The restitution of colonial cultural objects has become the subject of increasing public and academic interest. However, all too often, the literature tends to focus on the public international law (PubIIL) aspects of the debate. With a few notable exceptions, the PubIIL and private international law (PIL) dimensions of the debate are rarely considered together. In conventional accounts, the two remain separate. Individually addressed, they only tell a fraction of the story. Against this background, and informed by growing discussions on both sides of the garden of international cultural heritage law, this article makes the case for a coordinated approach. It underlines how PubIIL and PIL have failed together but also how they could contribute positively to the restitution of colonial cultural objects in the future. This will be achieved by examining the renowned yet scarcely examined Ethiopian icon of Kwer’ata Re’esu (Christ with the Crown of Thorns). Thus, this article problematises the way in which the restitution of colonial cultural objects is conceptualised, contending that these objects do not belong exclusively to the realms of the public or private, national or international, but rather occupy a liminal space in-between these domains.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andreas Giorgallis
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law
Cardiff University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andreas Giorgallis (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6940190c2d562116f28f6522 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2753412x251399317