Search results

1

Zjawisko przemytu dóbr kultury

100%

Jakubowski O.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2014

|

issue XXXVI

389-421

EN

Trafficking in cultural property is a transnational crime that threatens world cultural heritage and jeopardizes legitimate trade in art. The smuggling of cultural property assumes a number of forms. Items might be illegally imported or exported, cultural property might be take out of a country on a temporary permit and not returned, and cultural property might not be declared when it is brought into a country to avoid paying duty. Given such diverse forms of smuggling, criminologists find it hard to give an unequivocal definition of trafficking in cultural property and to specify who is a trafficker and who is not. The illegal transfer of cultural property across national borders is often connected to, if not tightly bound with, other types of crime. Criminals who steal precious works of art and organized gangs that loot archaeological sites all factor smuggling into their plans to sell the stolen cultural property. Trafficking often remains undetected until a stolen item is found abroad. Unless the item is found, many years can transpire before anybody realizes that it was illegally moved across national borders. Law enforcement statistics consequently fail to fully convey the scale of trafficking in cultural property. It is also worth noting that cultural property, and especially works of art, is of interest to organized crime and used as collateral in e.g. drug transactions and money laundering. Globalization has strengthened the phenomena that stimulate trafficking in cultural property. Streamlined movement of goods, limited border checks and higher traffic between countries are all contributing factors that heighten the risk of cultural property being illegally transferred. Preventive measures are required to alleviate this risk. International organizations such as UNESCO, UNODC and Interpol have been combating trafficking in cultural property by devising practical measures and drawing up regulations to help contain the problem. Unfortunately, these have met with mixed success. The measures devised to prevent the illegal movement of cultural property between EU member states have proved to be ineffective, prompting changes to both Polish law and EU regulations. This paper outlines the scale and extent of trafficking in cultural property and discusses the legal regulations designed to combat it.

2

Who owns art? - The problem of trade in cultural objects

92%

Piaskowska M.

Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review

|

2014

|

vol. 4

79-85

EN

The aim of the study is to evaluate the issue of trade in the scope of cultural objects. Presenting the selected topic the author focuses on the notion of cultural property, international instruments for protecting cultural goods and the Polish law system.

3

Funkcje międzynarodowych regulacji ochrony nieregularnie przemieszczonych dóbr kultury. Przykład Konwencji UNIDROIT z 1995 roku

92%

Nowak-Far A.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2015

|

issue Numer 1

49-66

EN

The 1995 Rome Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (UNIDROIT) makes a significant contribution to the international system of protection against the illegal export of cultural goods. It also constitutes part of a network of world-wide regulations that is currently being built up with the aim of protecting the cultural heritage of individual societies. This network, not yet fully complete, is still expanding and developing. The basic formula of UNIDROIT is the principle of the return of stolen or illegally exported cultural property, including cultural objects legally acquired but not transferred to a legally entitled entity. The Rome Convention specifies procedures that are of material importance in restitution proceedings such as: the principal elements of proceedings in restitution cases, the main evidential issues as well as the competence and jurisdiction of state bodies. The effect of individual states harmonizing their regulations with the provisions of the Convention is the improved transparency of national regulations and the increased efficacy of the international system for the restitution of cultural objects arising from the establishment of world-wide standards.

4

EU National Treasures and the Quest for a Definition

92%

Ferrazzi S.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2019

|

vol. 5

|

issue 2

57-76

EN

As is well known, Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union balances the role of the internal market with other interests. Among them, the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic, or archaeological value may justify prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports, or goods in transit. These rules are the consequence of the recurring clash of interests between those who ask for a totally free art market and those who argue in favour of controls to avoid the dispersion of national patrimonies. The definition of the term “national treasures” is de facto open to determination by each Member State. Two fundamental points will be critically explored in this work: 1) the EU competence to verify the conformity of domestic rules identifying goods as belonging to their “national treasures” within the framework of Article 36 TFEU; and 2) the feasibility of using EU law for determining a threshold framework definition.

