Evelien Campfens - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
articles by Evelien Campfens
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2022
Guest editorial
Fifty years after the UN General Assembly first urged the return of cultural objects to "countrie... more Fifty years after the UN General Assembly first urged the return of cultural objects to "countries victims of expropriation" (UNGA Resolution 3187, 18 December 1973), and twenty years after the 2002 Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums, in which museums justified their continued possession of colonial artefacts, the topic of restitution has entered a new phase. Several European states and heritage institutions GUEST EDITORIAL * Evelien Campfens is post-doc fellow at the Research Group "Museums Collections and Society" of Leiden University, where her research focuses on the protection and ownership of cultural heritage. Between 2001 and 2015 she was director of the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi-looted art, and presently also is a member of the Ethical Committee of the Dutch Museum Association.
Netherlands International Law Review, 2020
This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should... more This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and people, distinct from ownership, and is informed by international cultural heritage and human rights law norms. The proposition is that, whilst ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, legal tools are lacking to address heritage interests and identity values that are acknowledged in international law. Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solve title issues over contested cultural objects. The notion of ‘heritage title’ in a human rights law approach can act as a bridge in that regard
Art Antiquity and Law, 2020
In the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art form a ‘grey catego... more In the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art form a ‘grey category’ where positive law is at odds with ethical norms. Dutch private law, like other civil law systems, is characterised by a strong protection of legal security and the interests of new possessors, leaving little scope for title claims based on a loss which occurred longer than 75 years ago. On the other hand, the Dutch Restitutions Committee (the ‘Restitutiecommissie’) has recommended the return of almost 600 works of art to Nazi victims or their heirs since its establishment in 2002. How can this apparent contradiction be explained? How is a ‘claimant-unfriendly’ legal reality brought into line with international soft law instruments like the 1998 Washington Principles? And what is the relevance of the special Dutch post-War legislation that was adopted with an eye on the restoration of individual rights that were lost as a result of Nazi looting, today? These questions are addressed in this article. To that end, as an introduction to the topic, section 1 renders a brief historical overview of Nazi looting in the Netherlands and the organisation with regard to recovery and restitution in the post-War period. Section 2 deals with the post-War legal framework that may be of relevance for artefacts that were looted or sold in the Netherlands during the Nazi period. Furthermore, section 3 deals with the legal framework for claims regarding artefacts that, today, are found within the Dutch jurisdiction, addressing both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law regulations (i.e. black-letter law and the ‘ethical’ model of the Dutch Restitutions Committee). Section 4 concludes with some final remarks.
International Journal of Cultural Property, 2019
The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A comm... more The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A common response is: “it was legal at the time” and, therefore, not a legal issue. But is that so? This article argues that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion but, rather, the asymmetrical application of norms. Moreover, a human rights law approach, focusing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects for people today—instead of a sole focus on property title—offers useful tools to structure this field. To illustrate these points, a case concerning an African ancestral sculpture today known as the “Bangwa Queen” will be assessed on its merits under international law. The Bangwa Queen is of spiritual importance to the Bangwa, a people indigenous to the western part of Cameroon. She was taken as part of a collection of so-called lefem figures by German colonizers in 1899 and is currently part of a French museum collection.
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2018
While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should ... more While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses – those of the former owner or a new possessor – vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this “gap”. A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an “ethical” framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of Arbitration for Art in The Hague.
Art Antiquity and Law, 2017
Voelkerrechtblog, 2018
The return of treasures taken during the era of European imperialism is a controversial issue. A ... more The return of treasures taken during the era of European imperialism is a controversial issue. A common response is ‘it was legal at the time’ and, therefore, not a legal issue. Is that indeed so? In this contribution, I argue that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion, but the asymmetrical application of norms. A human rights law approach, focussing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects and their importance for (groups of) people today, offers useful tools to address the intangible interests at stake in such disputes.
