Publication Date

Winter 2026

Journal

New York University Journal of International Law and Politics

Abstract

As formerly colonized states began to win their independence in the mid-twentieth century, a growing chorus of voices called on museums in London, Paris, Berlin, and other European cities to return objects taken during the colonial period. Having largely ignored these requests until recently, museums throughout Europe and the United States have begun negotiating returns of these objects to their rightful owners. There is a growing recognition among Western cultural institutions that continuing to hold cultural heritage objects taken under conditions of coercion or violence is morally untenable. More recently, some scholars have argued for a human rights approach to the restitution of cultural heritage objects through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In practice, however, restitution negotiations are typically bilateral and mediated not by the communities with deep cultural or spiritual links to these objects, but by states. If the state represents the interests of the peoples vis-à-vis cultural heritage objects incompletely, unpredictably, or poorly, even voluntary restitution efforts become complicated. This complexity has arisen in the case of the Benin bronzes and the Banjarmasin diamond, both of which have multiple potential claimants, including non-state claimants--each with a demonstrable, compelling connection to the objects. Until now, Western museums have balked at the complexity of these questions and have used these difficulties to delay the return of contested objects. But this response is unjust.

This Article proposes the establishment of trusts to manage the restitution of cultural heritage objects with multiple potential claimants. Trusts separate legal title from the benefits of ownership, making it possible for multiple and varied claimants (states, distinct cultural groups, individuals) to enjoy the benefits of ownership while also requiring them to engage in joint decision-making about how a given object will be managed (e.g. loans, exhibitions, sales). The creation of democratic trusts also allows museums to remove and transfer illicitly acquired objects immediately while simultaneously empowering all legitimate stakeholders to exercise collective control and authority over restitution objects.

Volume

58

Issue

2

First Page

313

Last Page

371

Publisher

New York University School of Law

Disciplines

Cultural Heritage Law | Human Rights Law | Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law | International Law | Law | Property Law and Real Estate

Download

Share

COinS