|
Washington DC - Two legal cases ruling the fate of ancient Persian artifacts held at US research universities look likely to be drawn out over several years. The vanguard legal disputes, being heard at the United States District Court level, revolve around 2,000-year-old Iranian items controlled by the University of Chicago and Harvard University. If these cases produce conflicting judgments, they may be taken up at the Supreme Court, meaning that any swift resolution is unlikely. In the meantime, more Iranian artifacts are likely to be targeted.
Three months ago, The University of Chicago and the Oriental Institute made international headlines after defending their right to possess ancient Persian artifacts in a US court. The items are sought after by victims of a 1997 Hamas terror bombing in Jerusalem. Defended by Rhode Island Lawyer, David J. Strachman, the plaintiffs seek to confiscate and auction off ancient Persian tablets to satisfy a multi-million dollar judgment by the District of Columbia District Court. The judge ruled on September 10, 2003 that as a principal supporter of Hamas, Iran was responsible for compensating the victims for physical and psychological damages incurred by the attacks.
In August, Iran, in an unprecedented move, sent attorneys to Illinois to defend its right to the set of artifacts sought after by Strachman. In response to Iran’s deposition, the plaintiffs were scheduled to file a brief; but, instead, surprisingly filed for a motion of extension, which will push the case into November or December. The case has already dragged out for several years and may not be concluded for several more.
At the August deposition, Iran’s defense relied on arguments previously advanced by the Department of Justice and the University of Chicago lawyers which asserted Iran’s right to sovereign immunity from the lawsuits.
In the separate case prosecuted by the same plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole Jr. two weeks ago asserted that Iran did not have to appear in court to represent its claim to the artifacts, a ruling that ran contrary to the University of Chicago case. Although demands for Iranian representation were not mandated, Judge O’Toole did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ efforts to confiscate another set of ancient artifacts held by Harvard and its museums.
While this second case concerns cultural heritage items at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (affiliated with Harvard University), the plaintiffs are also considering laying claim to antiquities at other institutions, including, the University of Pennsylvania Museum, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This indicates that legal maneuvers to gain control of Iran’s cultural heritage will continue to have a lasting impact on museums and universities across the country until the matter is settled.
Harvard University and Museum of Fine Arts in Boston Court Case
Six months after the United States District Court awarded $110 million in compensatory damages to the victims of the attack, the plaintiffs filed for a writ of attachment to confiscate six Persian limestone fragments from Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The antiquities, which the plaintiffs claim belong to Iran and were excavated from Persopolis in the 1920’s, are sought as partial satisfaction of the judgment.
Harvard’s lawyers have used the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a Congressional mandate imposing limits on lawsuits against sovereign nations, to defend against the plaintiffs’ suit against Iran. The plaintiffs in turn referenced an exemption in the legislation which allows properties used for commercial purposes to be subject to confiscation. Judge O’Toole Jr., however, found that FSIA’s exemption mentions the foreign nations and not the museum’s commercial use of the property and thus rendered the exemption irrelevant to the case at hand.
Under a separate legal maneuver, the plaintiffs also tried to obtain the antiquities pursuant to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 which holds that the assets of a terrorist nation are subject to confiscation despite immunities traditionally granted to sovereign nations.
Harvard University responded by arguing that none of the antiquities in their possession belong to Iran. The issue of rightful ownership over these invaluable antiquities will be addressed at a hearing scheduled for October 31st. If the plaintiffs are able to establish that the antiquities are the property of Iran, they will likely be subject to attachment and therefore confiscation.
What Happens Next?
The results of these two ongoing cases may not only influence each other but may also spark a series of new legal disputes from other bombing victims seeking compensation and could also leave US cultural items vulnerable to similar legal action.
Neither case will likely be resolved in the immediate future, and both may eventually be addressed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the United States Supreme Court will receive and resolve a small percentage of the cases appealed to it by the United States Court of Appeals. However, because the United States Justice Department has intervened in the University of Chicago case in the past-- and if the District Court’s final decisions in the two cases conflict-- the issue may ultimately be resolved by the highest court in the land, which could take several years.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) will continue to monitor this case, explore alternative ways of protecting the items outside the legal realm, and provide updates as new developments emerge.
Charters and other instruments
Links to cultural protection charters and other international agreements in the field of built heritage conservation.
[http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_charte.htm]
Cultural protection treaties
Links to cultural protection treaties and other international agreements in the field of built heritage conservation.
