Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-06T02:02:41.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safeguarding public collections: A new approach to the recovery of cultural objects unlawfully removed from state ownership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2025

Vanda Vadász Open the ORCID record for Vanda Vadász [Opens in a new window]  and
Péter Buzinkay Open the ORCID record for Péter Buzinkay [Opens in a new window]
Vanda Vadász*
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/01jsq2704 Eötvös Loránd University, Centre for Social Sciences Institute for Legal Studies
Péter Buzinkay
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/00r151p09 The Hungarian National Museum
*
Corresponding authors: Vanda Vadász; Emails: vanda.vadasz@tk.hu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we argue that uncovering losses from public collections and making efforts to recover them is of fundamental importance concerning the responsible management of state assets and the maintenance of the cultural public interest. In recent times, the perception of museums has been in a constant state of flux, with international expectations associated with them sometimes appearing to be contradictory. While much attention has been paid to the diligence of care, museums must exercise in areas such as acquisition, deaccessioning policies, repatriation, and decolonization, an equally important function – but one less discussed in the international literature – which is the duty of public collections to safeguard and manage state-owned assets. In 2023, the Hungarian National Museum implemented a new initiative aimed at recovering cultural property that had disappeared from public collections under unknown circumstances. This procedure has already generated numerous insights that the current study analyzes, ranging from the difficulty of shedding light on decades-long ownership chains to the challenges of acquisition and the effectiveness of dispute resolution. The Hungarian initiative represents an additional approach to the protection of cultural property, addressing a significant gap in the Hungarian heritage protection system that has received less attention.

Keywords

public collectionsprotection of national treasuresmuseum proceduresHungarian cultural property law frameworkrecovery of state ownership

