Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus
On February 27, the Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) hosted its 73rd annual symposium, entitled Art Theft, Artifact Repatriation & Restitution Efforts: Challenges and Progress. For this reporter, the event provided an interesting backdrop to a visit to the Louvre while in Paris for spring break.
The symposium focused on efforts to repatriate art that had been removed from its country of origin, most commonly during wartime or colonial occupation. For the most part, the focus of discussions was on the interactions of the legal system and various governments in assisting or hindering repatriation efforts.
The event began with welcome remarks from Mishan Khara ’24, the outgoing Editor-in-Chief of VJIL, and Julia Jean “JJ” Citron ’24, the Symposium Director and outgoing Research and Projects Editor of VJIL. The first panel, “Modern Litigation Approaches to Restitution Claims,” consisted of Jake Archer, Special Agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; L. Eden Burgess, B.A. ’96, Of Counsel at Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP; Professor William L. Charron ’98, Partner at Pryor Cashman LLP; and Jonathan C. Hamilton ’98, Partner at White & Case LLP.
The panelists described the legal framework underlying efforts to repatriate art as a meshing of property and contract law, overlaid by an intermingling of state and federal law. The litigators discussed recent cases they had worked on and the litigation strategies they had pursued. Of particular interest was the comparison between civil and criminal routes to repatriate stolen art. One panelist noted that much of the civil dispute will center on the choice of law, and whether the law of the current locus of the art should govern or the law of the land of origin.
Next, Amelia K. Brankov, the founder of Brankov PLLC, gave the keynote address. In her address, Ms. Brankov described various current trends in art law more generally, and how repatriation efforts were affected. She also described some of the factors that have complicated matters, including artificial intelligence and other evolving technology. She also described the ways in which copyrighted intellectual property intersects with art law, and how this is driving the development of American law in the area.
The final panel of speakers addressed the topic “Institutional and Individual Approaches to Transitional Justice, Memory, and Repatriation.” The panel included Professor Deborah A. DeMott, Duke University School of Law; Ndubuisi C. Ezeluomba, Curator of African Art, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts; Ashley D. Fry, Indigenous Affairs Officer, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Lorie J. Nierenberg, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser. The panelists described the relationships between museums, the public, and countries of origin. Speaking on the importance of repatriation efforts, the panelists described it as a story of culture and returning historic art in relation to communities that exist today. The panelists from the State Department described various initiatives and educational programs.
When asked how VJIL chose this year’s symposium topic, Citron pointed to the number of repatriation claims and, perhaps more notable, the significant number of museums that returned such art in 2023. Contrasting this year’s topic to that of prior years, Citron said she was motivated by the personal feelings that art invokes, and her hope that it made the operation of international law more tangible for attendees. “By bringing in art, which is a deeply personal and emotional topic, I thought that it would hit closer to home because art is a part of us and our cultures’ stories and storytelling.”
During my visit to Paris over spring break, as I toured art museums, I thought about the symposium. The complexity of repatriating art involves, as panelists mentioned, the intersection of various legal doctrines and local, national, and international law. Yet more than the legal complexities of repatriation, my mind was drawn to the emotional and historical connection that Citron pointed out.
For instance, my favorite part of my visit to the Louvre was its collection of antiques. The Louvre is home to a prodigious collection of artifacts and artwork from the ancient Persian and Egyptian empires. To see the stories the artwork told, and to imagine them being crafted by human hands thousands of years ago, was awe-inspiring. And if I’m being honest, I was truly glad they were there for people to see.
At a more fundamental level, there seem to be many questions that demonstrate the tension inherent in repatriation efforts. Is art for the individual or the public? Should art that is displayed from other nations (even those that no longer exist) contain a disclaimer to this effect? Isn’t this what many descriptions in museums already do? And can any explanation sufficiently pay respect to a land or people whose artifacts and history were forcibly seized or destroyed? And how should we weigh the increased visibility of an artifact in a world-famous museum, compared with the national pride in having art returned to its birthplace?
The answers to these questions will likely continue to shape the development of both art law and the ways in which art owners, art lovers, and countries interact with historic and popular art. For now, they are worth considering while we enjoy art and connect ourselves to those from places and times far from our own.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu