Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act

Last updated
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to reduce certain duties, to suspend temporarily certain duties, to extend certain existing suspensions of duties, and for other purposes.
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  97–446
Statutes at Large 96  Stat.   2329
Codification
U.S.C. sections created 19 U.S.C.   §§ 2601–2613
Legislative history

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA or CPIA) is a United States Act of Congress that became federal law in 1983. [1] The CCPIA implemented the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. [1] It restricts the importation of some archaeological and ethnological materials into the United States from other State Parties to the Convention.

Contents

Provisions

Import restrictions

The CCPIA implemented Articles 7(b) and 9 of the UNESCO Convention. [2] It delegates authority to impose import restrictions of archaeological and ethnological materials from other State Parties to the Convention. [3] The CCPIA authorizes three types of restrictions:

  1. Bilateral or Multilateral Agreements: The President may enter into a bilateral agreement with a State Party or multilateral agreement (whether or not State Parties) to apply import restrictions. [4]
  2. Emergency Implementation: If the President determines that there is a risk of pillage, dismantling, dispersal, or fragmentation of a specific type of archaeological or ethnological object or site, the President may apply import restrictions. [5]
  3. Stolen Cultural Property: Cultural property that has been documented in the inventory of a State Party's museum, religious or secular public monument, or similar institution cannot be imported into the United States. [6]

Any cultural property that is imported into the United States in violation of the import restrictions is subject to seizure and forfeiture. [7]

Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC)

The CCPIA also establishes the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. The Committee investigates each State Party's request, reporting its findings and making recommendations to the President. The President appoints the Committee's eleven members:

Legislative history

1970 UNESCO Convention

The United States Senate unanimously gave its advice and consent to ratify the 1970 UNESCO Convention on August 11, 1972. [9] The Convention was a non-self-executing treaty. [10]

Implementation attempts

After ratifying the Convention in 1972, Congress proposed multiple bills to implement it. [9]

H.R. 4566

One primary goal for the CCPIA was to maintain good foreign relations. The Senate Finance Committee acknowledged that the United States is a principal market for art and antiquities. The Committee believed that allowing stolen or valuable cultural property to be imported into the United States would damage relations with countries from which the archaeological and ethnological materials originated. [9]

Another reason for the bill was the growing interest in Native American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan cultural property in the international art market. Through the CCPIA, the Committee wanted to encourage international cooperation to control the trafficking of these archaeological and ethnological objects. [9]

The final version of the CCPIA was the result of negotiations and compromises between parties for and against the bill. [11] Proponents of the legislation included art museums, archaeologists, and some academics; opponents of the bill included art and antiquities dealers, private collectors, and some academics. [11]

S. 1723

In the 97th Congress, the CCPIA was first proposed as S. 1723. On September 15, 1982, H.R. 4566 incorporated S. 1723. [12]

Amendments to the bill

To accommodate private sector interests, the Senate Finance Committee amended the bill so that the United States could not establish import controls unilaterally. [9] Instead, the President is required to obtain international cooperation and ensure that restricting importation is part of a concerted international effort. [4]

Another amendment to the bill draft was related to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Previous versions of the statute had named the specific associations from which the President would be required to select his appointments. [9] This limitation was removed, [13] as the restriction was an infringement on the President's constitutional appointment powers. [9]

The original draft of the bill allowed only judicial forfeiture proceedings. However, the Senate Finance Committee amended the bill to allow summary forfeiture proceedings as well. [9] It believed that some cultural property subject to forfeiture under the CCPIA would be small in value and that neither the government nor the claimant would want to bear the cost of judicial proceedings. [9]

Litigation

Burden of proof

In forfeiture cases under the CCPIA, the government bears the initial burden of proof of showing that the CCPIA applies to the contested objects. [14] The government must demonstrate probable cause. [15] Once the government meets this initial burden, claimant has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the object is not subject to forfeiture. [16]

Cases

United States v. An Original Manuscript Dated November 19, 1778

The government won a forfeiture case concerning a manuscript bearing the signature of Junipero Serra. The manuscript had been part of the Mexican National Archives and had been published in the Archive's microfilm records in 1993. In 1996, Claimant Dana Toft purchased the manuscript from a dealer in a hotel room and paid $16,000 in cash. When Toft consigned the manuscript to Sotheby's, the Mexican National Archives requested its return from Sotheby's. [15]

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the United States provided sufficient evidence that the manuscript belonged to the Mexican National Archives and had been stolen after CCPIA went into effect. Thus, the court found the manuscript had been imported in violation of the CCPIA. [17]

The court rejected Toft's innocent purchaser defense. Toft had not questioned the meeting with the dealing in the hotel room nor the exchange of $16,000 in cash, and the court found Toft had been willfully blind. The court also found that Toft was not owed compensation because Mexico showed that, in similar circumstances, it would recover and return an article stolen from a U.S. institution without requiring compensation. [18]