Art Antiquity and Law, 2017
This article analyzes the norm, its rationale, and international practice in the field of Nazi lo... more This article analyzes the norm, its rationale, and international practice in the field of Nazi looted art. It makes a case for clear standards and transparent neutral procedures where such standards could be further developed.
misc by Evelien Campfens
EUropean Parliament, Policy Department, 2023
This study examines how cultural heritage can be better protected from the effects of armed confl... more This study examines how cultural heritage can be better protected from the effects of armed conflicts, in Ukraine and beyond.
inbooks by Evelien Campfens
book chapters by Evelien Campfens
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2022
Guest editorial
Fifty years after the UN General Assembly first urged the return of cultural objects to "countrie... more Fifty years after the UN General Assembly first urged the return of cultural objects to "countries victims of expropriation" (UNGA Resolution 3187, 18 December 1973), and twenty years after the 2002 Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums, in which museums justified their continued possession of colonial artefacts, the topic of restitution has entered a new phase. Several European states and heritage institutions GUEST EDITORIAL * Evelien Campfens is post-doc fellow at the Research Group "Museums Collections and Society" of Leiden University, where her research focuses on the protection and ownership of cultural heritage. Between 2001 and 2015 she was director of the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi-looted art, and presently also is a member of the Ethical Committee of the Dutch Museum Association.
Netherlands International Law Review, 2020
This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should... more This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and people, distinct from ownership, and is informed by international cultural heritage and human rights law norms. The proposition is that, whilst ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, legal tools are lacking to address heritage interests and identity values that are acknowledged in international law. Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solve title issues over contested cultural objects. The notion of ‘heritage title’ in a human rights law approach can act as a bridge in that regard
Art Antiquity and Law, 2020
In the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art form a ‘grey catego... more In the Netherlands, as in many other jurisdictions, claims to Nazi-looted art form a ‘grey category’ where positive law is at odds with ethical norms. Dutch private law, like other civil law systems, is characterised by a strong protection of legal security and the interests of new possessors, leaving little scope for title claims based on a loss which occurred longer than 75 years ago. On the other hand, the Dutch Restitutions Committee (the ‘Restitutiecommissie’) has recommended the return of almost 600 works of art to Nazi victims or their heirs since its establishment in 2002. How can this apparent contradiction be explained? How is a ‘claimant-unfriendly’ legal reality brought into line with international soft law instruments like the 1998 Washington Principles? And what is the relevance of the special Dutch post-War legislation that was adopted with an eye on the restoration of individual rights that were lost as a result of Nazi looting, today? These questions are addressed in this article. To that end, as an introduction to the topic, section 1 renders a brief historical overview of Nazi looting in the Netherlands and the organisation with regard to recovery and restitution in the post-War period. Section 2 deals with the post-War legal framework that may be of relevance for artefacts that were looted or sold in the Netherlands during the Nazi period. Furthermore, section 3 deals with the legal framework for claims regarding artefacts that, today, are found within the Dutch jurisdiction, addressing both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law regulations (i.e. black-letter law and the ‘ethical’ model of the Dutch Restitutions Committee). Section 4 concludes with some final remarks.
International Journal of Cultural Property, 2019
The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A comm... more The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A common response is: “it was legal at the time” and, therefore, not a legal issue. But is that so? This article argues that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion but, rather, the asymmetrical application of norms. Moreover, a human rights law approach, focusing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects for people today—instead of a sole focus on property title—offers useful tools to structure this field. To illustrate these points, a case concerning an African ancestral sculpture today known as the “Bangwa Queen” will be assessed on its merits under international law. The Bangwa Queen is of spiritual importance to the Bangwa, a people indigenous to the western part of Cameroon. She was taken as part of a collection of so-called lefem figures by German colonizers in 1899 and is currently part of a French museum collection.
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2018
While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should ... more While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses – those of the former owner or a new possessor – vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this “gap”. A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an “ethical” framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of Arbitration for Art in The Hague.
Art Antiquity and Law, 2017
Voelkerrechtblog, 2018
The return of treasures taken during the era of European imperialism is a controversial issue. A ... more The return of treasures taken during the era of European imperialism is a controversial issue. A common response is ‘it was legal at the time’ and, therefore, not a legal issue. Is that indeed so? In this contribution, I argue that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion, but the asymmetrical application of norms. A human rights law approach, focussing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects and their importance for (groups of) people today, offers useful tools to address the intangible interests at stake in such disputes.
