The practice of looting has existed almost as long as art itself. Although international law has bolstered its protections for art and cultural property in the context of armed conflict, significant enforcement issues remain.
The current framework for prosecuting the crime of looting does not adequately deter the practice, especially in instances that are unrelated to periods of armed conflict. Although pillage is treated as a war crime, all cases of looting—not just those that occur during war— should be viewed as a serious crime that threatens all nations. This Article proposes that universal jurisdiction be extended to the act of looting to better deter would-be looters.
This Article also considers the question of remedies. At present, there is limited obligation to return cultural property to its country of origin. Scholarship on the repatriation debate has largely centered on moral arguments about the mandatory return of stolen cultural property without considering the pragmatics. This Article proposes a factor test for determining when art should be repatriated that seeks to balance national interests with the value of cultural property to the world at large.
The looting of cultural property does not just harm the country of origin; it is an affront to the global cultural heritage of all peoples that transcends territorial boundaries. International law should protect our shared heritage by prosecuting looting as a universal-jurisdiction crime and employing a thoughtful, factor-based approach to help art safely return to its country of origin.