United States v. Eighteenth Century Peruvian Oil on Canvas Painting of Doble Trinidad

The government won the forfeiture of two colonial-era Peruvian paintings. Claimant, a Bolivian citizen, imported the paintings into the United States in 2005, taking them to a gallery for restoration and consignment. Because the paintings had been crudely cut out from their frames, an art dealer suspected they had been stolen and contacted the FBI. The FBI seized the paintings. The government and claimant provided conflicting evidence: the FBI concluded the paintings came from Peru; claimant provided documentation that the paintings came from Bolivia. [16]

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that, either way, Claimant still needed to provide documentation authorizing import of the paintings because both Peru and Bolivia are State Parties to the UNESCO Convention and both have import restriction agreements with the United States. [4] Because Claimant could not provide such documentation, the paintings were subject to forfeiture. [16]

United States v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian & Colonial Artifacts From Peru

In 2010, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized Pre-Columbian and Colonial textiles, metals, lithics, and perishable remains from Peru at Miami International Airport. Claimant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and denial of due process of law. [19]

First, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that the court did have subject matter jurisdiction. The court rejected Claimant's argument that the United States Court of International Trade had exclusive jurisdiction on the action.

Second, the court found that the United States sufficiently stated a claim by showing the imported objects were protected material under the CCPIA.

Third, the court rejected the claimant's argument that he was denied due process during CBP seizure proceedings because the CCPIA authorizes 90 days of artifact detention, [20] and claimant did not protest the seizure despite notice and an opportunity to protest.

Ancient Coin Collectors Guild cases

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild purchased twenty-two coins from a numismatic dealer in London in April 2009. The collection included twelve Chinese coins and seven Cypriot coins. When the Guild attempted to import the coins later that month, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized the property. Agreements with both China and Cyprus, under the CCPIA, were in effect at this time. [21]

When the coins were seized, the Guild brought suit against various government departments, including the United States Department of State [22] and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, [23] challenging the legality of the CCPIA and its various provisions. After various appeals and remands, the courts rejected these challenges. [24] [25] [26]

When the United States brought a civil forfeiture proceeding against the twenty-three coins, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland held that fifteen of the coins were subject to forfeiture. [21] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. [27]

Current protections

See also

Related Research Articles

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT Act of 2003</span> United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today".

Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), was a case heard before a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Montgomery and Alabama state bus segregation laws. The panel consisted of Middle District of Alabama Judge Frank Minis Johnson, Northern District of Alabama Judge Seybourn Harris Lynne, and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Rives. The main plaintiffs in the case were Aurelia Browder, Claudette Colvin, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith. Jeanetta Reese had originally been a plaintiff in the case, but intimidation by segregationists caused her to withdraw in February. She falsely claimed she had not agreed to the lawsuit, which led to an unsuccessful attempt to disbar Fred Gray for supposedly improperly representing her.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uruguay Round Agreements Act</span> US free trade law with implications for intellectual property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994. The Marrakesh Agreement was part of the Uruguay Round of negotiations which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

An innocent owner defense is a concept in United States law providing for an affirmative defense that applies when an owner claims innocence of a crime and so the property should not be forfeited. It is defined in section 983(d) of title 18 of the United States Code and is part of the Code that defines forfeiture laws and more specifically the general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings. It states that the "claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asset forfeiture</span> Confiscation of assets by the state

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities. In the United States, it is a type of criminal-justice financial obligation. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug-related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses. Some jurisdictions specifically use the term "confiscation" instead of forfeiture. The alleged purpose of asset forfeiture is to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Heritage Convention</span> 1972 international treaty

The World Heritage Convention, formally the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, is an international treaty signed on 23 November 1972, which created the World Heritage Sites, with the primary goals of nature conservation and the preservation of cultural properties. The convention, a signed document of international agreement, guides the work of the World Heritage Committee. It was developed over a seven-year period (1965–1972).

The antiquities trade is the exchange of antiquities and archaeological artifacts from around the world. This trade may be illicit or completely legal. The legal antiquities trade abides by national regulations, allowing for extraction of artifacts for scientific study whilst maintaining archaeological and anthropological context. The illicit antiquities trade involves non-scientific extraction that ignores the archaeological and anthropological context from the artifacts.

Ancient Coin Collectors Guild was founded in 2004 as an advocacy group for dealers and collectors of ancient coins. The ACCG is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization chartered in the American state of Missouri.

United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court decision in an in rem case on procedures following the seizure of imported obscene material. A 6–3 court held that the federal statute governing the seizures was not in violation of the First Amendment as long as the government began forfeiture proceedings within 14 days of the seizure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects</span>

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects is the international treaty on the subject of cultural property protection. It attempts to strengthen the main weaknesses of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The UNIDROIT Convention seeks to fight the illicit trafficking of cultural property by modifying the buyer's behaviour, obliging him/her to check the legitimacy of their purchase.

