Till Förster, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and many German historians are calling for a far-reaching Restitution of cultural goods from Africa. What do you think?
This is a step in the right direction. Very many problems on the way to the goal. Macrons Initiative brings an important new feature, namely, the reversal of the burden of proof. Had been to the owners from Africa to prove that an object belongs to you, the burden of proof is now in European museums.
This is not yet the applicable law. But assuming that the shift of the burden of proof to the museums will take place in the European countries is really so – then what?
There are then a whole series of other legal issues: Who is the Claimant, so the claimant, the required to the objects? Many of these objects, which once left Africa in a morally dubious way, you will not be demanded back by the original owners or their legal successors, but of States or sub-organizations of these States. Their predecessors, however, were not owners of these things. Actually, it would have to be the legal successor to the former owner, this refund claim. In the same way as the may require in the case of the unlawful sale of art from Nazi Germany, where, for example, the legal successor to the Jewish families, the return of looted art.
And who are dieursprüngl oaks owners?
Many of the objects from Africa were not originally in the individual’s possession, but belonged to a collective. These communities are, however, according to current law, in most countries, not legal entities. They or their successors may, therefore, make no claim to the surrender, unless all members of such a community would ever lead to individually suit. But this is not a realistic procedure.
you can See a way out?
There are in many African countries, a so-called Legal Pluralism, that is, in addition to international law, they have often adopted by England, there is a Customary Law, a customary law, the African communities, and institutions as legal entities can be recognized. Under French law, there is no: La république unie et indivisible. Also in the former German colonies, there is not the. In the former English colonies can be distinguished but in the case of restitution claims, whether something was purchased, according to the Common Law, the British private law, or in accordance with the Customary Law, i.e. the local customary law. If the Latter was the case, these are institutions that are not otherwise recognized, also to legal persons.
“Macrons Initiative brings an important new feature: The burden of proof now lies with Europe’s museums.”
What happens when Germany Benin to return the bronzes to the formerly English Nigeria, where there was a Customary Law?
You would have to check who is the buyer and who the seller was. In addition, you would have to clarify the law under which the objects are then disposed of. If they have been acquired according to Customary Law, then there would probably refund claims. But none of the museums has only pieces from one field of law. There are things, the refund and such refund are not refundable. This leads to a reproduction of the colonial borders. It is a paradox: To do legally what you want to avoid.
do you Plead for an extension of this dual legal structures?
If we want to make in the area of the Restitution of African cultural assets forward, then the former French colonies, the called, in fact, still the Code Napoléon, to establish a Customary Law based on the English model. You would have to make in the legal system of both the former colonial powers – the keyword is the reversal of the burden of proof – as well as in that of the successor States of the European colonies in the far-reaching legal reforms. That would be a common project for Europe and Africa, a comprehensive reform of the law, which creates a basis so that you can deal with the Restitution of your choice at such collections.
To Africa but still has no museums, the objects exhibit.
I suggest that the museums, which collections with the African culture have goods in your possession, and Finance with partners in Africa exhibition houses. There can then be the objects from the colonial period, which are in the possession of European museums, issued.
the countries of Europe, including Switzerland, is set To begin in Africa, to build museums?
Virtually no African Museum, apart from a few exceptions, has the infrastructure, the exhibit objects, as we would expect from a contemporary Museum. If we say, for example, we have objects that come from the Region, which was later Mali or Cameroon, we can develop together with the local States, exhibition homes, to show these objects.
What is the advantage of such an approach could be?
In this way, we can rent also objects to Africa, whose origins are unclear. The European museums would not cede the right of property, which in many cases is the lack of information is simply not possible. And you could only negotiate the conditions under which the objects shown. Finally, it would be guaranteed that the population in these countries could enjoy the works of art from the time of their ancestors, and the plants do not disappear somewhere in the world, in a private collection.
? the construction of museums in Africa, with European help, not the smack of paternalism and colonialism
Since it is important, how to raise the. It takes a Committee, in which representatives from here and there, have equal voting rights. This could be a very creative process. It also needs Co-financing, based on the possibilities of the state concerned. In any case, the least African countries can build their own power museums. The international cooperation and the financial strength of the Europeans would lead in the medium term, to find workable solutions.
(editing Tamedia)
Created: 23.01.2019, 19:49 Uhr
