Abstract
This Comment argues that although the Directive and the Regulation represent a valuable improvement over the present lack of harmony among the civil-law and common-law nations' differing approaches to the conveyance of title to stolen property, these EC measures will by no means sufficiently deter art theft in the EC or diminish the international trade of stolen art because they fail to provide an effective compensation mechanism or to set forth clear requirements for a buyer to qualify as a bona fide purchaser (“BFP”). Part I discusses the various international, national, and private measures that have been taken to protect cultural property. Part II describes how the Directive and the Regulation developed and includes an analysis of both provisions. Part III argues that while the Directive and the Regulation attempt to harmonize the Member States' civil-law and common-law approaches to property rights, ultimately, the Directive and Regulation will not offer a truly adequate form of protection for cultural objects. This Comment concludes that the Directive and the Regulation are commendable for their attempt to address the needs of the common-law and civil-law nations, but that further legislation placing a higher burden on purchasers of art is required to ensure adequate protection of cultural property. Specifically, potential purchasers should be required to research the provenance of an object before purchasing it.
Recommended Citation
Victoria J. Viantro,
Protecting Cultural Objects in an Internal Border-Free EC: The EC Directive and Regulation for the Protection and Return of Cultural Objects,
17 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1164
(1993).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol17/iss4/8