5

A Registry for Movable Cultural Property of Significant Importance to Switzerland: Limit to the Cross-Border Movement and Right of Ownership

81%

Simoes C.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2019

|

vol. 5

|

issue 2

187-192

EN

Switzerland now has a federal registry of its movable cultural property of significant importance. This measure is based on the national legislation implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Only Swiss cultural property or property with a close link to Switzerland is targeted. The registry includes, inter alia, archaeological objects, sculptures by Alberto Giacometti, paintings by Ferdinand Hodler, and also a correspondence by Albert Einstein from the period when he lived in Berne and discovered the theory of relativity. The inclusion of cultural property in the federal registry has two major effects: it restricts both cross-border movement and property rights. On one hand, the permanent export of a listed cultural property is prohibited. Although a temporary export may be authorized for research, conservation, or exhibition purposes. On the other hand, registered cultural property becomes res extra commercium: acquisitive prescription, even in good faith, does not apply. As a result, registered cultural property benefits from enhanced protection against permanent loss due to theft and illicit export.

6

The Human Body in the Regime of Chinese Cultural Heritage Law

81%

Zhiyong Z.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2020

|

vol. 6

|

issue 2

339-354

EN

For a long time, the concept of the human body has been governed by civil law. Today, this way of treating it is no longer certain. The human body can also be understood as an integral part of cultural heritage. On one hand, this is a question of the holder of the element of the intangible cultural heritage (ICH). On the other hand, it concerns the human body beyond the living person, protected as tangible heritage or cultural property. This article analyses these diverse dimensions of the human body under Chinese legislation on the protection of cultural relics and for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, taking into consideration the respect for human dignity. In this regard, it offers a cross-cutting overview of the ethical and legal challenges surrounding the management and regulation of human remains.

7

Making the Case for the Restitution of Illicitly Acquired Cultural Objects under the Rules of Jus Cogens

81%

Adewumi A. A., Adenekan V. O.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2023

|

vol. 9

|

issue 2

143-166

EN

Over the years, our perspective on cultural heritage has undergone changes. The field has become more diverse, requiring solution-focused approaches to address the underlying problems associated with cultural heritage. One significant challenge is the issue of restitution, which is considered a major failure of international cultural heritage law. How can international cultural heritage law completely heal historical wounds instead of merely offering empty hopes to those who have suffered? Simply acknowledging past wrongs by offending states is insufficient, and it does not align with the fundamental legal principle that where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). Despite the considerable growth in the jurisprudence of international cultural heritage law, there remains a pressing need to consolidate the legal framework to facilitate the restitution of stolen or looted cultural objects. This article argues that the prohibition of plunder and pillage of cultural property constitutes a jus cogens rule of international law. Its violation therefore gives rise to an unconditional obligation to restitute such property.

8

At the Borderline of Public and Private Law: The Restitution of Cultural Property Held in Public Collections in Hungary

81%

Vadász V., Verebélyi V.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2024

|

vol. 10

|

issue 2

181-208

EN

During the Second World War, and thereafter until the end of the communist regime in 1989, a massive amount of privately owned works of art came into the possession of the Hungarian state. The ownership of the property thus collected was only partially clarified after the war. After the fall of communism, nationalized cultural property was subject to restitution laws, but restitution typically meant partial compensation. The aim of this article is to highlight the shortcomings that still characterize the restitution of cultural property held in public collections in Hungary. After summarizing the historical-legal situation pertaining to restitution measures in Central and Eastern Europe, we provide a comprehensive overview of the Hungarian legal environment in terms of restitution. The focus is on the restitution rules adopted in the 2010s that were intended to settle the possession of cultural property held in public collections. The roots of constitutional issues related to the regulation arise from and are reflected in the intermingling of private law and public law characteristics and guarantees. In the presentation of civil law disputes concerning the ownership rights of property held in public collections, we outline the characteristics of the Hungarian regulatory framework regarding protected cultural property and the issues arising from their application. Finally, we provide an overview of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on the protection of property rights and an assessment of Hungarian regulations before the Court. We claim that the lack of predictability and certainty of the latter authority’s proceedings may lead to human rights issues.

