In October 1860 British and French troops set ablaze Yuanmingyuan, or the
In this background, Liu Yang, who heads 67 volunteer lawyers, said the group is preparing a lawsuit to block the February sale of the two bronzes. But ironically, in a long time there is not even one government body taking part in this act of litigation that guarding the national dignity.
Is that because Chinese officials do not have enough sovereignty consciousness and moral basis? Absolutely not, the National Heritage Board representatives have already strongly condemned this act of auction. A hundred years ago, Victor Hugo had also claimed that the aggressor should purge their souls of sin and revert the treasures to plundered
Furthermore, we can have some grounds for recovering the plundered treasures in accordance with International Law. Otherwise, Amadou M’Bow, Director General of UNESCO, in 1978, issued a “Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to Those Who Created It”, which claimed that “One of the most noble incamations of a people’s genius is its cultural heritage, built up over the centuries by the work of its architects, sculptors, painters, engravers, goldsmiths and all the creators of forms, who have contrived to give tangible expression to the many-sided beauty and uniqueness of that genius… The men and women of these countries have the right to recover these cultural assets which are part of their being.” Moreover, the Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects assembled in 1995 also regulated in the first clause of Article 3 that “The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it.” Apparently, all of these proposals form an important basis of International Law for us to reclaim the treasures.
Since there are so many bases that can be quoted as evidence, why not the government steps forward bravely to recover these national treasures? Then what obstacles actually happened that block the way of Chinese and the government?
Indeed the barrier is do existed, which the regulators took precautions to set it up all from the beginning.
In the meantime that the Unidroit Convention make it a rule that “The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it”, the third clause in the same Article stated that “Any claim for restitution shall be brought within a period of three years from the time when the claimant knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its possessor, and in any case within a period of fifty years from the time of the theft”. – Why dose such restricted clause included in the convention?
Let’s count the dates instead. The Second World War ended in 1945, when the large-scale colonial acts were on its last legs. The control of western big powers to the whole world had decreased that they had to withdraw from the colonial countries. Therefore the massive robbery and stolen of treasures in the form of colonial and war methods had been brought to an end finally.
It’s exactly 50 years form 1945 to 1995. It means all the countries and districts that been plundered and stolen do not have the right to reclaim their treasures back.
In the recent 100 years, all the game rules of the international society were set by westerns which, apparently, safeguard their own interests. As a result,
Then we can understand why it isn’t convenient for the Chinese government entering into judicial process as to the auction of the two animal-headed sculptures after having the knowledge of this international background. However, the Chinese government issued a statement that the state owns the undoubted sovereignty of them which is very necessary. Besides, the government should support and encourage the civil organizations making various negotiations with the relevant bodies of western in order to impress the western societies with our position of upholding the heritage sovereignty.
Article by Mo Luo, Associate Researcher of
Some references:
Victor Hugo condemned the action of the British and French in an open letter: “One day two robbers broke into Yuanmingyuan. One pillaged, while the other set fire to it… After filling their pockets to the full with their spoils, they returned to
“Plea for the Return of an Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to Those Who Created It”
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/PealforReturn_DG_1978.pdf
Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects
No comments:
Post a Comment