Restitution disputes

The TAO may be seised by a State, a community or an institution, provided that all the parties have consented to arbitration. This consent may be given by a submission agreement concluded after the claim. Many museums now use it as an alternative to costly, public trials.

The tribunal pays attention to immunities, international conventions and political and cultural sensitivities. It may call on heritage experts and representatives of the communities concerned.

Claims are based on international law (1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT conventions, customary law), on national law (heritage protection laws, property regimes) and on ethical principles (museum codes of ethics, international declarations).

The arbitrators examine the origin of the property, the conditions of its leaving the territory, the good faith of successive holders and the cultural importance of the object. They look for varied solutions: restitution, loan, co-ownership, shared custody.

For many objects, the solution consists of a transfer of ownership coupled with cooperation commitments: loan to the former holder, scientific partnership, staff training, joint exhibition. These agreements preserve relations between institutions and encourage exchanges.

The tribunal may also recommend measures of symbolic reparation: recognition, publication of the history of the object, a ceremony of return. These aspects, which matter to communities, are written into the award or agreement.

OIMAP's Protection department handles amicable restitutions, outside arbitration, through diplomatic and police channels. The TAO steps in when the parties fail to agree and want a legal settlement. The two routes complement each other.

An exchange of information, with the parties' agreement, avoids duplication and makes use of the provenance research already carried out by the department's analysts.