Francesco Francioni

Enforcing international cultural heritage law

Introduction I. THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER 1. Plurality and Interaction of Legal Orders in the Enforcement of Cultural Heritage Law 2. Enforcement of Restitution of Cultural Heritage through Peace Agreements 3. The Role of International and Mixed Criminal Courts in the Enforcement of International Norms on the Protection of Cultural Heritage 4. Enforcement of International Cultural Property Norms in Time of War II. ENFORCEMENT BY DOMESTIC COURTS 5. Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of International Cultural Property Law 6. The Enforcement of Foreign Law: Reclaiming One Nations Cultural Heritage in Another Nations Courts 7. The Enforcement of Underwater Cultural Heritage Law by Domestic Courts 8. Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions in American State Courts III. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT: ARBITRATION, SOFT-LAW, DIPLOMACY, AND SETTLEMENTS 9. Plurality and Coordination of Dispute Settlement Methods in the Field of Cultural Heritage 10. Social Norms and Illicit Cultural Heritage 11. Practices of Collecting in American Museums 12. Enforcing Import Restrictions of Chinas Cultural Objects: The 2009 Sino-US Memorandum of Understanding

Establishment of an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: Pending Legal Issues

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 made no provision for permanent institutions, for fixed headquarters for treaty organs or for an administrative infrastructure with secretariat functions. As originally conceived, the Antarctic Treaty was intended primarily to be a security arrangement designed to guarantee stability and cooperation in an area marked by competing territorial claims and rivalries among superpowers. In this context, there was no provision for the establishment of international institutions. Thus, rather than establish a form of international administration, the Treaty envisaged a forum of inter-governmental consultation and cooperation that would guarantee continuous and peaceful access to the Antarctic. This original intent is reflected in the rather limited number of the original parties to the 1959 Treaty: seven claimants — Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom; the two ‘quasi-claimants’ — the USA and the USSR, both asserting an inchoate title; and three non-claimants — Belgium, Japan and South Africa. The original intent is also reflected in the type of solution applied to the difficult issue of territorial claims Rather than taking a position with regard to the basis of such claims in international law, Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty preserved a status quo and foreclosed the assertion of new claims while the Treaty was in force.

Past, Present and Future of Transatlantic Cooperation for Climate Governance

Bakker and Francioni examine the respective roles of the European Union (EU) and the USA in shaping the international response to climate change. They analyse the present dynamics in climate stabilisation and their impact on transatlantic relations, and consider how domestic realities in the USA and the EU have influenced and are likely to affect transatlantic approaches to climate change. The authors also examine how the EU and the USA have influenced the adoption of a new international climate agreement at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. The chapter concludes by exploring possible avenues for transatlantic cooperation in fostering a more coherent international approach to one of the main challenges of humankind in the decades ahead.

Responsibility to Protect in the Age of Global Terror: A Methodological Reassessment

Abstract Ten years after its formal adoption, the R2P doctrine remains an incomplete project in a world of continuing conflicts now aggravated by the existential threat of global terrorism. The debate on the permissibility of military action to stop mass atrocities when authorisation to use force is not forthcoming from the Security Council has produced only a plurality of conflicting theories but hardly any progress at the normative level. A two-pronged approach could be used to consolidate R2P as a doctrine fully integrated into the corpus of international law. The first prong requires the revamping of the largely neglected Article 48 of the ILC Draft on State Responsibility; the second involves using R2P as a platform to initiate a reform of customary international law to make it more consistent with elementary principles of justice and universal human rights.