The Cultural Property Protection Act (KGSG) and Its Impact on Restitution
Introduction
The Humboldt Forum and many European museums house vast collections of cultural objects looted from Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. This raises an important question: Why don't countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo sue museums to reclaim their stolen artifacts?
Legally, many countries could take action today, but in practice, restitution remains a complex challenge. This is largely due to legal frameworks established by colonial powers that ignored the rightful ownership of cultural heritage objects from their countries of origin.
The Role of Auctions and the Open Market
Even after the 1960s, many looted artifacts continued to be traded through auctions or online markets, allowing museums to expand their collections. Although former colonies have gained independence, the legal frameworks surrounding cultural property ownership have remained restrictive, making restitution difficult.
The UNESCO Convention of 1970 and Its Limitations
According to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property:
"Theft, looting, and illicit trafficking of cultural property is a crime. It deprives people of their history and culture, weakens social cohesion in the long term, fuels organized crime, and contributes to the financing of terrorism."
However, a major limitation of this convention is that it only applies to objects looted after 1970. This means that many artifacts taken before this date remain outside its legal reach, allowing museums to retain vast collections of colonial-era acquisitions.
Introduction to the Cultural Property Protection Act (KGSG)
To address these legal loopholes, Germany introduced the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Kulturgutschutzgesetz-KGSG) on August 6, 2016. This legislation aims to:
Protect Germany's cultural identity.
Recognize the cultural property of other nations.
Align with the UNESCO Convention of 1970.
One of the key changes introduced by the KGSG is the removal of the "Listenprinzip" (listing principle), which previously set high standards that made it difficult for foreign nations to reclaim stolen cultural goods. Prior to this law, Germany had become a hub for illegally acquired cultural objects, as foreign claims often failed under outdated regulations.
Key Provisions of the KGSG
The KGSG unifies three previous regulations into one comprehensive legal framework, improving the processes for restitution and cultural property protection. Key provisions include:
Protection of National Cultural PropertyPrevents the unauthorized removal of Germany's own cultural assets.
Due Diligence in the Art MarketRequires thorough verification when placing cultural property on the market.
Prevention of Illegal ImportsProhibits the import of cultural property if it was unlawfully exported from its country of origin.
Return of Unlawfully Imported ObjectsStrengthens Germany's obligation to return illegally obtained cultural property.
Improved Restitution MechanismsEnsures that unlawfully acquired cultural property is returned to its rightful owners.
Practical Application: How the KGSG Works
Consider a German museum purchasing a centuries-old Chinese vase from an auction house in London. Under the KGSG, the German institution must:
Verify that the vase was legally acquired by the London auction house.
Ensure that the vase was legally exported from China.
Confirm that no international laws were violated in the transaction.
By enforcing strict due diligence, the KGSG aims to prevent Germany from acquiring stolen or trafficked cultural artifacts.
Addressing Cultural Looting in Crisis Zones
In conflict-ridden or war-torn regions, cultural heritage is particularly vulnerable to looting. The KGSG plays a critical role in preventing Germany from acquiring such objects, strengthening international efforts to curb illicit trade in antiquities.
Controversy and Pushback
As expected, Germany's art dealers have not welcomed the KGSG with open arms. Many argue that the law restricts the art market and complicates acquisitions. However, advocates see it as a necessary first step in addressing historical wrongdoings and ensuring ethical stewardship of cultural heritage.
Conclusion
While the KGSG is not a perfect solution, it represents a significant step toward addressing the injustices of colonial-era looting. By enforcing stricter regulations on cultural property transactions, Germany is acknowledging its responsibility in preventing illicit trade and facilitating restitution.
To learn more about the KGSG, cultural restitution, and the ongoing debates surrounding looted artifacts, join us on our Humboldt Forum walking tours.