[http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/cultural.html]
Guidelines for education and training
Guidelines for education and training in the conservation of monuments, ensembles and sites. Sri Lanka (1993)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/guidelines_for_education.html]
The Venice Charter
International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. Venice (1964)
[http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html or
http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_venice.htm]
The Athens Charter
The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. Adopted at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. Athens (1931)
[http://www.icomos.org/athens_charter.html]
The Burra Charter
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter). Australia (1981)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/burra_charter.html]
European Charter of the Architectural Heritage
Adopted by the Council of Europe (1975)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/euroch_e.html]
Declaration of Amsterdam
Congress on the European Architectural Heritage (1975)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/amsterdam.html]
Protection of world heritage
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972)
[http://www.unesco.org/whc/world_he.html]
Protection of cultural property
European Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property (1985)
[http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/BH863.txt]
Conservation of places of cultural heritage value
ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. New Zealand (1992)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/nz_92charter.html]
Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works
UNESCO recommendations (1968)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/works68.html]
Conservation of historic towns
The ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas. Washington (1987)
[http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_towns.htm]
Conservation of smaller historic towns
Resolutions of the International Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns, at the 4th ICOMOS General Assembly. (1975)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/small_towns.html]
Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas
UNESCO recommendations (1976)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/areas76.html]
Preservation and Revitalization of Historic Centers
First Brazilian seminar about the preservation and revitalization of historic centers. (1987)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/itaipava.html]
Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage
UNESCO recommendations (1972)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/national72.html]
Declaration of Rome
Declaration of Rome regarding actions for the integrated conservation of the national cultural heritage. (1983)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/rome.html]
Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings
Resolutions of the symposium on the introduction of contemporary architecture into ancient groups of buildings, at the 3rd ICOMOS General Assembly. Budapest (1972)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/contemporary_architecture.html]
Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites
UNESCO recommendations (1962)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/landscapes62.html]
Cultural tourism
Charter of Cultural Tourism. Brussels (1976)
[http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_touris.htm]
The Norms Of Quito
Final Report of the Meeting on the Preservation and Utilization of Monuments and Sites of Artistic and Historical Value. Quito, Ecuador (1967)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/quito67.html]
The Nara Document on Authenticity
Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Nara, Japan. (1994)
[http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/nara.htm]
The Declaration Of San Antonio
InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage. (1996)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/san_antonio.html]
Appleton Charter
Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment. (1983)
[http://www.icomos.org/canada/appleton_charter.html]
Deschambault Declaration
Charter for the preservation of Quebec's heritage. (1982)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/desch_anglais.html]
Preservation Charter for the Historic Towns and Areas of the United States of America
A Preservation Charter for the Historic Towns and Areas of the United States of America. (1992)
[http://www.icomos.org/usicomos/us_towns_charter.html]
Protecting Local Heritage Places
From the site: "A guide for communities is a 120-page, step-by-step guide to help communities conserve their local heritage places. It contains the best of what is currently known about looking after Australia's special heritage places. Protecting Local Heritage Places is based on the framework provided in Australia's ... nationally accepted voluntary standards to guide decision-making about natural and cultural heritage places in Australia."
[http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/infores/publications/localheritage/ahc-2.html]
Conservation of Historic Stone Buildings and Monuments
From the site: "Report of the Committee on Conservation of Historic Stone Buildings and Monuments, National Materials Advisory Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1982. The work represented by this document grew out of a meeting of specialists concerned with the preservation of stone monuments held at the U.S. National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., on September 28, 1978. The meeting was initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the primary U.S. agency participating in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO-CCMS); it was organized by the Smithsonian Institution. The CCMS coordinator had proposed a pilot study, "The Impact of Pollution on Cultural Artifacts." However, the consensus of those assembled was that it would be both timely and essential to limit the study to the preservation of stone, because problems with deterioration of stone were a growing concern in virtually all NATO nations."
[http://www.ul.cs.cmu.edu/webRoot/Books/National_Academy_Press_Books/conservation/0000001.htm]
Archaeological heritage management
ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (1990)
[http://www.icomos.org/archaeological_charter.html or
http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_archae.htm]
Protection of archaeological heritage
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised). La Valette (1992)
[http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/www/bh997.html]
International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations
UNESCO recommendations (1956)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/delhi56.html]
Underwater Cultural Heritage
Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage (1996)
[http://www.international.icomos.org/icomos/under_e.htm]
Declaration of Dresden
Reconstruction of monuments destroyed by war. Dresden (1982)
[http://www.icomos.org/docs/dresden.html]
The Hague Convention (1954)
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954)
[http://www.icomos.org/hague/hague.convention.html
or http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/hague/index.html]
The Hague Convention (1999)
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1999)
[http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/legal/cltheritage/hague/hague2/protocol2.html] | 