9

Attacks against Cultural Property in Armed Conflict – How to Reduce the Risk of Impunity?

81%

van Woudenberg N.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2024

|

vol. 10

|

issue 2

105-134

EN

People see cultural property as their heritage, which identifies them and made them who they are today. Loss of cultural property deprives people of tangible remnants of their past and leaves deep unhealable wounds. Therefore, there are special regimes and measures in place in order to protect cultural property during armed conflict. However, instead of saving and sparing cultural property, belligerents often even intentionally target the cultural property of the other people as a means of warfare in order to break the backbone and morale of these people or make their identity fade away. Measures such as enhanced protection, individual criminal responsibility, and means for paying more attention to the dissemination and implementation of the rules of warfare do not seem to have sufficient desired effect. So how can we more effectively make belligerents refrain from destroying cultural property? How can we increase deterrence effects and decrease impunity? This article first shortly reflects on the legal framework of cultural property protection in armed conflict. Then it touches upon the various obligations of states with regard to the practical implementation of, and adherence to, these rules, after which it flags several cases before international courts and tribunals, both regarding individual criminal responsibility and state responsibility. Thereafter the recent Russian destruction of cultural property in Ukraine is addressed, followed by an examination of how deterrence can be enhanced and impunity reduced. The article ends with several conclusions and recommendations in that regard.

10

What’s in a Name? Museums in the Post-Digital Age

81%

Quiñones Vilá C. S.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2020

|

vol. 6

|

issue 2

177-198

EN

This article examines the recently proposed ICOM museum definition and its detractors in order to trace the history of museums and their social purpose as they move from a traditional past into a tumultuous present and uncertain future. As countries begin to reframe the role of arts and culture in shaping a world affected by a global pandemic, museums will need to address not only practical measures – such as social distancing guidelines and limited visitor numbers – but also how these institutions are situated within the greater social context. Technology is particularly useful for museums to share their collections with audiences and transcend geographical boundaries, and it also allows these institutions to reposition themselves as relevant within the ongoing cultural heritage dialogue and context. However, it is debatable whether online and digital offerings classify as museums. Even if there is no consensus on the textbook definition of museum, pinpointing common traits will help establish their evolution and role for current and future generations. Embracing digitization, virtual museums, and other non-traditional frameworks allows for a more expansive and inclusive conception of museums, taking into account their dual role: as custodians of public knowledge and spaces for education and development.

11

Nabycie własności dobra kultury od nieuprawnionego. Wybrane zagadnienia

70%

Jagielska-Burduk A.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2015

|

issue Numer 1

119-134

EN

Acquisition of ownership of movable property is of particular significance in the trade in cultural objects. Legal systems adopt different solutions which either allow or disallow acquisition in good faith of ownership of movable property. Another issue of importance is regulation governing the object of a transaction which is an item of cultural heritage. Under Polish law each item of movable property receives the same treatment with regard to the legality of a transaction. From the point of view of the trade in cultural objects, acting in good faith when purchasing such objects becomes of particular importance. The model of such acquisition is here shaped by legal principle, earlier judicial decisions as well as practices prevailing in the art market. Partial solutions of the issues discussed in the paper will be achieved after the adoption of an amended law on found property, in which objects entered into a national register of lost goods have been covered by a special legal regime.

12

The German-Polish Cultural Property Debate – Can Pragmatic Solutions Overcome a Convoluted Controversy?

70%

Dederer H.-G., Beham M. P.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2021

|

vol. 41

81-92

EN

This contribution discusses the unresolved claims of Poland and Germany arising from the destruction, removal, and appropriation of cultural property during and immediately following the Second World War; viewed against the background of the 50th anniversary of the 1970 Warsaw Treaty and the 30th anniversary of the 1990 2+4 Treaty. It provides an analysis of the extent to which these and other bilateral treaties between Germany and Poland impose legal obligations to restore or compensate for the destruction or loss of cultural property. Finally, it suggests pragmatic solutions to overcome the convoluted political, diplomatic and legal debates in the spirit of “cultural internationalism” and in line with the proposals of the Copernicus Group of Polish and German historians.

