Imagine an ancient sculpture in 3 fragments.
On part is in the British Museum, another inside the Louve & the 3rd part in a state museum in Athens.
Are the governance bodies of these museums (let’s for convenience call them trustees), under a duty to collaborate in the re-unification of the 3 parts i.e. in order to make the sculpture whole again?
That is a legal & ethical Q. I will research next year with reference to:
- International Cultural Heritage Law &
- the Philosophy of International law.
Now:
- There is international recognition that states should assist one another to prevent the unlawful removal of cultural objects including antiquities, Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. The Barakat Galleries Ltd [2008](CA).
- A corollary of this proposition is that museum trustees should assist each other to reunite all of the parts of a sculpture in their possession which were unlawfully removed – no matter by whom, where or when.
- A corollary of the proposition that a National Museum owes a duty to preserve art and cultural heritage treasures for the ‘benefit of all mankind, is that such institutions also owe a wider duty to strive to be better ‘collaborative custodians’ of world heritage.
Since aesthetically, the whole of the sculpture ‘is greater than the sum of its parts’ (Aristotle), then as a legal custodian of a part, each museum appears to be under an ethical duty to enter into a repatriation dialogue whereby the parts may be reunited to make the sculpture whole again for the benefit of all mankind.
If the sculpture was not a fixture, then for the benefit of mankind possession must be shared i.e. for public exhibition, in museums around the world.
If the trustees transform legal ownership of each part into joint-custodianship of the whole, then they can share and enjoy possession of the sculpture in its entirety.
This blog highlights 2 issues for museum trustees:
– Are they under an ethical duty to collaborate in order to serve a greater good/higher aesthetic purpose?
– As ‘custodians’ of cultural heritage for all mankind are they also under a fiduciary duty to humanity to collaborate in making an ancient artwork whole again?
Anoher ethical principle which supports the existence of an ethical duty of collaboration is ‘Solidarity.’ The principle recognizes that we all have a shared humanity and an interest in furthering common goals and tolerating differences that respect fundamental human rights. Mutual respect, understanding and cooperation promote solidarity by fostering goodwill and a recognition of our shared humanity. This principle emphasizes the importance of rising above our differences to find common ground, co-operation and consensus. It would be reflected by seeking to find a consensus in relation to competing claims over cultural property that all parties can accept. The principle therefore encourages mediation in repatriation disputes. The ethical sources of the principle include human rights under international law, i.e. international humanitarian law, which is a compoenent of international cultural heritage law.
The following interntional norms also support the existence of such a duty:
– The recitals to the UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention 2001 convention:
‘Believing that cooperation among States, international organisations, scientific institutions, professional organisations, archaeologists, divers, other interested parties and the public at large is essential for the protection of underwater cultural heritage.’
– International Council of Museums Code of Ethics, Art.6.
– Recent normative activities within UNESCO relating to interntional cultural heritage. At its 30th session, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted a resolution in which it invited the Director-General to study “the advisability of regulating internationally through a new standard-setting instrument, the protection of traditional culture and folklore.” … The importance of the principle of international cooperation in safeguarding ICH was emphasised as well as the need for an obligation to be placed on parties to safeguard ICH that is not listed under the convention framework.