Art and culture law refers to legal aspects of the visual arts, antiquities, cultural heritage and the art market and encompasses the safeguarding, regulation, and facilitation of artistic creation, utilization, and promotion. Practitioners of art law navigate various legal areas, including intellectual property, contract, constitutional, tort, tax, commercial, immigration law, estates and wills, cultural property law, and international law to protect the interests of their clients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UNESCO 1970 Convention</span> UNESCO international treaty on cultural property

The UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property is an international treaty to combat the illegal trade in cultural items. It was signed on 14 November 1970 and came into effect on 24 April 1972. As of February 2024, 143 states have ratified the convention.

The National Stolen Property Act is a United States Act of Congress that prohibits the transportation, sale, and receipt of certain illegally obtained property in interstate or international commerce, including stolen goods and forged securities. The definitions for the terms used in the Act are codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2311; the offenses are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314–2315.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act</span> Legislation of the 113th United States Congress

The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. Under current law, works of art loaned by foreign governments generally are immune to certain decisions made by federal courts and cannot be confiscated if the President, or the President’s designee, determines that display of the works is in the national interest. However, commercial activity in which foreign governments are engaged does not have immunity in federal courts. H.R. 4292 would clarify that importing works of art into the United States for temporary display is not a commercial activity, and thus that such works would be immune from seizure.

The Cultural Heritage Center of the American Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs specializes in the protection and preservation of the world's ancient and historic monuments and archeological sites.

"Found in collection" (FIC) is a term used by a museum to refer to "undocumented objects that remain without status after all attempts to reconcile them to existing records of permanent collection and loan objects are completed". Despite the best efforts of museum staff, museums often have FIC items. This term was developed so that collections with incomplete provenance would be handled ethically and with transparency. Depending on the paperwork and information accompanying the material, the museum has several choices in how to proceed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act</span>

The Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property ActH.R. 1493 is a United States Act of Congress that became law in 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pennsylvania Declaration</span>

The Pennsylvania Declaration was a statement of ethics issued by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology on April 1, 1970. It affirmed that the Penn Museum would no longer acquire objects that lacked provenance or collection histories. The declaration aimed to distinguish the Penn Museum's collection practices from illegal antiquity trading while maintaining trust with countries where the university engaged in field research. This declaration marked the first time that a museum had taken formal steps to guarantee the ethical acquisition of materials and to deter looting and illicit antiquities trading. Froelich Rainey, director of the Penn Museum, presented the declaration at the meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in conjunction with the issue of its treaty known as the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

References

  1. 1 2 "PL 97-446" (PDF).
  2. ↑ Gerstenblith, Patty (2012). "United States of America and Canada: expert report". Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. 2: 2.
  3. ↑ "19 USC 2606: Import restrictions". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  4. 1 2 3 "19 USC 2602: Agreements to implement Article 9 of the convention". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  5. ↑ "19 USC 2603: Emergency implementation of import restrictions". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  6. ↑ "19 USC 2607: Stolen cultural property". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  7. ↑ "19 USC 2609: Seizure and forfeiture". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  8. ↑ "19 USC 2605: Cultural Property Advisory Committee". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "U.S. SENATE REPORT, 97-564" (PDF).
  10. ↑ Gerstenblith, Patty (2012). "United States of America and Canada: expert report". Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. 2: 2.
  11. 1 2 U.S. House Report 95-615
  12. ↑ Fitzpatrick, James F. (1983). "A Wayward Course: The Lawless Customs Policy toward Cultural Properties". N.Y.U Journal of International Law and Politics: Footnote 8.
  13. ↑ "19 USC 2605: Cultural Property Advisory Committee". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  14. ↑ "19 USC 2610: Evidentiary requirements". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  15. 1 2 1999 WL 97894 (S.D. N.Y. 1999)
  16. 1 2 3 597 F. Supp. 2d 618, 54 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2009)
  17. ↑ "19 USC 2607: Stolen cultural property". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  18. ↑ "19 USC 2609: Seizure and forfeiture". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  19. ↑ No. 13-21697-CIV, 2014 WL 12861854 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2014)
  20. ↑ "19 USC 2606: Import restrictions". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
  21. 1 2 United States v. 3 Knife-shaped Coins, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (D. Md. 2017)
  22. ↑ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dept. of State, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)
  23. ↑ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 801 F.Supp.2d 383 (D. Md. 2011)
  24. ↑ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dept. of State, 641 F.3d 504 (D.C. Cir 2011)
  25. ↑ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dept. of State, 866 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2012)
  26. ↑ Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 698 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2012)
  27. ↑ United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 899 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2018)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.