Mediator(s).
19. Mediation Agreement – ‘The Ground Rules.
20. Process.
21. Mediator Challenges.
22. Mediator’s Toolkit.
23. Mediation Advocacy – including Cultural Awareness.
24. Ethics in negotiation.
25. Creative Solutions.
26. Conclusion.
Appendices:
Appendix 1       IoM Mediation & the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation.
Appendix 2         ICOM Mediation.
Appendix 3         Table of Ethical Principles.
Appendix 4         Table of Tools & Precedents.

My next live Zoom webinar to be presented to members of the Standing Conference of Mediation Advocates worldwide in 2025 is entitled –‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview.’

This is scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday 11 November 2025.