I have today obtained permission to change the title of my third essay for the Diploma in Art Law Course at the Institute of Art & Law in London to – ‘The case for repatriating the Parthenon Marbles using a trust structure as under International Law National Museums have a broad “fiduciary” duty to strive to be better collaborative custodians of world heritage.’

I have also started to sketch the outline of the essay on the ‘Mediation of Art & Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk

The following is an extract,

‘Implementation of a trust/fiduciary solution hinges upon a political decision being made above the heads of the BM T‘s by Parliament, who will have to debate the issue before voting. What then is the case for repatriating the Parthenon Marbles using a trust structure if under International Law, National Museums are under a broad ‘fiduciary’ duty to strive to be better collaborative custodians of world heritage?

The logical starting point is does such a duty exist, and if it does what does it require?

Does such a duty exist?

The arguments which support the existence of such a duty include:

• Logic.
• The author’s ‘Fiduciary Theory of Art’.
• The philosophy of International Law.
• Rules and norms under International Law developed in relation to Cultural Heritage (‘International Cultural Heritage Law) – which includes International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL’).’

Each argument will be researched, developed, and set out in the essay. I am planning to write the essay, which I am on schedule to write in August/September.

The essay will also discuss:

• What does the duty require?
• Legal creation and technical drafting issues
• Residence, Governing Law and Supervision.
• Form.
• Constitution.
• Purpose.
• Class of beneficiaries.
• Governance structure.
• Trustees.
• Powers.
• Duties.