Discussion paper (PDF - 459 KB)

Immunity from Seizure for Cultural Objects on Loan - Discussion Paper 20112. Types of claimsWhat types of claims should be prevented or allowed under this type of legislation? ShouldAustralia consider immunity from seizure with a return guarantee for the object, but not preventother types of claims for damages, compensation, etc.?The types of third party claims that are prevented by an immunity statute vary amongst foreign modelsof immunity from seizure provisions. The types of claims other countries have protected against haveincluded ownership claims seeking the seizure and return of objects, but also claims for damages orfinancial compensation.What types of claims should be allowed to ensure international ethical guidelines and obligations aremet? What types of claims should be prevented (e.g. claims relating to damages/financialcompensation (unjust enrichment), seizure due to sedition/indecency/obscenity, unrelated private legaldisputes (as an asset for the repayment of debt) etc. Should the borrower be immune from legalremedies that do not involve the seizure or physical confinement of the object?3. PublicationIf a publication requirement was to form part of an Australian model of immunity from seizure, whatwould be the best way to disseminate this information (online, in a newspaper, etc.)?Please note that the responsibility for the publication of objects under application for immunityprotection may rest with the borrower.Can you foresee any problems with requiring the publication of objects under application? What arethe benefits? What would be the best methods of publication to ensure broad public exposure to theitems being considered for immunity protection? Are there cases in which publication is notappropriate or should not occur?11