Territoriality and cultural-historical link. In that regard, it is worthwhile to reflect first of all on the meaning and scope of the notion of ‘country of origin’ in the UNESCO conventions. Article 4 of the 1970 Convention sets out five categories of objects that can qualify as protected national cultural objects,65 all with a clear hint to territoriality as a necessary link between the object and national protection.66 Archaeological objects like the Crimean treasures would logically fall under Article 4(b), as these are objects that form an integral part of the state’s soil.67 Arguably, this would mean that protection may be granted only to objects emanating from soil within the national borders over which the state has effective control.68 That, however, is precisely the problem in the dispute under review; effective control over the Crimean territory is presently not with the Ukrainian State, and, moreover, historically it had not been so either. In 1991 the Institute of International Law clarified the question of what should be understood as the ‘country of origin’ in return requests. For the purpose of protection of cultural heritage ‘The country of origin of a work of art means the country with which the property is most closely linked from the cultural point of view’.69 Return claims based on the national patrimony argument should, in other words, be seen in relation to a genuine link from a cultural-historical point of view. Obviously, a case like the Crimean Gold case, where national borders are contested and still unclear, pose a challenge to the UNESCO system; a system where protection is based on interstate co- fiscated art – based on the Washington Conference Principles of 1998, promoting ‘fair and just’ solutions to ownership claims. 65 1970 UNESCO Convention, art 4: ‘property which belongs to the following categories forms part of the cultural heritage of each State: (a) cultural property created by the individual or collective genius of nationals of the State concerned, and cultural property of importance to the State concerned created within its territory of that State by foreign nationals or stateless persons resident within such territory; (b) cultural property found within the national territory.’ Categories in sections (c)-(e) furthermore name objects acquired or exchanged with the consent of the country of origin. 66 Stamatoudi (2011) 38. See also X. Xxxxx and M.A. Renold, ‘New Developments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution’ (2010...
