Robert Kirkwood Paterson

Protecting Taonga : the cultural heritage of the New Zealand Maori

New Zealand concerns regarding cultural heritage focus almost exclusively on the indigenous Maori of that country. This article includes discussion of the way in which New Zealand regulates the local sale and export of Maori material cultural objects. It examines recent proposals to reform this system, including allowing Maori custom to determine ownership of newly found objects. A major development in New Zealand law concerns the role of a quasi-judicial body, the Waitangi Tribunal. Many tribunal decisions have contained lengthy discussions of Maori taonga (cultural treasures) and of alleged past misconduct by former governments and their agents in relation to such objects and Maori cultural heritage in general. As is the case with legal systems elsewhere, New Zealand seeks to reconcile the claims of its indigenous peoples with other priorities, such as economic development and environmental protection. Maori concerns have led to major changes in New Zealand heritage conservation law. A Maori Heritage Council now acts to ensure that places and sites of Maori interest will be protected. The council also plays a role in mediating conflicting interests of Maori and others, such as scientists, in relation to the scientific investigation of various sites. Despite these developments, New Zealand has yet to sign the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The changes proposed to New Zealand cultural property law have yet to be implemented, and there is evidence of uncertainty about the extent to which protecting indigenous Maori rights can be reconciled with the development of a national cultural identity and the pursuit of universal concerns, such as sustainable development.

Heading Home: French Law Enables Return of Maori Heads to New Zealand

New Zealand claims for the return of preserved tattooed Maori heads held by foreign institutions have revisited complex legal, ethical, and cultural questions surrounding human remains in museum and other institutional collections worldwide. Recent legislation in France that facilitates the return of Maori heads in French museums represents a further stage in this ongoing story.

Administrative Tribunal of Rouen, Decision No. 702737, December 27, 2007 (Maori Head case)

In October 2007, the mayor of the French city of Rouen agreed to return to New Zealand a preserved tattooed head of a Maori warrior (called toi moko by Maori) from that citys Museum of Natural History, whose collection the head had been part of since 1875. The decision to return the head was based on an initiative by the Museum of New Zealand ( Te Papa Tongarewa ), which has successfully secured the return of other such heads from museums in various European countries and the United States. Before the Rouen head could be handed over, however, the French Ministry of Culture intervened, arguing that its return was unauthorized under French law as being part of a French museum collection and thus inalienable.

The Art of the Sale: Museums and Deaccessioning

In recent years sales of objects by museums from their collections have provoked growing concern. Such sales have become more common as institutions face increased budgetary constraints. This chapter examines the common law (primarily that of Canada and the United States) surrounding museums and those responsible for their management. It looks at recent cases where instances of deaccessioning have been challenged in courts. The idea of expanding legal standing to challenge museum practices, to include stakeholders such as donors, museum association members and student groups, is also explored. A recent failed attempt in New York state to introduce legislation restricting deaccessioning is described. The role of non-legally binding ethical codes developed by museums and museum organisations is assessed in terms of both the formation of higher institutional standards as well as the possible relevance of such codes to the application by courts of existing laws. The chapter then describes in detail a controversial decision in 1985 by Newcastle University to sell a large collection of indigenous objects, mostly originating from what is now Papua New Guinea. This sale led to extensive debate about the appropriate location of such historical collections as well as the desirability of their removal to a country other than their place of origin. Finally, suggestions are made as to the desirability of voluntary adherence to transparent codes of practice and consultation by museums with stakeholders instead of introducing laws regulating the act of deaccessioning itself.

Heritage Inc.: A Mini-Symposium on Heritage Protection and Private Actors. Held at the Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 16 March 2012

In response to the emerging phenomenon of the role of nonstate actors in heritage protection and preservation, a one-day symposium took place on 16 March 2012 in the new Allard Hall building of the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The conference was officially opened by Dean of Law, Professor Mary Anne Bobinski and received financial support from the University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law Conference Fund; the Pacific Northwest Canadian Studies Consortium; and Golder Associates Ltd. The conference brought together seven experts from both academia and practice to discuss contemporary practices and emerging legal and sociological trends in heritage protection by private actors.

Collecting “Tribal Art”—Sacred or Secular?

This article explores the history of collecting and dealing in non-Western cultural objects—primarily from the Pacific Islands—from the earliest explorers to the modern auction houses. It considers international and domestic laws relating to indigenous cultural material that might be seen as religious or sacred in character and concludes that while these rules clearly influence both private and institutional practices they fall short of legally impacting the functioning of otherwise lawful markets.

Cultural Law: Cultural Law: An Introduction

The Cultural Dimension of the Legal Process Legal issues may lead multiple lives. They can be political, economic, social, historical, or cultural. Normally, the particular classification of an issue, in the abstract, is not so important. What is important, however, is to understand how a particular nonlegal dimension may condition the analysis of an issue and the appropriate response to it. Gaining this understanding is a matter not only of viewpoint or specialized information but also of professional skill. It is a skill that is best acquired by gaining a comprehensive understanding of the manifold ways in which a particular dimension of human experience – for our purposes, the cultural dimension – affects the legal process. The first two chapters in this book address the problem of cultural conflict, the interaction of culture and law, a working definition of cultural law, and the characteristics of both culture and law. The remaining chapters examine the interaction of culture and law in specific contexts of cultural expressions, practices, and activities such as art, traditional knowledge, sports, and religion.

Cultural Law: Cultural Material: Rectification, Criminal Justice, and Dispute Resolution

Introduction Claims for the return or restitution of cultural heritage are of central importance on both domestic and international levels of cultural heritage law. On the domestic level, for example, the historical and cultural identity of tribal and other indigenous groups may be at stake in efforts to reclaim significant artifacts from museums, art galleries, and private collections. On the international level, the recovery of stolen cultural material, whose value is estimated to be more than

Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform

3 billion annually, requires substantial diligence by customs officials and cooperation among governments, private institutions, and individuals. Obligations to return cultural material to territories of origin date back at least to Greek and Roman times. Until recently, those obligations were addressed almost exclusively to military-related problems of plunder, the spoils of warfare, and occupation. For example, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, followed by the reparation provisions of the Treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain after the First World War, underscored the illegality of military plunder and articulated the remedy for victim states. Twenty-five years later, during the Second World War, a leading scholar, urging moderation in dealing with the Germans after the war, referred to the Treaty of Saint Germain. Its provisions for the return of historical and cultural material took account, on a reciprocal basis, of the cultural heritage of both the victor, Italy, and the loser, Austria: [The Treaty] stated, however incompletely, the reasonable principle that historical material belongs, wherever possible, to the land of its birth; and though it might prove highly impracticable to carry this principle through to its ultimate conclusion, the mere fact of its enunciation on reciprocal terms , while the smoke of the battle and revenge still clung to Europe, was a noble signal of growth.