The act of repatriation is in it's most modern context is when an object that has been unrightfully taken is returned to it's original owner. Most commonly, a museum returns a piece to a different country's government. Repatriation has become a hotly debated issue in the past 50 years, with the signing of the UNESCO Conventions and the added complications from looted Nazi art and artifacts. Many arguments have been presented for and against repatriation of objects. Those in favor of repatriation usually link the objects with a sense of cultural congruity to the country of origin. Cited often, these items were taken without the permission of the government, most likely simply stolen, or in some cases having permission from an unqualified source, such as in the Parthenon Marbles. Many who argue against repatriation view objects as part of the world’s heritage and therefor lacking a real owner. Often museums that are against repatriation of objects also cite the knowledge that is brought to everybody through the study and exhibition of them. The legal aspects of repatriation also make the issue more complicated with oversights and rules that must be followed in order to have an item returned.
In the modern era, the rules governing repatriation were set by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), through two conventions in 1970 and 1972.1 These defined of cultural property as, "...property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designed by each State as being importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories..."i. The 1970 and 1972 Conventions also established guidelines that signatories must follow. The Convention of 1970 has set forth provisions to end the illegal trade of cultural property. Provisions include those found in Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, "To ensure the protections of their cultural property against illicit import, export and transfer of ownership, the States Parties to this Convention undertake, as appropriate for each country, to set up within their territories on or more national services, where such services do not already exist, for the protection of the cultural heritage…".ii The later convention, focuses primarily on World Heritage Sites and establishes protocols to guide how the international community protects cultural and natural heritage. These address the identification, preservation, conservation, and presentation of such heritage.
The concept of a universal museum is hotly contested, with many people arguing that no such thing exists. Though they may identify as "universal" they are usually no different in their mission from other museums, which is to provide education and resources to its visitors. Furthermore, some believe that the Declaration is based upon fear of mass repatriation. George Abungu, archaeologist, heritage consultant, and former Director General of the National Museums of Kenya succinctly states, "The Declaration responds to the fear of many museum directors they they would be left with empty museums or with hardly any collections worth taking. This seems to me to be an unnecessary fear".vii Yet the concept of the universal museum continues, with many museum directors, including Peter-Klaus Schuster, arguing that they are preserving the world's heritage for all of humanity to study. Schuster wrote, "Moreover, many priceless objects would have been destroyed that they not been rescued by archaeologists as is the case with the Pergamon Alter, saved by German archaeologists".viii Clearly highlighted is the principle ideals of the universal museum.
While many objects have been repatriated in the near half-century since the 1970 Convention was passed, the most well-known case is arguably that of the Parthenon Marbles, which are now housed in the British Museum in London, England. These Greek marble sculptures are also often referred to as the Elgin Marbles, named after the seventh Earl of Elgin, who represented the British Empire in Constantinople in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In 1801, with the permission of the Ottomans, who controlled Greece, Lord Elgin removed dozens of sculptures from the Parthenon.ix The Parthenon is one of Greece's most well known monuments, sitting atop the Acropolis in Athens, Greece it was a temple to the patron goddess of Athens, Athena. The Greeks have been working on the repatriation of the marbles since 1829, but with no avail. Among the arguments the British Museum has proffered for keeping the marbles is that it identifies as a universal museum, one that serves international audiences. In a 2002 editorial, Robert Anderson, then director of the British Museum argued, "The British Museum transcends national boundaries...and its purpose is to display the world of mankind of all periods and of all places".x The British Museum receives millions of visitors every year, with the physical visitor count for the 2014/2015 year reaching 6.7 million. This of course does not count the virtual audience whom's numbers reached 43.7 million.xi In accordance to the thought of those who signed the Declaration, one of whom was the British Museum, the British Museum is indeed a universal museum. The British Museum also views themselves as the caretakers of objects, ensuring the physical well being of the objects. For many years the British Museum continued to argue that the best place for safekeeping of the Marbles was in their Museum. Years of occupation and environmental pollution would have severely damaged the Marbles, as the Greeks did not have the appropriate housing for the objects.
The Greek perspective, however, is quite different. The country's national government and its people believe that these marbles are an integral part of their cultural heritage and argue that they were taken from the country illegally since permission was granted not by Greeks, but by the Ottomans. Greece's then Cultural Prime Minister, Evangelos Venizelos, made his point in a 2002 interview, "The Parthenon is a building. The marbles are part of this existing building. For me the bottom line is not a legal one or the problem of the ownership of the marbles but the fact of the return, the fact of the restitution of the integrity, the unity of the monument".xii
UNESCO Flag
Though these two Conventions and the resulting policies and procedures cover numerous situations that may arise in the process of repatriation, as with all international treaties, challenges remain. For instance, signatories did not have to enforce the 1970 Convention until 3 months after the, "...deposit of ratification, acceptance, or accession".iii This provided a grace period during which items of cultural property could still be imported or exported. The date of ratification in 1970 was the beginning date in which repatriation would be done through the channels of the United Nations. Any object that moved between countries before that date was not subject to the law. Another limitation is the conventions only apply to nation states and not the individual, meaning any object in private collections would be much harder to get repatriated than an object in a state funded facility. In addition, not all nation-states are signatories to either Convention. Most well-known of the these is Switzerland. The reality of this is clear when looking at the black market of art, in which Switzerland plays a large role, especially in the case of art looted by the Nazis.iv For UNESCO to function there is a mediator who is selected to handle the parties concerns. However, it is not the law that is most important when finding a mediator, but as Sabrina Urbinati an international lawyer explains, "...the importance and the weight of the mediator's proposals depend on their personal authority and not on the applicable law. One of the most important elements on the Conventions is to obtain the agreement of the parties on the mediator’s proposals and thus eventually settle the dispute".v UNESCO was certainly the starting point that was needed when looking at repatriation globally. That is not so say that there is no room for improvement within international law to resolve these cases.
Important to the debate is the concept of the "universal" museum is often put forth as an argument against repatriation. Signed in 2002 the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums argues that, "Museums are agents of knowledge in the development of culture, whose mission is to foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation. Each objects contributes to that process. To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and multifaceted would therefore be a disservice to all visitors". vi
Parthenon Marbles, also known as Elgin Marbles 
British Museum 
The Parthenon
