Opened for signature 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231 (entered into force 24 April 1972). As at 18 December 2003, there were 103 states parties.
2.
The terms ‘source’ and ‘market’ states have been used in a very general sense to distinguish between those states recognised as having a net loss of archaeological material (source states) and those in which a thriving market for this material exists (market states). It is, however, acknowledged that some states may exhibit both ‘source’ and ‘market’ trends.
3.
As in Iraq, the National Museum in Kabul, was plundered, and museum material is now on the world antiquities market. See OmlandAtlePrescottChristopher, ‘Afghanistan's cultural heritage in Norwegian museums?’ (2002) 11Culture Without Context, 4 and 15.
4.
BaileyMartin, ‘Swiss pass law to restrict the illicit trade’, The Art Newspaper (London), September 2003, 7.
5.
‘Editorial’ (2002) 11Culture Without Context3.
6.
SykesKatherine, ‘The Trade in Iraqi Antiquities: A Conference held by the Institute of Art and Law in association with Clyde and Co London, 16th June 2003’ (2003) 7(3) Art Antiquity and Law299, 304.
7.
D'ArcyDavid, ‘Iraq's history is our history too’, The Art Newspaper (London), November 2002,1.
8.
BaileyMartin, ‘International outrage as great museum is sacked’, The Art Newspaper (London), May 2003, 1.
9.
BaileyMartin, ‘Archaeological sites the worst casualties’, The Art Newspaper (London), July-August 2003, 5.
10.
BaileyMartin, ‘Seized: Over 600 objects looted from Iraq’, The Art Newspaper (London), September 2003, 1.
AbramsonR DHuttlerS B, ‘The Legal Response to the Illicit Movement of Cultural Property’ (1973) 5Law and Policy in International Business932, 956–7.
13.
O'KeefePatrick, Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention on Illicit Traffic (2000), 14 and 57.
14.
This is subject to the national laws of the market state, since it may be that the market state does not require such compensation to be paid. Most civil law states would, however, require compensation. While the market price may be one method of determining the quantum of compensation this is not required by the Convention, and other methods could be utilised. See further O'Keefe, above note 13, 63–6.
15.
Ibid, 61.
16.
The US accepted the Convention on 2 September 1983, Australia on the 30 October 1989 and UK on 1 August 2002.
17.
O'Keefe, above note 13, 25.
18.
O'Keefe suggests that there may be as little as four institutions in the US that would fall within this requirement. Ibid, 58.
19.
BatorP M, ‘An Essay on the International Trade in Art’ (1982) 34Stanford Law Review275, 377.
20.
SokalMarine Papa, ‘Stemming the illicit trade in antiquities’ (2002) 11Culture without Context26.
21.
Current agreements exist with Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada, Cyprus, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua and Peru, see the ‘Chart of Current and Expired Import Restrictions Under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act’ at US Department of State website <http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/chart.html> at 10 June 2004.
LufkinMarth, ‘Criminal liability for receiving State-claimed antiquities in the United States: The ‘Schultz’ case’8(4) Art Antiquity and Law, 321.
24.
D'ArcyDavid, ‘Legal group to fight ‘retentionist’ policies’, The Art Newspaper (London), November 2002, 3.
25.
BaileyMartin, ‘International outrage as great museum is sacked’, The Art Newspaper (London), May 2003, 6. The Council had provided an amica curia brief on behalf of Schultz at the appeal.
26.
BaileyMartin, ‘We serve all cultures, say the big, global museums’, The Art Newspaper (London), January 2003,1; DooleJenny, ‘In the News’, (2003) 13Culture Without Context15.
27.
BaileyMartin, ‘Seized: Over 600 objects looted from Iraq’, The Art Newspaper (London), September 2003, 1.
28.
See Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade Report:, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK December 2000.
29.
The Act came into force on 30 December 2003.
30.
BaileyMartin, ‘A new law to fight the illicit trade’The Art Newspaper (London), January 2004, 8. See also HarwoodRichard, ‘Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003’, (2003) 8(4) Art Antiquity and Law347.
31.
BaileyMartin, ‘A new law to fight the illicit trade’The Art Newspaper (London), January 2004, 8.
32.
Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade Report, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK December 2000, 26 and 36.
33.
The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order2003, SI 2003/1519.
34.
See SykesKatherine, ‘The Trade in Iraqi Antiquities: A Conference held by the Institute of Art and law in association with Clyde and Co. London, 16th June 2003’ (2003) 7(3) Art Antiquity and Law299. See also ChamberlainKevin, ‘The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003 — Is it Human Rights Act Compatible?’ (2003) 8(4) Art Antiquity and Law357.
35.
Braude, ironically, is the author of ‘The New Iraq: Rebuilding the country for its people, the Middle East and the World’. See BaileyMartin, ‘Seized: Over 600 objects looted from Iraq’, The Art Newspaper (London), September 2003, 1
36.
LeyJohn F, Australia's Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage, Report on the Ministerial review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and Regulations (1991) 125.
37.
O'Keefe, above note 13, 15–6.
38.
States with protective legislation dating back many years include Greece (1834), Italy (1872), France (1887) O'Keefe, note 14, India (1904), Peru (1929), Iran (1932), Iraq (1933) Ley, note 36, 124 and 127.
39.
Ibid, 126. It is of interest to note that the Australian National Gallery, in a submission with respect to the 1991 review, called for section 14 to be amended to include a date applicable to the illegal export from the source state, such as the date the 1970 UNESCO Convention came into force for Australia. AltLJ Vol 29:3 Jun 2004 — 125
40.
TolhurstG J, ‘An Outline of Movable Cultural Heritage Protection in Australia’ (1997) 2(2) Art Antiquity and Law137.
