The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, Catherine Titi, Springer, 2023, 311 pages, €171.19
One may perhaps have some reason for amassing gold and silver; in fact, it would be impossible to attain universal dominion without appropriating these resources from other peoples, in order to weaken them. In the case of every other form of wealth, however, it is more glorious to leave it where it was, together with the envy which it inspired, and to base our country’s glory, not on the abundance and beauty of its paintings and statutes, but on its sober customs and noble sentiments. Moreover, I hope that the future conquers will learn from these thought not to plunder the cities subjugated by them, and not to make the misfortunes of other peoples the adornment of their own country.
Polybius of Athens (writing before 146 BCE), as quoted in ICJ Judge Charles de Visscher, International Protection of Works of Art and Historic Monuments, 823 (1949).
It would, I think, now be universally accepted, certainly by the People of Ireland, and by the people of most modern States, that one of the most important national assets belonging to the people is their heritage and knowledge of its true origins and the buildings and objects which constitute keys to their ancient history.
Supreme Court of Ireland, Chief Justice Finlay, Webb v. Ireland, 1988, I.R. 353.
The fate of the Parthenon marbles in the “Elgin Collection” and the merits of their return have been debated ever since Elgin’s agents excised them from the Parthenon on the Acropolis at Athens. Such is the nature of the discussion about the return of cultural property that numerous studies on the topic start with a question purportedly about ownership. Who owns history? Who owns antiquity? Who owns the past? In reality. The questions are aspirational. What they really mean is: who should own antiquity? Or who should own the past? While the questions about ownership and return are legal, the answer to them have been built around a debate.
The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, p. 21.
During a recent visit to London, the proprietorship of the Parthenon Marbles came up in a conversation. I argued that the marbles – which the Brits kept referring to as the “Elgin marbles” – must be returned to Greece. The Brits argued that the marbles were bought by Britain from Elgin, and therefore must remain in the British Museum. Predictably, my interlocutors, who, indecently, were highly educated, learned, if you will, were either misinformed or uninformed of some of some critical facts. In any event, it did not seem to matter much since as one of them put it, Greece would lose on legal grounds because of undue delay, estoppel, implied waiver, or laches in asserting ownership and making a legal claim for redress. Another canard among many peddled over the years, which, as my good friend Michael Vickery, the eminent historian would put it, is part of the Standard Total View (STV): repeating and re-repeating what has been heard as unquestionable truths without questioning the original source. Since 1836, Greece in one form or another has repeatedly requested and demanded the return of the marbles, only to be rebuffed by Britain. Simply because Greece never brought a lawsuit against Britain but has tried repeatedly and uncompromisingly to resolve the matter diplomatically does not mean that Greece has abandoned its claim or has unduly delayed its claim. Greece had partially gained its independent around 1828. While still in the midst of liberating the rest of modern-day Greece, it nonetheless acted with significant alacrity in requesting the return of the marbles from a then-empire (Britain) that it depended on in gaining its full independence. Continue reading “Book Review: The Parthenon Marbles and International Law, by Prof. Catherine Titi”
Much can be said about the politics of international criminal justice, the tolerated/excused hypocrisy in the behavior of certain states (in particular the permanent five members of the UN Security Council), and yes, the callousness or indifference or obliviousness in viewing, accepting, and even promoting inequity. We often tend to justify or minimize inaction or overreaction or selective action when it either suits us or when we lazily adopt a so what or a that’s the way things are attitude. Even when occasionally we truly believe something is off-kilter, irreconcilable, or just plain wrong, we rarely are willing to call it for what it is, to speak truth to power, to dare voice an unpopular position because it is simply the right thing to do. With no agenda in mind, here are a couple of matters worth expressing, however seemingly distasteful it may be to criticize anything related to Ukraine and its efforts in seeking peace and justice. 
With an opening gambit that potential Russian accused charged with atrocity crimes witnessed daily on the news and social media cannot get a fair trial because they’ve been already tried, judged, and convicted in the court of public opinion (as if this is not the norm for all suspects and accused before international and even national criminal tribunals), I was asked by a colleague my views. Read on.
Most agree that Putin’s war-making was unprovoked, unjustified, and unlawful. I say most because there are some who believe that Russia had legitimate reasons for initiating what Putin has characterized as Russia’s “special military operation.” Most also agree – or seem to agree despite any legitimate findings by an independent international tribunal – that Putin is guilty beyond any doubt of the crime of aggression. And many of those who have made their findings and conclusions of Putin’s guilt, call for the establishment of a tribunal with the singular purpose to try and convict Putin, expeditiously, for aggression. Of course, they envisage that a few others would also be charged and tried as well for aggression, but Putin is the great white whale (though it should be remembered that Moby Dick was both Ahab’s obsession and the prize he could not have).