Art Antiquity and Law, 2017
This article analyzes the norm, its rationale, and international practice in the field of Nazi lo... more This article analyzes the norm, its rationale, and international practice in the field of Nazi looted art. It makes a case for clear standards and transparent neutral procedures where such standards could be further developed.
EUropean Parliament, Policy Department, 2023
This study examines how cultural heritage can be better protected from the effects of armed confl... more This study examines how cultural heritage can be better protected from the effects of armed conflicts, in Ukraine and beyond.
Routledge eBooks, Feb 5, 2024
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), Nov 30, 2022
Brill | Nijhoff eBooks, Jul 15, 2023
The journal of art crime, 2019
Exploring the Frontiers of International La
Colonial collections in Western museums from the perspective of international (human rights) law ... more Colonial collections in Western museums from the perspective of international (human rights) law ajv2016 2018-09-24T09:00:18 "One of the most noble incarnations of a people's genius is its cultural heritage. The vicissitudes of history have nevertheless robbed many peoples of this inheritance. They .. have not only been despoiled of .. masterpieces but (were) also robbed of a memory .. These men and women have the right to recover these cultural assets which are part of their being…" [Secr.Gen. UNESCO M'Bow, 1978] Forty years after this plea and some twenty declarations of the UN General Assembly on the subject later, the future of colonial collections in European museums has become a topic of heated debate. French President Macron set the tone for this with last year's statement that it is unacceptable that Africans have to travel to Europe to learn about their own culture. He announced a policy of restitution of African artefacts.
Cross-border claims to cultural objects, 2021
Cultural objects have a protected status on account of their intangible value, as symbols of an i... more Cultural objects have a protected status on account of their intangible value, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the early days of international law, and today there is an extensive legal framework that ensures this protection. Yet, when it comes to claims by former owners to items such as Nazi-looted art, colonial booty, or more recently looted antiquities, the situation is less straightforward. On the one hand, such claims are often not supported by positive law at all. On the other hand, non-binding regulations urge present possessors to find `just' solutions to claims – not as a legal obligation but as a matter of morality. This raises a fundamental question: if we believe that the application of the law leads to injustice, is it not time to change the way the law is applied? This study explores how cross-border claims to cultural objects fit in the wider legal framework, and where blind spots or clashes occur. The overall aim of this dissertation is to identify new directions that can help further develop this field, with the ultimate aim of fostering just solutions.
Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market, 2014
As restitution claims seeking the return of looted or illegally exported works of art become more... more As restitution claims seeking the return of looted or illegally exported works of art become more and more common, museums, private owners and the art world in general are becoming obliged to develop a proactive approach to finding solutions. In the context of Nazi looted art claims, claims on archeological artefacts and post-colonial claims among others, positive law often is at odds with rapidly evolving rules of soft law. This chapter deals with the question of how stakeholders can resolve those claims in an adequate manner. What procedure should parties choose, taking into account that often there is no clear cut legal framework? Should they try to negotiate, to mediate, to litigate, or should they refer to diplomatic channels?
Netherlands International Law Review
Cultural objects have a special, protected, status because of their intangible ‘heritage’ value t... more Cultural objects have a special, protected, status because of their intangible ‘heritage’ value to people, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the first days of international law and, today, there is an extensive legal framework to protect cultural objects and to prohibit looting. Despite this, for as long as demand exists and profits are high, cultural objects continue to be looted, smuggled and traded. At some point, their character tends to change from protected heritage in an original setting to valuable art and commodity in the hands of new possessors. In this new setting, the legal status of such objects most likely will be a matter of ownership and the private law regime in the country where they happen to end up. This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and p...
At stake are 500-or-so archaeological artefacts from the Crimean Peninsula that had been sent to ... more At stake are 500-or-so archaeological artefacts from the Crimean Peninsula that had been sent to Amsterdam on a short-term loan by four Crimean museums for the exhibition ‘Crimea: Gold and Secrets from the Black Sea’ at the Allard Pierson Museum. The period of this exhibition in 2014 coincided with a series of political events, resulting in the Russian annexation of Crimea and its secession in March 2014 from the Ukrainian State of which the Peninsula had been part since 1954. This secession, however, is not recognised by most other States, including the Netherlands, adding a layer of complexity to the case. After the exhibition, the Allard Pierson was confronted with two competing claims to the objects: the Ukrainian State on the one hand and the Crimean museums on the other. Ukraine claims the objects as national patrimony and State property; the Crimean museums seek their return on the basis of guarantees contained in the loan agreement and the argument that Crimea is the ‘true h...
