The Complexities of a Cultural Property Case: An Examination of the Parthenon Marbles
Citation
Vasilia, Chrysanthi. 2022. The Complexities of a Cultural Property Case: An Examination of the Parthenon Marbles. Master's thesis, Harvard University Division of Continuing Education.Abstract
Cultural property disputes are more often than not complicated cases to resolve, not only as legal matters, but also as cases that extend into politics and international relations. Cultural property is itself hard to identify and define. Perhaps no other case warrants more analysis than the Parthenon Marbles, a collection of marbles and other artifacts forcibly removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin and his crewmen, a removal that was later deemed legal by the House of Commons in a controversial, almost split vote. Since then, the UK has maintained that the property is owned by the British Museum, legally purchased by Lord Elgin, and has denied requests of mediation. The terms culture and cultural property invite a lot of discussion among scholars. In the second chapter, the literature review focuses on these concepts and how they are inextricably linked to identity and history, while also discussing the value that cultural property may have, both financial and emotional. The question of who is the rightful owner of cultural property, especially in the advent of time, is also explored from different standpoints, although in many cases, one should be open to the idea that ownership needn’t be exclusive to one party, a reality that is not easily reconciled in the legal world. The question of ownership, however, is the central point of dispute in most cultural property cases. There is, nowadays, a well-established, agreed upon international legal framework for dealing with such disputes. The 1954 Hague Convention was developed after World War 2 to safeguard cultural property in periods of armed conflict, while the 1970 UNESCO Convention is aimed at preventing and prohibiting the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Last but not least, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, complementary in nature to the UNESCO Convention, focuses on the return and restitution of cultural property and includes both states and private parties. While these laws now afford great protection to cultural property, they were reactive in nature and not pre-emptive, and because they are not retroactive, many injustices of the past remain to this day unresolved. It is clear, however, that if these laws were in effect at the time of the Parthenon Marbles’ removal, there would be a clear, straightforward case for their return. The next chapter focuses on the legal analysis of the case, discussing all the various elements of the case, exploring the issues of authority, documentation, duress, as well as the nature and means of the Parthenon Marbles’ removal among others. The chapter also focuses on the role of England and whether they can be considered as a good faith purchaser as well as time limitations and precedent considerations that further complicate the legal case for their return. Both cases of England and Greece have legal merits, however, it is evident that the circumstances surrounding the Parthenon Marbles’ transfer of ownership are questionable and therefore if this case were to be tried in court, the outcome would not be easily predicted. The next chapter ties together the previous chapters, discussing the Parthenon Marbles under the lens of modern society, considering the legal aspects of the case but also widening the discussion to include today’s morals, the role of technology and aesthetics and the debate between nationalism and universalism. The chapter ends with discussion of recent landmark developments and deals reached in similar cases that could also serve as potential solutions in this long-standing dispute. The conclusion reiterates the many complexities of the case of the Parthenon Marbles, but also highlights the recent trend in resolving cultural property disputes, to end on a hopeful note. Inevitably, however, laws, as much as everything else, conform to society’s morals, not the other way around, and today the world is witnessing a collective shift in thinking about these issues. It is a matter of time before the status quo is disrupted; after all the only constant is change.Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37371689
Collections
- DCE Theses and Dissertations [1331]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)