Information

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , May 2025 , pp. 149 - 166
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arts Council of England. 2023. “Restitution and Repatriation: A Practical Guide for Museums in England.” 2023. Available at https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/supporting-arts-museums-and-libraries/supporting-collections-and-cultural-property/restitution-and-repatriation-practical-guide-museums-englandGoogle Scholar
Bandle, Anna Laurie, and Contel, Raphael. 2014. “Reparation Art: Finding Common Ground in the Resolution of Disputes on Russian War Spoils and Nazi-Looted Art.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market. Ethical and Legal Issues, edited by Vadi, V. and Schneider, H.E.G.S.. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bieczyński, Mateusz. 2019. “The ‘Right to Cultural Heritage’ in the European Union: A Tale of Two Courts.” In Cultural Heritage in the European Union. A Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, edited by Jakubowski, A., Hausler, K., and Fiorentini, F.. Leiden: Brill NV.Google Scholar
Blake, Janet. 2000. “On Defining the Cultural Heritage.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49, (1): 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2015. Just and Fair Solutions?: Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Cassan, Clara. 2021. “Should They Stay or Should They Go? African Cultural Goods in France’s Public Domain, between Inalienability, Transfers, and Circulations.” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 31 (4): 1248–1301.Google Scholar
Chechi, Alessandro. 2014. The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuno, James. 2001. “Museums and the Acquisition of Antiquities.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 19 (1): 83–96.Google Scholar
Frigo, Manlio. 2023. “Methods of Dispute Settlement, Post-Colonial Restitutions and the Increasing Importance of Due Diligence in the International Art Trade.” Journal of Law, Art and History 4 (58): 161–189.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2010. “Towards a Rigorous Standard for the Good Faith Acquisition of Antiquities.” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 37 (1): 189–201.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2011a. “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust.” Journal of Art, Antiquity and Law 16 (2): 1–37.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2011b. “The Distinctiveness of Property and Heritage.” Penn State Law Review 115 (3): 641–684.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2003. “Acquisition and Deacquisition of Museum Collections and the Fiduciary Obligations of Museums to the Public.” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 11 (2): 409–466.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2006. “Museum Practice: Legal Issues.” In A Companion to Museum Studies, edited by Macdonald, Sharon. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2011. “International Art and Cultural Heritage.” The International Lawyer 44 (1): 487–501.Google Scholar
Gill, David. 2018. “Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy.” International Journal of Cultural Property 25 (3): 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, David, and Chippindale, Christopher. 2006. “From Boston to Rome: Reflections on Returning Antiquities.” International Journal of Cultural Property 13 (3): 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, David, and Chippindale, Christopher. 2007. “Further Developments on the Return of Antiquities.” International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2): 205–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graefe, E. A. (2010). “The Conflicting Obligations of Museums Possessing Nazi-Looted Art.” Boston College Law Review 51 (2): 473–515.Google Scholar
Graziadei, Michele, and Pasa, Barbara. 2019. “The Single European Market and Cultural Heritage: The Protection of National Treasures in Europe.” In Cultural Heritage in the European Union: A Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, edited by Jakubowski, A. and Hausler, K. and Fiorentini, F.. Leiden: Brill NV.Google Scholar
Guangyu, Ding. 2023. “Cultural Heritage Rights and Rights Related to Cultural Heritage: A Review of the Cultural Heritage Rights System.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 9 (2): 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Jason R. 1997. “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 15 (3): 213–229.Google Scholar
Hausler, Kristin. 2019. “Cultural Heritage within the European Union’s External Relations: More than a Policy Objective?” In Cultural Heritage in the European Union: A Critical Inquiry into Law and Policy, edited by Jakubowski, A., Hausler, K., and Fiorentini, F.. Leiden: Brill NV.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Ashton, Rothman, Richard A., and Goldstein, David B. 1995. “A Tale of Two Innocents: Creating an Equitable Balance between the Rights of Former Owners and Good Faith Purchasers of Stolen Art.” Fordham Law Review 64 (1): 49–96.Google Scholar
Hoover, Deborah. 1990. “Museum Collections at Risk: Standards of Diligence for Protecting Your Monet.” Journal of Arts Management and Law 20 (1): 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Council of Museums. 2019. “Standards on Accessioning of the International Council of Museums.” available at https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Accessioning-Standards_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Jakubowski, Andrzej. 2016. “Cultural Heritage and the Collective Dimension of Cultural Rights in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” In Culture and Human Rights: The Wroclaw Commentaries, edited by Wiesand, A. J. et al. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kamardeen, Naazima, and van Beurden, Jos. 2022. “Law, Provenance Research, and Restitution of Colonial Cultural Property: Reflections on (In)Equality and a Sri Lankan Object in the Netherlands.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 8 (2): 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Lawrence M. 2009. “Provenance Research: Litigation and The Responsibility of Museums.” In Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization, and Commerce, edited by Nafziger, J. A. R. and Nicgorski, A. M.. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Lyubomudrova, Jenny. 2021. “From Museum to the Auction Block: Regulating the Deaccessioning of Art.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 42 (5): 2065–2096.Google Scholar
