The New ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the new ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program. It briefly introduces the particular features of art and cultural herit-age disputes and the need for specialized resolution mechanisms. In the first part, the paper sets out the background to the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program. In particular, it examines ICOM’s endorsement of amicable dispute resolution, as well as the Makonde Mask case, an interesting ICOM mediation precedent. In the second part, the paper ana-lyzes the procedural and administrative framework of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Pro-gram. It looks at how the procedure works in practice by explaining the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules and the different procedural steps.

Synthèse

Cet article donne une vue d’ensemble du nouveau programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI en Art et Patrimoine Culturel. Il présente brièvement les caractéristiques des différends relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel et la nécessité de mécanismes spécia-lisés pour leur règlement. Dans la première partie, cette recherche expose le contexte dans lequel s’inscrit le programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI. En particulier, elle ana-lyse le soutien de l’ICOM aux règlements amiables des différents et examine un cas intéressant de médiation par l’ICOM, l’affaire du Masque de Makondé. Dans la seconde

∗ Legal Consultant, Beijing, China; Voluntary Legal Researcher and PhD Candidate, Art Law Centre, University of Geneva; former Legal Staff at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO, its Secretariat or any of its Member States.

** Legal Staff, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center;

Voluntary Legal Researcher and PhD Candidate, Art Law Centre, University of Geneva. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO, its Secretariat or any of its Member States.

V. Conclusion

As this paper illustrated, international institutions play an important role in art and cul-tural heritage ADR. As providers of much needed specific ADR services in this area, they are filling a gap that has certainly existed for too long. It is now up to these institu-tions to undertake continued awareness raising efforts about the positive role of ADR for resolving art and cultural heritage disputes. Potential parties and stakeholders in this sector need to be further sensibilized about available ADR options and their functioning, which is why specific training is important. Exchange and cooperation amongst con-cerned institutions may assist in this endeavor, as illustrated by the recent collaboration between WIPO and ICOM. Finally, practice will show how these mechanisms work and how parties will use them. For that purpose, it will be beneficial to analyze further actual cases as they arise.

S

S

S

T

4. The New ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the new ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program. It briefly introduces the particular features of art and cultural herit-age disputes and the need for specialized resolution mechanisms. In the first part, the paper sets out the background to the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program. In particular, it examines ICOM’s endorsement of amicable dispute resolution, as well as the Makonde Mask case, an interesting ICOM mediation precedent. In the second part, the paper ana-lyzes the procedural and administrative framework of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Pro-gram. It looks at how the procedure works in practice by explaining the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules and the different procedural steps.

Synthèse

Cet article donne une vue d’ensemble du nouveau programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI en Art et Patrimoine Culturel. Il présente brièvement les caractéristiques des différends relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel et la nécessité de mécanismes spécia-lisés pour leur règlement. Dans la première partie, cette recherche expose le contexte dans lequel s’inscrit le programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI. En particulier, elle ana-lyse le soutien de l’ICOM aux règlements amiables des différents et examine un cas intéressant de médiation par l’ICOM, l’affaire du Masque de Makondé. Dans la seconde

∗ Legal Consultant, Beijing, China; Voluntary Legal Researcher and PhD Candidate, Art Law Centre, University of Geneva; former Legal Staff at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO, its Secretariat or any of its Member States.

** Legal Staff, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center;

Voluntary Legal Researcher and PhD Candidate, Art Law Centre, University of Geneva. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO, its Secretariat or any of its Member States.

partie, l’article étudie le cadre procédural et administratif du programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI. Il explique le fonctionnement de la procédure en pratique en s’intéressant de plus près au Règlement de médiation ICOM-OMPI et ses différentes étapes procédu-rales.