13

Prawo spadkowe vs. sprawiedliwa sukcesja obiektów dziedzictwa kulturowego?

70%

Dajczak W.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2021

|

vol. 7

|

issue 1

39-60

EN

Heirless property in European countries is typically inherited by the state. However, the routine application of this rule to assets belonging to victims of the German genocide during WWII continues to raise doubts. The recognition of a moral responsibility towards Holocaust victims in the Terezin Declaration legitimates the international debate on tensions between inheritance law and justice. The lack of a universal model for the succession of heirless Jewish cultural property acknowledged by this Declaration provokes different recommendations. One of the possibilities is the collective cultural restitution notion as a countermeasure to the crime of cultural genocide. This theory links the reinterpretation of the concept of genocide presented by Lemkin in 1944 with the restitution actions of Jewish succession organizations in 1940s and 50s. The theory mentioned is challenged in the article. The analysis is based on historical arguments, i.e. Lemkin’s focus on criminal liability and the specific nature of legal grounds for Jewish succession organizations after WWII. The history of inheritance law provides arguments to recommend another innovative way of dealing with the heirless property forming part of genocide victims’ inheritance. It is reasonable to distinguish between solutions pro futuro and those possible today. The paper concludes with a recommendation to supplement the Genocide Convention with specific rules about the heirless property of genocide victims. The state responsible for committing genocide should be eliminated from the inheritance of bona vacantia in favour of local successor organizations appointed by an international penal tribunal. Cultural property should be excluded from universal succession in the case of genocide and regarded as a legal person that continues victims’ remembrance. Currently, this model can inspire Polish policy regarding heirless Jewish cultural property. It should be focused on three goals: for objects to remain in Poland, the creation of a new complex database of objects accessible online and, if possible, the exhibition of objects alongside information about their last respective owners who died heirless.

PL

Dla prawa spadkowego krajów europejskich jest typowe, że majątek osoby, która nie pozostawiła spadkobierców testamentowych lub ustawowych, przypada państwu. Zastosowanie tej zasady do sukcesji po ofiarach niemieckiego ludobójstwa w czasie II Wojny Światowej rodzi do dziś wątpliwości. Uznanie moralnej odpowiedzialności za Holokaust w Deklaracji Terezińskiej leży u podstaw międzynarodowej dyskusji poświęconej napięciu między obowiązującym prawem spadkowym a poczuciem sprawiedliwości. Deklaracja Terezińska nie rekomenduje jednak uniwersalnego modelu rozwiązania kwestii sukcesji pozostawionych bezdziedzicznie obiektów żydowskiego dziedzictwa kulturowego. Jedną z propozycji jej rozwiązania stanowi koncepcja kolektywnej sukcesji tych obiektów, uzasadniana jako środek prawnej reakcji na zbrodnię kulturowego ludobójstwa. U podstaw tej koncepcji leży połączenie wprowadzonego przez R. Lemkina w 1944 r. pojęcia ludobójstwa z doświadczeniami praktyki restytucyjnej organizacji żydowskich w latach 40. i 50. minionego wieku. Trafność tej koncepcji została tu podana w wątpliwość. Krytyka opiera się na argumentach historycznych, tj. faktach, że Lemkin skupił się tylko na odpowiedzialności karnej i że praktyka restytucyjna organizacji żydowskich po II Wojnie Światowej miała szczególną podstawę prawną. Historia prawa spadkowego daje jednak argumenty, by sformułować innowacyjną propozycję sukcesji mienia pozostawionego bezdziedzicznie przez ofiary ludobójstwa. Należy rozróżnić między rozwiązaniem pro futuro i realistycznym dziś. Artykuł zawiera rekomendację uzupełnienia Konwencji w sprawie zapobiegania i karania zbrodni ludobójstwa o przepisy dotyczące sukcesji mienia bezdziedzicznego ofiar ludobójstwa. Odpowiedzialność państwa za ludobójstwo powinna wykluczać jego uprawnienia do nabycia mienia bezdziedzicznego po ofiarach tego ludobójstwa. Uprawnienia te powinny przysługiwać lokalnym organizacjom sukcesyjnym wyznaczanym przez międzynarodowy trybunał karny. Obiekty dziedzictwa kulturowego należy jednak wyłączyć z takiej sukcesji uniwersalnej i traktować na wzór „spadku leżącego” jako swoiste podmioty prawa reprezentujące osobę spadkodawcy. W obecnym stanie prawnym taki model może inspirować do tego, aby postępowanie z pozostawionymi bezdziedzicznie przez ofiary Holokaustu obiektami dziedzictwa kulturowego służyło realizacji trzech celów: zachowaniu tych obiektów w Polsce, stworzeniu kompleksowej internetowej bazy danych tych obiektów oraz, gdy to możliwe, powiązaniu eksponowania tych obiektów z informacją, kto było ostatnim ich właścicielem zmarłym bezdziedzicznie.