Kużelewska, Elżbieta, and Tomaszuk, Mariusz. 2022. “European Human Rights Dimension of the Online Access to Cultural Heritage in Times of the COVID‑19 Outbreak.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 35 (3): 1067–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merryman, John Henry, Urice, Stephen K., and Elsen, Albert Edward. 2007. Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Michl, Fabian. 2018. “The Protection of Cultural Goods and the Right to Property under the ECHR.” In Cultural Heritage and International Law Objects, Means and Ends of International Protection, edited by Lagrange, E., Oeter, S., and Uerpmann-Wittzack, R.. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Ministry of Culture, France. 2018. “Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. Vers une nouvelle éthique relationnelle.” Available at https://www.culture.gouv.fr/espace-documentation/Rapports/La-restitution-du-patrimoine-culturel-africain-vers-une-nouvelle-ethique-relationnelleGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, Linda F. 1998. “Museums Can Do Better: Acquisitions Policies Concerning Stolen and Illegally Exported Art.” Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 5 (1): 59–72.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. 2007. “The International Protection of Cultural Property: Some Skeptical Observations.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8 (1): 213–231.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V., and O’Keefe, Patrick. 1992. “‘Cultural Heritage’ or ‘Cultural Property’?” International Journal of Cultural Property 1 (2): 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyhan, Patricia Youngblood. 2001. “A Chaotic Palette: Conflict of Laws in Litigation between Original Owners and Good-Faith Purchasers of Stolen Art.” Duke Law Journal 50 (4): 955–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaheed, Farida. 2011. “Report of the Independent Expert in the Field of Cultural Rights.” United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council: Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development. A/HRC/17/38.Google Scholar
Shyllon, Folarin. 2003. “Private Law beyond Markets for Goods and Services: The Example of Cultural Objects.” Uniform Law Review 8 (1–2): 511–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamatoudi, Irini. 2023. “Dealing with Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects in the Context of Cultural Heritage Management for Museums.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 9 (2): 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamatoudi, Irini. 2016. “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Insights on Cases of Greek Cultural Property: The J.P. Getty Case, the Leon Levy and Shelby White Case, and the Parthenon Marbles Case.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (4): 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabados, Tamás. 2020. “In Search of the Holy Grail of the Conflict of Laws of Cultural Property: Recent Trends in European Private International Law Codifications.” International Journal of Cultural Property 27 (3): 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strother, Grant. 2012. “Resolving Cultural Property Disputes in the Shadow of the Law.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 4 (1): 335–376.Google Scholar
Symeonides, Symeon C. 2014. Codifying Choice of Law around the World: An International Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsirogiannis, Christos. 2016. “False Closure? Known Unknowns in Repatriated Antiquities Cases.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23 (4): 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulph, Janet. 2015. “Dealing with UK Museum Collections: Law, Ethics and the Public/Private Divide.” International Journal of Cultural Property 22 (2–3): 177–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulph, Janet. 2017. “Frozen in Time: Orphans and Uncollected Objects in Museum Collections.” International Journal of Cultural Property 24 (1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigneron, Sophie. 2014. “Protecting Cultural Objects: Enforcing the Illicit Export of Foreign Cultural Objects.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market Ethical and Legal Issues, edited by Vadi, V. and Schneider, H.E.G.S.. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Vadász, Vanda and Verebélyi, Viktória. 2024. “At the Borderline of Public and Private Law: The Restitution of Cultural Property held in Public Collections in Hungary.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 10(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrdoljak, Ana Filipa. 2024. “Introduction.” In The 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions on Stolen or Illegally Transferred Cultural Property. A Commentary, edited by Vrdoljak, A. F., Jakubowski, A., and Chechi, A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vékás, Lajos. 2013. “A Polgári Törvénykönyv magyarázatokkal” [Vékás, Lajos: “The Civil Code with Explanations”] Budapest, CompLex.Google Scholar
Wantuch-Thole, Mara. 2015. Cultural Property in Cross-Border Litigation: Turning Rights into Claims. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Leah J. 2007. “The Role of Museums in Sustaining the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 25 (2): 837–866.Google Scholar
Weller, Matthias. 2018. “Study on the European Added Value of Legislative Action on Cross-border Restitution Claims of Works of Art and Cultural Goods Looted in Armed Conflicts and Wars with Special Regard to Aspects of Private Law, Private International Law and Civil Procedure.” In Rethinking EU Cultural Property Law: Towards Private Enforcement, edited by Weller, M.. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.Google Scholar
Winter, Petra, and Dietrich, Florentine. 2023. “Combating Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (State Museums in Berlin): Policies in Acquisitions and Loans and Research of Provenance.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 9 (2): 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2015. “The Changing Tide of Title to Cultural Heritage Objects in UK Museums.” International Journal of Cultural Property 22 (2–3): 229–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeide, Nancy, Akinsha, Konstantin, and Walsh, Amy. 2001. American Alliance of Museums: Guide to Provenance Research. Arlington: American Alliance of Museums.Google Scholar