Table of contents

I. Introduction ... 52 II. Background to the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program ... 54 A. ICOM Endorsement of Amicable Dispute Resolution ... 54 B. ICOM Mediation Precedent: Donation of the Makonde Mask in 2010 ... 55 1. History of the Makonde Mask ... 56 2. Donation of the Makonde Mask ... 57 III. The ICOM-WIPO Mediation Framework ... 57 A. The ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules and Other Practical Tools ... 58 B. Broad Scope of Application ... 58 C. The Mediation Process under the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules ... 60 1. Consensual Process ... 60 2. Party Autonomy and Flexibility ... 60 3. Mediator Appointment ... 61 4. Efficient and Ethical Conduct of the Mediation ... 62 5. Confidentiality ... 63 6. End of the Mediation ... 63 IV. Conclusion ... 64

I. Introduction

In the face of increasing art-digitization, restitution claims, and international art transac-tions, museums and other stakeholders are ever more exposed to potential disputes.

Art and cultural heritage disputes can be complex, and may involve sensitive non-legal issues of a cultural, religious or political nature. As has been voiced by many authors¹,

1 See for example, BRYNE-SUTTON QUENTIN, Arbitration and Mediation in Art-Related Disputes, Arbitration International, Vol. 14, 1998, pp. 447 et seqq; KAUFMANN-KOHLER GABRIELLE, Art et Arbitrage: Quels enseignements tirer de la résolution des litiges sportifs, in: Resolution methods for art-related disputes, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 11, Zürich 1999, pp. 123 et seqq; SIEHR KURT, Resolu-tion of Disputes in InternaResolu-tional Art Trade, Third Annual Conference of the FoundaResolu-tion “The Venice Court of National and International Arbitration”, Venice, 29–30 September 2000, International Law FORUM du droit international, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 64 et seqq; WICHARD CHRISTIAN/WENDLAND

court litigation may often not be an appropriate forum. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and in particular mediation, through its flexible and informal nature, may be better equipped for the resolution of such disputes.

The ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program has been tailored to respond to the specific needs in art and cultural heritage disputes. It was jointly devel-oped by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)² and the World Intellectual Prop-erty Organization (WIPO)³ Arbitration and Mediation Center and launched in July 2011⁴.

WEND, Mediation as an Option for Resolving Disputes between Indigenous/Traditional Communities and Industry concerning Traditional Knowledge, in: BARBARA HOFFMAN (ed.), Art and Cultural Heritage, Law, Policy and Practice, 2005, pp. 475 et seqq; RENOLD MARC-ANDRÉ, Arbitration and Mediation as Alternative Resolution Mechanisms in Disputes Relating to the Restitution of Cultural Property, in: Jaynie Anderson (ed.), Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence, The Proceedings of the 32^nd International Congress in the History of Art, CIHA, The University of Mel-bourne, 13–18 January 2008, pp. 1104 et seqq; PALMER NORMAN, Litigation: The Best Remedy?, in:

LYNDEL V.PROTT (ed.), Witnesses to History, A Compendium of Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, UNESCO, Paris, 2009, pp. 358 et seqq; THEURICH SARAH, Art and Cul-tural Heritage Dispute Resolution, WIPO Magazine, July 2009, Issue 4, pp. 17 et seqq; S CHÖN-BERGER BEAT, Restitution von Kulturgut, Anspruchsgrundlagen – Restitutionshindernisse, Entwick-lung, Bern, 2009, pp. 274 et seqq; SIEHR KURT, Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit über Kultur-gut-Streitigkeiten, in: Resolving International Conflicts, Liber Amicorum Amicorum Tibor Várady, Budapest, New York, 2009, pp. 255 et seqq; CORNU MARIE/RENOLD MARC-ANDRÉ, New Develop-ments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution, International Journal of Cultural Property, Volume 17, Issue 1, February 2010, pp. 1 et seqq.

2 ICOM is an international nongovernmental organization that maintains formal relations with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). ICOM is committed to the conservation, continuation and communication to society of the world's natural and cultural herit-age, present and future, tangible and intangible. For further information on ICOM, see http://icom.museum/ (24.04.2012).

3 WIPO is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to developing a balanced and accessible inter-national intellectual property system. Its areas of activity include in particular copyright, cultural her-itage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, often in consultation with cultural institutions, such as museums, archives and libraries, as well as with indigenous peoples and local communities and other stakeholders. WIPO also provides not-for-profit alternative dispute resolution services through the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, including in the art and cultural herit-age sector. For further information on WIPO, see www.wipo.int (24.04.2012) and on the WIPO Ar-bitration and Mediation Center, see www.wipo.int/amc (24.04.2012).

