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.

This is a huge innovation in which China has led the way.

It provides a ‘pathway’ for the Mediation of disputes between ‘state actors’, including ‘International Cultural Heritage Disputes’, see the ‘Art, Civilization & Law’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk. See also www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

The objective and goal of the IOMed is to promote and facilitate the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and to develop friendly relations and co-operation between countries through mediation.

‘The IOMed will become the world’s first intergovernmental international legal organisation dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation. It also reflects our shared confidence in mediation as a peaceful means to maintain international peace and security, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations.

The IOMed will provide a pathway for countries – regardless of culture, language and legal system – to resolve international disputes based on mutual respect and understanding. This is increasingly important amid mounting geopolitical tensions. When protectionism threatens to derail the international trade order, and when unilateralism looms over global supply chains, it is dialogue – not division – that restores balance.

China has long championed equity and unity. The Chinese virtue of “和而不同”, meaning “harmony in diversity”, is deeply rooted in our community and culture. This value of mutual respect in spite of differences also sits at the heart of mediation, the IOMed, and a world that seeks co-operation over conflict.

Despite geopolitical turbulence, Hong Kong builds bridges, not walls. Under our unique “one country, two systems” principle, Hong Kong is the only world city that enjoys both the China advantage and the global advantage. With the support of the National 14th Five-Year Plan, Hong Kong has risen as an international legal and dispute resolution services centre in the Asia-Pacific region.

We are the only common law jurisdiction in China, and the only jurisdiction in the world with a bilingual common law system in both Chinese and English. We have a long tradition of the rule of law, and our courts exercise their judicial power independently. Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, which is vested with the power of final adjudication, has on its bench eminent jurists from both Hong Kong and overseas common law jurisdictions.’

The scope of the Convention is wider than its title suggests, and you might imagine.

See:
·        Article 25 ‘Disputes between States.’
·        Article 27 ‘Disputes between a State and a national of another State.’
·        Article 28 ‘International commercial disputes between private parties.’

Note that Art 26 also provides:

‘In case of a dispute submitted by States involving a third State, the Organization shall not provide mediation services with respect to such dispute unless prior consent is given by the third State concerned.’

So, if the third State consents, then the mediation of these disputes is also within the scope of the Convnetion.

This would include an armed conflict between: (i) a State Actor and (ii) a ‘Non-State Actor’ .

For example, the process of secret talks that took place between what was then apartheid South Africa and the ANC, which were brokered and mediated by Michael Young, who worked for Consolidated Gold Fields. These talks took place in Mells Park House, a country house near Frome in Somerset, which at the time was owned by Consolidated Gold Fields.

See – https://lnkd.in/ecraaKxX

See also:

Thirty-three countries sign Convention to launch the International Organization for Mediation in Hong Kong: https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2025/06/thirty-three-countries-sign-convention-to-launch-the-international-organization-for-mediation-in-hong-kong

http://www.marinacastellaneta.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IOMed_Convention.pdf

There is a lot to ‘legally’ unpack in these disputes.

Under English Law, ‘infringement of Performers’ rights’ is actionable as ‘breach of statutory duty’.

These rights, while similar to, are not as extensive as full ‘copyrights’.

They are also distinct and separate from an artist’s ‘copyright in a song’.

Performers’ ‘property rights’ are ‘assignable’, whereas their ‘non-property’ rights are not.

The mere fact that members of a pop group which trades as a ‘partnership’ give a ‘performance’, does not mean that that they are joint-owners of the ‘Performers’ Rights in the Performance.’

That is because each performer has ‘individual’ rights in relation to his contribution to the ‘collective performance.’

In Bourne v. Davis [2006] EWHC 1567 Ch, Mark Herbert QC, held (and this does not mean that his actual decision in that case was wrong – see below), that:

(i) performers’ property rights could become partnership property without express agreement by virtue of s.20(1) of the Partnership Act 1890; but
(ii) s.20(1) did not create a beneficial interest for the partnership in respect of such partnership property.

However, under English Law performers’ ‘property rights’ are ‘personal rights’.

These rights are comparable with the ‘copyrights’ in the ‘music’ and ‘lyrics’ in a song written by an individual member of the group, for performance by the group.

Furthermore, these rights have never been regarded as ‘partnership property’ in the absence of express agreement.

While ‘equitable interests’ can subsist in ‘performers’ property rights’, unless the partners execute a written assignment of their rights which complies with s.191B(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (see: https://lnkd.in/e4RtiNRr), then each artist will retain ‘legal title’ to their individual performers’ rights.

In Music and Performer’s Rights Disputes, the litigation risk of a judge arriving at a conclusion about the Law, which (as it appears to me) is ‘doubtful’, can be resolved by entering into Mediation.

This risk is also relevent to the parties’ choice and appointment of Mediator (and co-Mediator), because if an eminent High Court Judge can state what appear to me, to be ‘doubtful’ propositions of Law, then what chance does a non-specialist Mediator have of helping the parties in dispute, to ‘do a deal’ that is based upon their actual Legal Rights under English Law?

Note that the decision in Bourne v. Davis [2006] was justified by other reasons given by the judge, so in spite of what the judge held as stated above, this does not mean that the actual decision in the case was wrong.

The working title of my next book is provisionally entitled – ‘Art Civilization & Law.’

The idea is to initially write a series of essays around the ‘Programme Themes’ for my planned YouTube Channel www.artandcivilization.tv.
See www.artandcivilization.tv. for the current list of planned video programmes.

The book will accompany the YouTube TV Channel as it evolves.

Art is the window into the soul of ancient civilizations, so the focus of both the channel and the book will be the nexus between ‘Art’ and ‘Civilization’, and the ‘Laws and Codes of Practice’ which apply to the the Protection of Art, Antiquities, Archaelogical Sites, Monuments and Libraries, during armed conflict. In other words, the preservation of Civilization, by protecting its tangible and intangible manifestation, in the form of Art and Cultural Heritage – which belongs to all Mankind.

I will also discuss Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage, Maritime Archaeology, the Protection of Underwater Archaeological Sites, International Dispute Settlement in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Ethics in Repatriation Claims, and the Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.

I am planning to start work on these projects in December.

My next live Zoom webinar to be presented to members of the Standing Conference of Mediation Advocates worldwide in 2025 is entitled ‘Mediation Advocacy in Music & Performers’ Rights Disputes.’

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

I am currently writing an article about this for submission to the Journal of Mediation Theory and Practice in October for publication worldwide.