Countering

France Desmarais
the global fight against illicit traffic, ICOM wants to keep developing useful tools and
proposing appropriate response mechanisms to effectively counter the illegal trade, it
needs to know and understand the phenomenon as yet. Identifying the trade routes,
the agents involved and the types of objects targeted is the only way to comprehend the
significance of the illegal art and antiquities market. This can only be tackled through
transdisciplinary research initiatives, such as that initiated with the Observatory project,
as relevant organizations are encouraged to do under the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
Indeed, Article 17 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property mentions the
possibility for relevant organizations to conduct studies on matters related to the illicit
movement of cultural property. Looting and illicit traffic represent one of the global
challenges yet to be faced, for which a research and data gathering body such as the
International Observatory in Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods is needed.
What we do know for a fact is that museums are particularly concerned by theft in
art and heritage, as primary places of conservation from which objects can be stolen,
but also as collecting institutions that could, unwillingly, end up buying looted cultural
property. Indeed, objects are not only stolen from museums, but they can also land,
with the help of sometimes ill-informed accomplices, in the hands of private collectors.
Later, through a donation for example, they might find themselves in museums. It is
specifically because stolen art and antiquities risk falling into museum collections that it
is the duty of the world museum community to come together and counter illicit traffic
in art and heritage. The inaugural gesture is to apply strict ethical practice concerning
provenance of acquisitions. But it does not suffice. It must be supported by strong
national programmes.
Duty to protect objects from the market
One of the other objectives of the Observatory was to gather information on measures
which the concerned countries have implemented to fight illicit traffic in cultural goods.
What, indeed, are States Parties to international conventions doing to implement
effectively the provisions of those laws and treaties? What mechanisms have been
developed to monitor theft and to ensure seizures? How could we help them increase
transnational cooperation to improve import and export controls? Those are all questions
we have been able to directly address in over 10 missions carried out for the Observatory.
What we have discovered by interviewing national authorities is what we initially
suspected: political will is essentially lacking. With real political will to protect movable
heritage would come adequate legislative tools and effective administrative capacities.
Countries need stronger national legislation to strengthen the implementation of the
international legal tools they have ratified. That is, if they are signatory to the relevant
instruments, insofar as the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
is still very unevenly implemented and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or
Illegally Exported Cultural Objects is insufficiently ratified. To put it plainly: why have
none of the traditional ‘destination countries’ for cultural objects ratified UNIDROIT?
What prevents governments from ratifying and passing law to further protect cultural
heritage of the world?
The example of Germany may explain the reticence of certain governments. While,
in 2015, Germany courageously brought forward updated draft legislation to prevent
xiii