On May 18-19, 2015, I had the pleasure of attending the Third Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Having taken Dr. Sophie Vigneron’s module on cultural heritage law, I was very interested in the topic. The opportunity to attend this meeting proved both interesting and productive. We were present when states parties passed the first Operational Guidelines for the Convention.
In my past professional and academic work, I have engaged directly with various international law treaties and often read drafting histories. However, I have never witnessed the process of reaching an international agreement or resolution. Experiencing this in person shed light on how difficult it can be to reach a consensus among delegates. For instance, during the session, delegates labored for hours over the introductory language of a resolution that adopts the Operational Guidelines. I learned how important it is to have an effective and efficient person chairing the meetings. The Palestinian chair was fascinating to watch as he moved seamlessly between multiple languages and tried to keep the meeting on schedule. I also found it interesting to watch how delegates make interventions during the proceedings to voice their concerns over the language of resolutions. Overall, the process appeared democratic, with powerful and less powerful states all having equal opportunity to propose changes and express concerns.
Highlights of the sessions included a presentation on the perilous situation of cultural heritage in Iraq and Syria, as well as a presentation from a Cambodian representative on the repatriation of cultural objects from the Cleveland Museum of Art to Cambodia. The content of the first presentation was rather dismal, and made me question whether international conventions can play any role in the preservation of cultural heritage during times of conflict. It was good, however, to hear about how some states have taken measures to prevent the import of cultural objects from these regions.
The presentation from the Cambodian representative was more hopeful, as he mentioned that the Convention was important to the return of the objects in question. Because the objects were stolen from Cambodia after the US had ratified the treaty, Cambodia was able to make a strong argument for repatriation. In other words, the directors at the Cleveland Museum of Art respected the application of international law in this instance. The Cambodian representative also shared interesting photos of the ceremony that took place to commemorate the repatriation of the objects. In this instance, Cambodia did not need to seek redress in the courts for the repatriation of objects. For me, this served as an excellent reminder that international treaties often play a role in the exercise of diplomatic pressure. Just because an issue does not go to the courts does not mean that the principles and requirements of international law have no effect.
Overall, I believe that my attendance as an observer to this meeting enriched both my understanding of cultural heritage law and how international laws are made.