A museum should be a place where cultures, dialogue, and social relations are enhanced. Given the renewed public interest in the topic, the author poses the question: Is there a need and a possibility to decolonize ethnographic museums? Should we have common and shared practices? In an attempt to eliminate colonial vestiges in museums, an analysis of literature and practices leads the author to analyze five European ethnographic museums in order to understand their merits and shortcomings. The subjectivity of these institutions and the diversity with which colonization can be presented makes the proposal of a single generalized solution not preferable. An objective analysis, based on actions and variables, drives the author to determine, however, that in order to revitalize museum practices, there is a need to create a sharable framework. The design of minimum standards can help museums set clear and measurable goals to achieve a higher level of decolonization.

Adopting a human rights-based approach, this paper scrutinizes the treatment of illicit trafficking in cultural property as a human rights issue. The study focuses on the Iraqi contribution to the international agenda, revealing that Iraq co-sponsored at least 13 UN resolutions on the restitution of illegally expropriated cultural property, actively contributing to the negotiation of others, along with submitting its legal opinions on the drafts of relevant international documents, starting from as early as 1936 to culminate with the calls to stop cultural plunder feeding Western markets since the 1990s. Centering the Iraqi voices and adopting a critical decolonial rights-based perspective, the study showcases how illicit trade in cultural property clearly emerges as a violation of a state’s permanent sovereignty over its wealth and resources, negatively impacting its ability to guarantee the right to pursue economic, social, and cultural development for its people, as well as to freely dispose of their resources, the key components of the right to self-determination.

This article examines how Indigenous Peoples who depend on World Heritage sites for their culture and livelihood can appeal to the Committee when State Parties fail to comply with their obligations. While scholars criticize the World Heritage Convention for the lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the inscription and management processes, the framework of the Convention also allows representation and visibility. Indeed, compliance mechanisms offer opportunities for Indigenous advocates to negotiate Land sovereignty and environmental protection. TWAIL, which places the worldview of Indigenous Peoples at the center of legal practice, is crucial to understanding the interactions between Indigenous Peoples and the 1972 UNESCO Convention. TWAILers highlight how international law historically denies sovereignty rights to Indigenous Peoples. Article 6(1) echoes this absence of sovereignty. This article examines three cases in which Indigenous advocates petition to protect Native Lands against environmental degradations and colonization: Kakadu, Wood Buffalo, and Uluru. Ultimately, the challenges of Indigenous activists in their quest to preserve nature and culture reveal that the absence of sovereignty prerogatives remains a substantial issue. While the Convention provides a venue for advocacy and international awareness, Indigenous Peoples still must negotiate Land autonomy and cultural sovereignty with the State.

Much of today’s academic scholarship of international cultural heritage law circles around cultural heritage’s protection for the benefit of future generations. Despite this, the efforts to systematically examine the concept in more detail are scarcer. This paper seeks to fill this gap by taking a closer look at the ways in which the notion of future generations features in the body of international cultural heritage law. This contribution firstly illustrates how central the idea of protecting cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations is in international cultural heritage law. Despite this centrality, evidenced by an extensive analysis of international and regional hard and soft law, national law, case law, and policy options, its precisely contours the second argument of this paper, is that they remain elusive. Finally, skepticism is voiced over the concept’s potential ambivalent use with respect to the protection of cultural heritage.

On 22 January 2025, an international conference titled “Patrimoine en péril?” was held at the Museum of Art and History in Geneva. It was organized by the UNESCO Chair in the International Law of the Protection of Cultural Heritage (University of Geneva), the Museum of Art and History (MAH), and the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage (ALIPH) Foundation. This event was part of the eponymous exhibition at MAH,1 commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and coinciding with the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Swiss Cultural Property Transfer Act. The conference explored these two themes, bringing together international experts from academia, law, and heritage conservation and management, reflecting a cross-disciplinary perspective on the protection of cultural property in times of crisis. In his opening remarks, Marc-Olivier Wahler (Director of the MAH) highlighted the evolving role of museums in contemporary society. The conference was split into five sessions, each addressing various critical issues related to cultural property, and were moderated by Béatrice Blandin (MAH), Antoinette Maget Dominicé (University of Geneva), and Marc-André Renold (University of Geneva).