14

The Nicosia Convention 2017: A New International Instrument Regarding Criminal Offences against Cultural Property

70%

Bieczyński M. M.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2017

|

vol. 3

|

issue 2

255-274

EN

This article introduces a new treaty on the protection of cultural property: the Council of Europe’s Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (“the Nicosia Convention”), sometimes referred to as the “Blood Antiquities Convention”. Opened for signature on 19 May 2017, it is considered to be an expression of hopes regarding the prevention of destruction and illicit trade of cultural objects. The Nicosia Convention obliges its State Parties to implement common standards in criminal law in relation to cultural property. The recognition and implementation of equal measures for criminal offences can fill the gap in international cooperation in that field, particularly in times of instability or conflict. The treaty opens a new perspective, but its effectiveness depends however on the readiness of States to sign and effectively implement its regime in their respective domestic legal systems. This article focuses on the basic questions regarding the conditions of effectiveness of this treaty, the context of its adoption, and its envisaged consequences for the protection of cultural property.

15

Preventive Measures in the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property: An Overview

70%

Mottese E.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2018

|

vol. 4

|

issue 2

121-142

EN

The Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (2017) includes relevant provisions on preventive actions to be implemented by States Parties in order to achieve stronger cooperation under the purpose and within the scope of the treaty. This article focuses on the increasing importance of preventive measures for the protection of cultural property against transnational criminality, both at the domestic and international levels. It scrutinizes the most relevant treaty norms related to preventive and other administrative measures (Chapter IV) to be taken by States Parties by coordinating various activities and precautionary mechanisms for the protection of cultural property, in accordance with the ultima ratio principle governing the application of criminal law and criminal sanctions. By adopting and applying risk-preparedness tools, States can focus their efforts in the field of cultural property protection in a most effective and efficient way.

16

Is There a Legal Basis for Cultural Nationalism in the Return of Cultural Property? Multilateral Instruments versus Bilateral Agreements

70%

Singh V. K.

Ius Novum

|

2025

|

vol. 19

|

issue 3 ENG

158-186

EN

This article traces the emerging norms of legal obligation under international law to return the looted property taken during the colonial period. Return requests are among the primary demands of decolonised states, who bring the issue to international forums. This obligation has been incrementally recognised and further developed in several multilateral instruments adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the United Nations (UN), and states, along with non-state actors adopting provisions to criminalise the theft of cultural property and to ensure its return as part of available remedies. In parallel with the development of this obligation under international law, the international community has increasingly engaged in bilateral agreements for the return of cultural property. India and the USA, for instance, concluded a Cultural Property Agreement in July 2024. Among several advances and efforts to address existing gaps, the Human Rights Council adopted resolutions in 2018 and 2025 which, while recognising the human rights dimension of cultural rights, further strengthened the multilateral approach to enhanced cooperation for the restoration of stolen, looted, or trafficked cultural property to its country of origin.