This paper underlines the importance of uniform principles and transparent procedures for Holocau... more This paper underlines the importance of uniform principles and transparent procedures for Holocaust-related art claims. Over the last twenty years ethical standards which support restitution of artefacts looted in the past have gained ground. However, positive law is often not in line with these ethical standards. In fact, domestic legal systems differ widely. As a consequence, parties looking for 'just' answers to their disputes will often find themselves in a legal labyrinth with uncertain outcomes. In some European countries advisory committees were installed for Holocaust-related claims, each with their own approach but often with a limited mandate. A new development is that an increasing number of cases – also regarding European museum property – are brought before American courts. Taking account of this institutional vacuum (because no neutral forum is in place that can clarify or apply soft-law norms that reflect present-day morality) this paper argues in favour of a ...
Santander Art and Culture Law Review
While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should ... more While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses-those of the former owner or a new possessor-vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this "gap". A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an "ethical" framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of Arbitration for Art in The Hague. * Evelien Campfens is researcher at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University. Between 2001 and 2016 she was general secretary of the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Holocaust-related art claims. She is a consultant in art law; lectures in cultural property law; sits on the Board of Trustees of the German Lost Art Foundation; and is an alternate member of the Participation in Global Cultural Heritage Governance Committee of the International Law Association. The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions on an earlier version of this article.
International Journal of Cultural Property
:The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A com... more :The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A common response is: “it was legal at the time” and, therefore, not a legal issue. But is that so? This article argues that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion but, rather, the asymmetrical application of norms. Moreover, a human rights law approach, focusing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects for people today—instead of a sole focus on property title—offers useful tools to structure this field. To illustrate these points, a case concerning an African ancestral sculpture today known as the “Bangwa Queen” will be assessed on its merits under international law. The Bangwa Queen is of spiritual importance to the Bangwa, a people indigenous to the western part of Cameroon. She was taken as part of a collection of so-called lefem figures by German colonizers in 1899 and is currently part of a French museum collection.
While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should ... more While international conventions clearly establish the rule that misappropriated artefacts should be returned, the situation with respect to losses that predate these conventions is highly fragmented. The question of whose interests are given priority in title disputes that regard such losses-those of the former owner or a new possessor-vary per jurisdiction. Given the fragmented situation, international soft-law instruments promote an ethical approach and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way of filling this "gap". A lack of transparent neutral procedures to implement and clarify soft-law norms has proven problematic in this regard. The questions raised in this paper are: why is ADR necessary; and what about guarantees in terms of access to justice in such an "ethical" framework? Two recent initiatives are discussed in this article: the European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2019 on cross-border restitution claims of works of art and cultural goods looted in armed conflicts and wars; and the newly established Court of Arbitration for Art in The Hague. * Evelien Campfens is researcher at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University. Between 2001 and 2016 she was general secretary of the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Holocaust-related art claims. She is a consultant in art law; lectures in cultural property law; sits on the Board of Trustees of the German Lost Art Foundation; and is an alternate member of the Participation in Global Cultural Heritage Governance Committee of the International Law Association. The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions on an earlier version of this article.
Cross-border claims to cultural objects, 2021
Cultural objects have a protected status on account of their intangible value, as symbols of an i... more Cultural objects have a protected status on account of their intangible value, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the early days of international law, and today there is an extensive legal framework that ensures this protection. Yet, when it comes to claims by former owners to items such as Nazi-looted art, colonial booty, or more recently looted antiquities, the situation is less straightforward. On the one hand, such
claims are often not supported by positive law at all. On the other hand, non-binding regulations urge present possessors to find `just' solutions to claims – not as a legal obligation but as a matter of morality. This raises a fundamental question: if we believe that the application of the law leads to injustice, is it not time to change the way the law is applied?
This study explores how cross-border claims to cultural objects fit in the wider legal framework, and where blind spots or clashes occur. The overall aim of this dissertation is to identify new directions that can help further develop this field, with the ultimate aim of fostering just solutions.