Dear Geoffrey, ICOM colleagues

It is very well remembered, the position of the Code of Ethics concerning 
the return of cultural property.

Items discussed and approved by the Organization will enable us to have a 
better perspective over what has already been done and what remains to be 
discussed concerning this theme.

Tereza Scheiner

-----------------------------------------


At 12:38 9/11/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>In view of Giovanni Pinna's note and the earlier contribution of Marta de la
>Torre, I should, perhaps, contribute to this debate and put it into context.
>I chaired the INTERCOM session on the repatriation of cultural property in
>Seoul.
>
>Before doing so I think we need to assure colleagues, particularly those who
>are not members of ICOM but who subscribe to this list, that ICOM flourishes
>as the international non-governmental, organisation for museums and museum
>personnel. Its membership has recently passed 20,000. Its latest trienniel
>report provides plenty of evidence of the close relationship ICOM has with
>UNESCO and other international bodies as well as of its work in the
>international field.
>
>On the issue of the repatriation of cultural property ICOM's position is
>clearly set out in its _Code of Ethics for Museums_.  It expects museums to
>initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property and where restitution
>of illicitly acquired material is sought to take prompt and responsible
>steps to co-operate in the matter. Other clauses in the Code are aimed at
>preventing any association with the illicit trafficking of cultural property
>both on legal grounds and because of the enormous loss of information to
>scholarship that results from such activity.  ICOM's approach, therefore, is
>one of partnership and cooperation at a professional level.
>
>The INTERCOM session took up the issue of arbitration in this context, an
>issue which has been with us for a long time but which now features
>prominently in the sense that the International Bureau of the Permanent
>Court of Arbitration has just published the report on its seminar on the
>"Resolution of Cultural Property Disputes".  It was particularly fitting to
>have Professor Marilyn Phelen, who had attended that seminar, as the keynote
>speaker.
>
>This and the contribution of two other speakers led to a lively and
>constructive debate.  Far from endorsing the idea of arbitration, the
>emphasis of the debate was more towards partnerships between museums rather
>than a legalistic approach and also the promotion of the considerable
>achievements already in this field.  In the event of dispute resolution,
>preference was shown to mediation rather that arbitration.  However, it was
>agreed that before consideration of this, the full implications of any
>involvement by ICOM in the mediation process should be studied thoroughly.
>
>I understand that the papers from this session will be posted on the
>INTERCOM website shortly which can be accessed through http://icom.museum.
>
>Geoffrey Lewis
>(Retiring Chair, ICOM Ethics Committee)
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
>archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html