This article examines the challenges Indigenous communities face in safeguarding their intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in the digital age, using two case studies. Referring to the Te Hiku Media case, it analyzes the threat of data colonialism posed by corporate digitization projects. The article argues that existing legal frameworks provide limited protection for Indigenous ICH, prompting Indigenous communities to develop the innovative theory of Indigenous data sovereignty (ID-SOV). The Government of Nunavut–Microsoft partnership case highlights the benefits and drawbacks of public–private partnerships (PPPs) for Indigenous ICH. Key takeaways from both cases’ analysis lead to our proposal of integrating ID-SOV principles into PPPs to limit data colonialism risks and improve the sustainability of Indigenous ICH digitization projects. The article contends that implementing ID-SOV principles by design and by default in PPPs can empower Indigenous communities while leveraging the oversight of public actors and resources of private partners to safeguard Indigenous ICH through digital tools.

The concept of the African Renaissance expresses the idea that the African continent is experiencing a crucial phase of its history and will overcome the current challenges of poverty, inequality, and violence to achieve cultural, political, and economic renewal and a more just and equitable order. First articulated by the Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop (1923–1986) in the aftermath of World War II, the concept encourages African peoples to take pride in their rich cultural heritage and long history, to take charge of their lives and rebuild the economy, and to set Africa as a significant player in international affairs. For the African Union, the continent should take advantage of and build on its rich diversity of cultures in its quest for prosperity.

The safeguarding of African heritage and diversity can benefit local communities, promoting intercultural dialogue and peace as well as sustainable development. This article thus aims to spark conversation about Africa’s heritage and identify some methods to realize the African Renaissance. First, it discusses the legacies of colonialism. Second, it explores the promise of cultural decolonization. Third, it scrutinizes the concept of the African Renaissance, its historical roots, and its current legal significance. Fourth, it investigates the linkage between the African Renaissance and sustainable development. Fifth, it focuses on how the World Heritage Convention protects African sites of cultural and natural outstanding value and whether such protection is adequate or could be improved. Finally, it offers some preliminary conclusions.

This essay makes the case that law in most of Africa has, since colonial times, been used as a framework of domination and imperialism. This has always been through repugnancy/supremacy clauses, which were predicated on the highly problematic assumption that European ways of knowing were superior to the African ones. This essay also demonstrates that, sadly, these clauses are still on the statute books of many African countries and continue to haunt the protection through law of Africa’s precious and unique tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The essay also shows that another way through whichthe development of African heritage was arrested through law was by criminalizing traditional Indigenous practices, which European imperial powers did not fully understand in terms of ontology. It is also argued that the same problems bedeviling the legal protection of African cultural heritage at the domestic level haunt this protection, even at the regional level(s). African regional courts continue to sadly apply alien notions of law to the exclusion of majority Africans. International law, being state-centric, has not been applied in the African context to revolutionarily protect African heritage. Where it has done so, it has been failed by the states or has been generally limited by its problematic colonial foundations. Finally, it is agued that African states need to de-elitesize, de-Westernize and decolonize the law if it is to effectively protect cultural heritage and property and make meaning to the ordinary African. This is urgent and imperative from a cultural, security and geopolitical vantagepoint.

This article aims to explain the strains and paradoxes of how African communities have been unable to obtain legal access and control to expropriated or stolen cultural heritage held in foreign museums despite their increased participation in international cultural heritage law. Further, it outlines the strained relationship between communities’ participation in cultural heritage governance under international cultural heritage law and cultural heritage law in Kenya. Using a postcolonial critique, this article examines these cultural heritage laws using notions of communitarianism and relationality in relation to the African Renaissance. It is demonstrated that communities should have increased participation in cultural heritage governance and, as a result, access to and control over their appropriated cultural heritage held in foreign museums. The purpose of a post-colonial critique of cultural heritage laws seeks to allow states and communities to listen to each other as opposed to one replacing the other in matters of cultural heritage.

Art theft is still a crime surrounded by inaccuracies. From the perception of flashy fictional thieves to unintentionally misleading monetary claims, the general public and some art and security professionals have a distorted vision of the scope of the criminal enterprise. As there is an alarming lack of empirical studies into the matter, this study aims to remedy the issue through the elaboration of a database to find common characteristics and aspects of interest amongst multiple art heists from the last three decades to provide a better understanding of crucial theft traits such as defeated security measures, methods of deception, timing and target selection, use of weapons and insider participation impact. Results indicate thieves tend to use brute force to defeat security measures; diversions and deceptions are a standard, uniform trends are present in absolute timing matters, and neither the use of weapons nor insiders appears to be the norm.