17

Evolution of the Customary International law on the Cultural Property Plundered in War

58%

Yadong Z.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2020

|

vol. 18

|

issue 4

123-135

PL

Artykuł niniejszy prezentuje w sposób chronologiczny ewolucję międzynarodowego prawa zwyczajowego w odniesieniu do zaboru dóbr kulturalnych. Autor opierając się na przedstawionych wybranych wydarzeniach historycznych mających wpływ na tę sferę prawa wojennego, wskazuje na wzajemne zależności i przeobrażenia w prawniczej filozofii, praktyce i kodyfikacji. Obecnie obowiązujące prawne regulacje i obyczaje zabraniające zaboru dóbr kulturalnych jako łupów wojennych zrodziły się w wieku osiemnastym i były konsekwentnie rozwijane w wieku dziewiętnastym i dwudziestym. Zwrot zagrabionych dóbr państwu, które jest ich właścicielem, wydaje się najlepszym wyjściem, szczególnie w sytuacji, gdy zrabowane przedmioty pozostają w stanie nienaruszonym i są identyfikowalne. Osiągnięcie tego celu jest uzależnione od współpracy i koordynacji działań na całym świecie, realizowanych w szerszej przestrzeni prawa międzynarodowego.

EN

This article presents an unambiguous evolutionary sequence of historical events leading to the development of customary international law, seen with reference to the mutual influence and transformation of legal philosophy, practice and codification on plundering cultural property during wars. The contemporary legal rules and customs working against taking cultural property as spoils of war are rooted in the eighteenth century, and were consistently developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Restitution appears the best remedy for the country of origin, especially in the condition where the plundered cultural property is existent and identifiable. Achieving this goal depends on the cooperation and coordination throughout the world, based on a wider customary international law space.

18

Organizational and Legal Regulation and Practice of the Ukrainian Customs Activity on Returning Church Property

58%

Bilash O., Dorofeieva L.

Kościół i Prawo

|

2019

|

issue 8 (21) nr 2

155-169

EN

The purpose of the article is to analyze the current state of legal regulation of issues related to the protection of cultural heritage and the transfer of cultural property across borders. It is also to determine the role and place of customs authorities of Ukraine in the implementation of measures to restore church property. The study explores international standards in the field of preservation of cultural monument and heritage of the peoples of the world and compares of the state regulatory in the national legislation of Ukraine. The procedure and conditions of export – including temporary – cultural property from the territory of Ukraine have been clarified. Subjected to the comparative analysis of the terminology contained in international and national legal sources on these issues.

PL

Celem artykułu jest analiza obecnego stanu prawnego uregulowania kwestii związanych z ochroną dziedzictwa kulturowego i przemieszczeniem wartości kulturowych przez granice, określenie roli i miejsca organów celnych Ukrainy we wdrażaniu środków służących przywróceniu dóbr kościelnych. W artykule określono międzynarodowe standardy w dziedzinie ochrony zabytków kulturowych i dziedzictwa narodów świata oraz porównano stanu wsparcia regulacyjno-prawnego w tym obszarze w ustawodawstwie Ukrainy. Wyjaśniono procedurę i warunki wywozu – w tym czasowe – wartości kulturowych z terytorium Ukrainy. Poddano analizie porównawczej terminologię zawartą w międzynarodowych i krajowych źródłach prawa w przedmiotowej tematyce.

19

Uwagi o roli rajców miejskich w zachowaniu dóbr kultury w Kożuchowie.

58%

Podolan E.

Studia Zachodnie

|

2014

|

vol. 16

229 - 236

20

International exchange of cultural property within the EU territory in the years 2008-2015, from the legal, economic and cultural security perspective

58%

Landmann T.

