Under English Law an unincorporated joint-venture may take the form of a contract, e.g. a Consortium Agreement.

Therefore, subject to overcoming any ‘legal obstacles’ to the ‘pledging’ and ‘lending’ of items in a Museum’s collection, that are:

(i) contained in a Museum’s Governing Statute/Trust Deed/Charter; and/or
(ii) which are attached to a ‘gift’ of an item to a Museum, i.e. as a legally enforceable ‘restriction’ on:

(a) ‘notional’ transfer by ‘Pledge’ (as security); and
(b) actual ‘physical transfer’ by ‘delivery into possession’, in furtherance of a ‘Loan’,

then it would appear that a group of Museums may enter into a framework Consortium Agreement, whereby they agree under the terms of that ‘Umbrella’, to enter into future ‘project-specific’ arrangements for the ‘reciprocal loan’ of artefacts in their respective collections, i.e. by subsequently entering into a series of bespoke ‘Loan Agreements.’

In the context of collaboration between Museums and Galleries, which includes state actors, this ‘Umbrella’ could be described as being a ‘Cultural
Collaboration Agreement.’

So, if as ‘consideration’ for entering into the contract (which in any event would be executed as a Deed), each party agreed to ‘anchor’ and notionally ‘capitalise’ the ‘Cultural Collaboration Agreement’, by pledging assets as reciprocal ‘security’, then would the transfer of these assets by subsequent ‘loan’ in furtherance of the ‘Umbrella Cultural Collaboration Agreement’ = ‘Deaccessioning?’

Note that Legal ownership of these ‘Anchor’/’Notional Capitalisation Assets’, would remain vested in the Trustees of each Museum, so e.g. if Museum 1 pledges an asset [‘Asset M.1’] as security to Museum 2, i.e. in return for Museum 2 reciprocally pledging an asset ‘[Asset M.2’] as security to M.1, then legal title to ‘Asset M.1’ will remain vested in M.1, even though M.2 may under the terms of a subsequent bespoke ‘Loan Agreement’ created under the ‘Umbrella Framework Cultural Collaboration Agreement’, have been granted an indefinite ‘Loan’ of ‘Asset M.1’, by M.1.

By drafting each ‘Pledge’ Deed with ‘creative ingenuity’, could delivery into possession for the purposes of capitalising the Pledge for Asset M.1, be contractually deferred, until the expiry of the date under the Loan Agreement for Asset M.2 for return of Asset M.2?

E.G. if Asset M.1 is loaned today by M.1 to M.2 for return on 22 July 2026, i.e.
under terms of the Loan Agreement for Asset M.1., and in parallel today a ‘Pledge Agreement’ is executed under Deed, governed by English Law, which provides for ‘crystallisation’ of the Pledge post delivery in furtherance of the ‘Loan Agreement’ e.g. on 1 August 2026, then technically, how can Asset M.1. have been permanently removed from M.1’s collection by transfer in furtherance of the Loan Agreement today?

What are your thoughts?

See: The True History of the Sphinx of Ancient Egypt – The True History of the Sphinx of Ancient Egypt

The unit of measurement “the meter” was known by the Egyptians of the Fourth Dynasty. The appearance of two Egyptian units of measurement, at par, within the measures of the main sarcophagi of Gizeh, demonstrates that they knew the meter, since the relationship between these two units of measurement always gives the value of both units of measurement in meters. See: (DOC) The “Mathematical Meter” of the 4 th Dynasty

‘By the fifth century BCE, the Greeks had firmly established that the earth was a sphere. Although they knew it was a sphere, they didn’t know how big the sphere was.

The philosopher Plato (400 BCE) declared the earth’s circumference to be 64,412 kilometers (40,000 miles). Some 150 years later, the mathematician Archimedes estimated it to be 48,309 kilometers (30,000 miles). It’s not known exactly how Plato or Archimedes arrived at their calculations, but Plato’s measurement was off by sixty percent and Archimedes’ by twenty percent. At least they were making progress.

Observations and calculations by two later Greeks, Eratosthenes and Posidonius, finally resulted in accurate estimates of the size of the earth.

In the third century BCE, Eratosthenes, a Greek librarian in Alexandria, Egypt, determined the earth’s circumference to be 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers (25,000 to 28,500 miles) by comparing the Sun’s relative position at two different locations on the earth’s surface. Because of differences in translations or interpretations of his records, and his own methodological errors, the exact figures are in dispute. Today, the earth’s circumference is usually accepted to be 40,096 kilometers (24,901 miles). If you take the lowest estimate attributed to Eratosthenes, his error was less than one percent—a phenomenal calculation.’ See: Determining the earth’s size

On Tuesday 11 November 2025 I presented a 70 minute Zoom webinar for members of the SCMA entitled – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

Link to the YouTube video – https://lnkd.in/e8MmMyZV

There are also links to the video on the ‘How I can help’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk – scroll down to find, and at the top of www.artandcivilization.tv.

Alternatively, you can search in YouTube by using the words – ‘Carl Islam Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

I am currently writing a new book entitled – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage
Disputes’, see the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at
www.carlislam.co.uk.

As I state in the introduction to my Talk – ‘The Participants’ Paradigms in
these disputes are shaped by multiple Dynamic Forces. Therefore, Cultural
Heritage Disputes are ‘Multi- Dimensional’. Because these disputes are
International – they are also ’Inter-Cultural.’

In the second half of the Talk, I discuss ‘Parameters in mediation’ as being
‘Dimensions of the dispute’, i.e. ‘Parameters’ = ‘Dimensions’.

I have identified seven Dimensions in Cultural Heritage Disputes, which I will
develop in the book.

These are:

·       ‘The Human Dimension.’
·       ‘The Existential Dimension.’
·       ‘The Object Dimension’.
·       ‘The Legal Dimension.’
·       ‘The Ethical Dimension’.
·       ‘The Political Dimension’.
·       ‘The Decision-Making Dimension.’

These Dimensions are all dynamic and inter-connected.

The dynamic interplay that takes place in Mediation between each of these Dimensions demonstrates that Mediation = ‘A World of Possibility!’

As I demonstrate in my concluding remarks by reference to Egypt’s claim for the return of the ‘Rosetta Stone’ – what it is possible to achieve in Mediation is only limited by the skills and imagination of the Mediator, Participants and their Mediation Advocates.

In 2024 I also gave a Talk that was broadcast on YouTube about ‘Mediation
Advocacy in Trust & Estate Disputes.’ There is a link to the video at the foot of
the ‘How I can help’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

May I also take this opportunity to wish all readers of my posts a Joyous Christmastime and a Happy and Peaceful New Year!