This article examines the evolution of artifact hunting in Spain, particularly in Andalusia, highlighting the legal measures implemented to combat archaeological looting over the past three decades. In contrast to the liberal model led by England and Wales, a more conservative approach, like the Spanish one, offers valuable insights with a clear effect in the protection of archaeological heritage that can serve as an example for other nations grappling with similar challenges.

On 22 January 2025, an international conference titled “Patrimoine en péril?” was held at the Museum of Art and History in Geneva. It was organized by the UNESCO Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage (University of Geneva), the Museum of Art and History (MAH), and the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage (ALIPH) Foundation. This event was part of the eponymous exhibition at MAH,1 commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and coinciding with the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Swiss Cultural Property Transfer Act. The conference explored these two themes, bringing together international experts from academia, law, and heritage conservation and management, reflecting a cross-disciplinary perspective on the protection of cultural property in times of crisis. In his opening remarks, Marc-Olivier Wahler (Director of the MAH) highlighted the evolving role of museums in contemporary society. The conference was split into five sessions, each addressing various critical issues related to cultural property, and were moderated by Béatrice Blandin (MAH), Antoinette Maget Dominicé (University of Geneva), and Marc-André Renold (University of Geneva).

Shipwrecks are archaeological, economic, historical, and political time capsules waiting to be unlocked. Their discovery results in debates over matters relating to their protection including ownership, jurisdiction, and the manner of their preservation. Interested parties include flag States, particularly in case of sunken State vessels, States in the maritime zone of which the wrecks are found, private owners of items submerged with the wrecks as well as other States linked to the objects. Sunken State vessels involve the additional disputing issue of sovereign immunity. Africa has thousands of historic shipwrecks lying around its coasts. This article examines, in the context of the African Renaissance, laws from 22 select African States in protecting underwater cultural heritage, particularly sunken (State) vessels, in light of relevant international treaties particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.

Adopting a human rights-based approach, this paper scrutinizes the treatment of illicit trafficking in cultural property as a human rights issue. The study focuses on the Iraqi contribution to the international agenda, revealing that Iraq co-sponsored at least 13 UN resolutions on the restitution of illegally expropriated cultural property, actively contributing to the negotiation of others, along with submitting its legal opinions on the drafts of relevant international documents, starting from as early as 1936 to culminate with the calls to stop cultural plunder feeding Western markets since the 1990s. Centering the Iraqi voices and adopting a critical decolonial rights-based perspective, the study showcases how illicit trade in cultural property clearly emerges as a violation of a state’s permanent sovereignty over its wealth and resources, negatively impacting its ability to guarantee the right to pursue economic, social, and cultural development for its people, as well as to freely dispose of their resources, the key components of the right to self-determination.

This article examines how Indigenous Peoples who depend on World Heritage sites for their culture and livelihood can appeal to the Committee when State Parties fail to comply with their obligations. While scholars criticize the World Heritage Convention for the lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the inscription and management processes, the framework of the Convention also allows representation and visibility. Indeed, compliance mechanisms offer opportunities for Indigenous advocates to negotiate Land sovereignty and environmental protection. TWAIL, which places the worldview of Indigenous Peoples at the center of legal practice, is crucial to understanding the interactions between Indigenous Peoples and the 1972 UNESCO Convention. TWAILers highlight how international law historically denies sovereignty rights to Indigenous Peoples. Article 6(1) echoes this absence of sovereignty. This article examines three cases in which Indigenous advocates petition to protect Native Lands against environmental degradations and colonization: Kakadu, Wood Buffalo, and Uluru. Ultimately, the challenges of Indigenous activists in their quest to preserve nature and culture reveal that the absence of sovereignty prerogatives remains a substantial issue. While the Convention provides a venue for advocacy and international awareness, Indigenous Peoples still must negotiate Land autonomy and cultural sovereignty with the State.

Much of today’s academic scholarship of international cultural heritage law circles around cultural heritage’s protection for the benefit of future generations. Despite this, the efforts to systematically examine the concept in more detail are scarcer. This paper seeks to fill this gap by taking a closer look at the ways in which the notion of future generations features in the body of international cultural heritage law. This contribution firstly illustrates how central the idea of protecting cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations is in international cultural heritage law. Despite this centrality, evidenced by an extensive analysis of international and regional hard and soft law, national law, case law, and policy options, its precisely contours the second argument of this paper, is that they remain elusive. Finally, skepticism is voiced over the concept’s potential ambivalent use with respect to the protection of cultural heritage.