Scientific Journal of the Military University of Land Forces

|

2019

|

vol. 51

|

issue 3(193)

488-501

PL

Celem artykułu było określenie podstaw prawnych obrotów handlowych dobrami kulturalnymi na obszarze jednolitego rynku wewnętrznego UE oraz zbadanie dynamiki obrotów w imporcie i eksporcie tych dóbr w latach 2008-2015. Analizę oparto na: aktach prawa UE, danych statystycznych opublikowanych przez Eurostat, a także krytycznym odniesieniu się do treści piśmiennictwa. Postawiono tezę, że obroty handlowe dobrami kulturalnymi stanowią ważny element dbałości o ochronę bezpieczeństwa i potencjału kulturowego, a także są wyrazem dążenia do ekspansji kulturalnej poszczególnych państw UE, które charakteryzuje nierównomierny udział w strukturze importu i eksportu dóbr kultury na rynku unijnym. Udział państwa w międzynarodowej wymianie dóbr kultury to ważny aspekt kreowania nie tylko bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego, ale także kulturowego. W latach 2008-2015 kilka państw europejskich było w stanie zdominować wymianę handlową w obszarze dóbr kulturalnych w UE. Potencjalnie grozi to zjawiskami uniformizacji i standaryzacji kulturowej, które należy rozpatrywać jako niekorzystne dla ochrony unikalnych systemów bezpieczeństwa kulturowego w Europie.

EN

The objective of the article is to establish the grounds for trading in cultural property within the territory of the EU single internal market and to investigate the trading dynamics in importing and exporting such property in the years 2008-2015. The analysis is based on the EU legal acts, statistical data published by Eurostat and a critical review of the literature. The thesis has been formulated that trading in cultural property represents an important element of taking care of the protection of cultural security and potential and demonstrates endeavours for the cultural expansion of the respective EU member states, whose share in the structure of import and export of cultural property on the European Union market is far from being even. The share of a given state in the international exchange of cultural property presents an important aspect of creating not only economic, but also cultural security. In the years 2008-2015, a few European states were able to gain dominance in trading in cultural property in the European Union. Potentially, it poses a threat of cultural uniformity and standardisation, being the phenomenon which adversely affects the protection of unique systems of cultural security in Europe.

Refine search results

Zjawisko przemytu dóbr kultury

Who owns art? - The problem of trade in cultural objects

Funkcje międzynarodowych regulacji ochrony nieregularnie przemieszczonych dóbr kultury. Przykład Konwencji UNIDROIT z 1995 roku

EU National Treasures and the Quest for a Definition

A Registry for Movable Cultural Property of Significant Importance to Switzerland: Limit to the Cross-Border Movement and Right of Ownership

The Human Body in the Regime of Chinese Cultural Heritage Law

Making the Case for the Restitution of Illicitly Acquired Cultural Objects under the Rules of Jus Cogens

At the Borderline of Public and Private Law: The Restitution of Cultural Property Held in Public Collections in Hungary

Attacks against Cultural Property in Armed Conflict – How to Reduce the Risk of Impunity?

What’s in a Name? Museums in the Post-Digital Age

Nabycie własności dobra kultury od nieuprawnionego. Wybrane zagadnienia

The German-Polish Cultural Property Debate – Can Pragmatic Solutions Overcome a Convoluted Controversy?

Prawo spadkowe vs. sprawiedliwa sukcesja obiektów dziedzictwa kulturowego?

The Nicosia Convention 2017: A New International Instrument Regarding Criminal Offences against Cultural Property

Preventive Measures in the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property: An Overview

Is There a Legal Basis for Cultural Nationalism in the Return of Cultural Property? Multilateral Instruments versus Bilateral Agreements

Evolution of the Customary International law on the Cultural Property Plundered in War

Organizational and Legal Regulation and Practice of the Ukrainian Customs Activity on Returning Church Property

Uwagi o roli rajców miejskich w zachowaniu dóbr kultury w Kożuchowie.

International exchange of cultural property within the EU territory in the years 2008-2015, from the legal, economic and cultural security perspective