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