Urice and Adler on the "Executive Branch's Extralegal Cultural Property Policy"

Stephen K. Urice (Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law) and Andrew Adler (Law Clerk for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and adjunct Professor at the University of Miami School of Law) have posted a recent paper on the Executive Branch's Cultural Property Policy on SSRN, Unveiling the Executive Branch's Extralegal Cultural Property Policy.  Here is the abstract:

In this Article we reveal that the executive branch of the United States has consistently - and astonishingly - exceeded constraining legal authority with respect to the movement of cultural property into the United States. To illustrate this assertion, we identify three distinct categories of extralegal cultural property practices. First, we describe how the Department of Justice, misapplying the National Stolen Property Act, has obtained the return of cultural objects to their countries of origin by filing legally-deficient civil forfeiture complaints. Second, we describe how the Justice Department has pursued this same objective by proceeding under a legally-erroneous interpretation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Third, we describe how the Department of State has repeatedly undermined the statutory structure and mandatory criteria of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, resulting in significant import restrictions on cultural property. All of these practices exceed constraining legal authority and lead to a similar result. Accordingly, we describe this pattern of practices as forming an extralegal cultural property policy. We express no opinion about the wisdom of this policy. Rather, our purposes in unveiling this policy are to promote a rigorous and transparent review of the executive’s practices and to restore the rule of law. In our conclusion we speculate as to why the executive has undertaken these practices and, among other observations, suggest with some sympathy that the current legal framework is outdated.

Many readers will likely find the arguments these authors make troubling.  I'd encourage you to give the piece a read on its own merits.  Though these authors are critical of the policies of the Executive branch, this does not mean that they endorse the looting of sites or the black market—rather they are pointing out flaws in how the Executive branch and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee has attempted to restrict the trade in illicit antiquities.  Very interesting and worthy of serious attention.

Public Comment on the U.S.-Italy Memorandum of Understanding

The State Department Cultural Heritage Center has announced it wants public comments on the potential renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Italy.  

There will be a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on Thursday, May 6, 2010, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., and on Friday, May 7, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m., at the Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. During its meeting the Committee will review a proposal to extend the``Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy'' signed in Washington, DC on January19, 2001 and amended and extended in 2006 through an exchange of diplomatic notes.

 There is also an opportunity to write a letter and express your opinion on the MOU, the deadline is April 22, 2010.  The Archaeological Institute of America has information on the letter-writing process here.  Note that you should either fax (202-632-6300) or email (culprop@state.gov) your letter due to security delays with traditional mail. 

This is one of the ways in which the United States has chosen to implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention.  The MOU does a number of things.  It restricts the import of certain classes of undocumented objects from Italy.  But if those objects carry the appropriate documentation, importation is allowed.  It also calls for long-term loans of Italian objects, and collaboration between the United States and Italy. 

Those interested in the MOU and the practical impact it has or has not had should look to the recent edited volume, Criminology and Archaeology (Simon Mackenzie and Penny Green, 2009). I review the volume in the Spring issue of the Journal of Art Crime. Of particular interest is Gordon Lobay's contribution, which looks empirically at how the U.S.-Italy MOU has made an impact on the antiquities market—at least the observable licit market.  I encourage interested readers to check out the volume, as his conclusion has been that the volume of objects sold, and their prices have increased over time.  The most profound impact has been that auction houses have begun to "pay more attention to provenance."  Though typically this is not the findspot or complete history but rather reference to an earlier sale of an object.