That is the title of a new book published in 2 volumes, written by Hugo Luz dos Santos.

The Wildy & Sons website contains the following description:

‘This book casts an analytical eye on the legal dynamics of mediation premised on a multidisciplinary approach.

This is the very first book to meld mediation and applied psychology with a view to portray the myriad of cognitive biases with which the great bulk of legal actors grapple/tussle with in mediation settings.

The overriding goal of this book is to provide a multidisciplinary, comprehensive, and full-fledged framework to legal dynamics of mediation while emphasizing the paramount importance of incorporative mediation to protect the fundamental rights of the weakest disputant in the room-something that has not been done yet.

This book is the very first one to provide a framework/frame of reference to the usage of artificial intelligence in the remit of both mediation settings and Restorative Relationship Session (RRS).’

My copy of Vol 1 arrived on Wednesday, and Vol 2 is arriving next week.

I will be reading both Volumes cover to cover, as:

(i) the Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes requires a ‘Multi-Disciplinary’ approach; and

(ii) an awareness by all involved in the Mediation process, of the dynamics of ‘Cognitive Error’, opens the door to the exploration of a ‘New Paradigm of Return’.

Two frequent examples of Cognitive Error in Cultural Heritage Disputes are:

(a) the concept of ‘Cultural Internationalism’ – i.e. How, being within a State’s Sovereignty Cultural Property can be either ‘Res Nullius’ (property belonging to no one), or ‘Res Communis’ (property belonging to the whole world)?; and

(b) the logical contradiction, that Cultural Heritage is ‘Universal’ – How can it be, as the premise contradicts the idea of ‘Return’.

Another Cognitive Error that often arises in Cultural Heritage Disputes is ‘Anachronism.’ See my previous post – ‘The claim for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece is not based upon Anachronism.’

Anachronism in a claim for the return of a ‘National Treasure’, e.g. the ‘Parthenon Marbles’, occurs when the context or significance of the disputed artefact is viewed through a modern lens.

However, a paradigm of return which revolves around:

(i)        ‘Legal’ and ‘Ethical’ arguments about ‘acquisition’;

(ii)        the concept of ‘Cultural Heritage’; and

(iii)       the ‘legitimacy’ of ‘territorial claims’ over historical artifacts, i.e. in the context of ‘Historical Power Dynamics’, rather than simply applying modern standards to past events,

it is not based upon Anachronism.

That is because, the claim for return focusses upon ‘differing historical interpretations’ of: ‘Legality’; ‘Ethics’; and ‘Ownership’, rather than upon ‘anachronistic judgment’, i.e. by engaging with the ‘historical context’ of ‘power dynamics’.

So, by facilitating awareness of ‘Anachronism’, in a Cultural Heritage Dispute, a Mediator can steer the Participants in Mediation, toward the joint-development of a New Paradigm of Return.

Another Cognitive Error is the ‘Floodgates argument.’  This holds that returning cultural heritage would empty museums. The error  is rooted in the ‘Pandora’s Box’  metaphor, which suggests that one small opening will lead to uncontrollable consequences. Most claims for return are historically unique, and there is no widespread plan to empty museums. Instead, such claims present an opportunity to rethink museum missions, as returning objects does not mean their disappearance from the world of museums. 

The core of the “floodgates” argument is the idea that returning a few objects will necessarily open the door to a torrent of other claims, leading to a mass exodus of cultural artifacts from Western museums. This “fear of setting a precedent” is a well-worn argument used to resist restitution.

Each case of restitution is historically unique, making it difficult to transpose one agreement to another.

The current practice of returns does not suggest that massive transfers are imminent, nor is there a plan by requesting countries to ask for massive returns.

The idea that museums would be “emptied” is a misinformed premise; returning an object does not remove it from existence but rather places it in its original context and community.

The ‘floodgates’ argument gained traction after the 2002 ‘Universal Museum Declaration’, where directors of major museums argued that they hold collections in ‘trusteeship for all humanity’, making their physical location less relevant than their conservation and accessibility. 

This perspective is increasingly criticized as an outdated approach that does not address the ethical and historical complexities of how collections were acquired. 

Many experts argue that restitution should be viewed not as a threat but as an opportunity for universal museums to rethink their mission and their relationships with other museums and source communities. 

The return of cultural heritage can also serve as a powerful tool for building international diplomacy and reconciling past injustices. 

The argument is also legally flawed because the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention do not apply retrospectively. Furthermore, Article 3(3) of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, imposes a time limit, requiring a claim for restitution to be brought within three years from the date the claimant learns about the location of the object and of the identity of its possessor, with a cut-off date of no later than 50 years from the date of the theft.  

Over the weekend I will also begin the process of witing-up the ‘Speaking Notes’ for my forthcoming online talk to the SCMA worldwide, which is entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview.’ I am going offline again for another 6 weeks to complete this.

Over the last 10 days I have also been working on the first draft of my next book, which is entitled the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’ See www.carlislam.co.uk for more information.

I am expecting that this monumental work by Hugo Luz dos Santos will provide much food for original thought, and in particular, about the Mediation of disputes involving state actors; and the ‘Cultural Awareness’ dimension of Mediation in cross-border and International Disputes.

I will begin my in-depth reading of Vol.1 this evening.

Meanwhile, may I take this opportunity as a fellow author, to both congratulate and thank Hugo Luz dos Santos for this massive achievement, which is a major contribution to the published literature about the Mediation of International Disputes.