4 http://.museum/uploads/media/110701_DP_Mediation_EN.pdf (24.04.2012).

partie, l’article étudie le cadre procédural et administratif du programme de Médiation ICOM-OMPI. Il explique le fonctionnement de la procédure en pratique en s’intéressant de plus près au Règlement de médiation ICOM-OMPI et ses différentes étapes procédu-rales.

Table of contents

I. Introduction ... 52 II. Background to the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program ... 54 A. ICOM Endorsement of Amicable Dispute Resolution ... 54 B. ICOM Mediation Precedent: Donation of the Makonde Mask in 2010 ... 55 1. History of the Makonde Mask ... 56 2. Donation of the Makonde Mask ... 57 III. The ICOM-WIPO Mediation Framework ... 57 A. The ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules and Other Practical Tools ... 58 B. Broad Scope of Application ... 58 C. The Mediation Process under the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Rules ... 60 1. Consensual Process ... 60 2. Party Autonomy and Flexibility ... 60 3. Mediator Appointment ... 61 4. Efficient and Ethical Conduct of the Mediation ... 62 5. Confidentiality ... 63 6. End of the Mediation ... 63 IV. Conclusion ... 64

I. Introduction

In the face of increasing art-digitization, restitution claims, and international art transac-tions, museums and other stakeholders are ever more exposed to potential disputes.

Art and cultural heritage disputes can be complex, and may involve sensitive non-legal issues of a cultural, religious or political nature. As has been voiced by many authors¹,

1 See for example, BRYNE-SUTTON QUENTIN, Arbitration and Mediation in Art-Related Disputes, Arbitration International, Vol. 14, 1998, pp. 447 et seqq; KAUFMANN-KOHLER GABRIELLE, Art et Arbitrage: Quels enseignements tirer de la résolution des litiges sportifs, in: Resolution methods for art-related disputes, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 11, Zürich 1999, pp. 123 et seqq; SIEHR KURT, Resolu-tion of Disputes in InternaResolu-tional Art Trade, Third Annual Conference of the FoundaResolu-tion “The Venice Court of National and International Arbitration”, Venice, 29–30 September 2000, International Law FORUM du droit international, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 64 et seqq; WICHARD CHRISTIAN/WENDLAND

court litigation may often not be an appropriate forum. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and in particular mediation, through its flexible and informal nature, may be better equipped for the resolution of such disputes.

The ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program has been tailored to respond to the specific needs in art and cultural heritage disputes. It was jointly devel-oped by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)² and the World Intellectual Prop-erty Organization (WIPO)³ Arbitration and Mediation Center and launched in July 2011⁴.

WEND, Mediation as an Option for Resolving Disputes between Indigenous/Traditional Communities and Industry concerning Traditional Knowledge, in: BARBARA HOFFMAN (ed.), Art and Cultural Heritage, Law, Policy and Practice, 2005, pp. 475 et seqq; RENOLD MARC-ANDRÉ, Arbitration and Mediation as Alternative Resolution Mechanisms in Disputes Relating to the Restitution of Cultural Property, in: Jaynie Anderson (ed.), Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence, The Proceedings of the 32^nd International Congress in the History of Art, CIHA, The University of Mel-bourne, 13–18 January 2008, pp. 1104 et seqq; PALMER NORMAN, Litigation: The Best Remedy?, in:

LYNDEL V.PROTT (ed.), Witnesses to History, A Compendium of Documents and Writings on the Return of Cultural Objects, UNESCO, Paris, 2009, pp. 358 et seqq; THEURICH SARAH, Art and Cul-tural Heritage Dispute Resolution, WIPO Magazine, July 2009, Issue 4, pp. 17 et seqq; S CHÖN-BERGER BEAT, Restitution von Kulturgut, Anspruchsgrundlagen – Restitutionshindernisse, Entwick-lung, Bern, 2009, pp. 274 et seqq; SIEHR KURT, Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit über Kultur-gut-Streitigkeiten, in: Resolving International Conflicts, Liber Amicorum Amicorum Tibor Várady, Budapest, New York, 2009, pp. 255 et seqq; CORNU MARIE/RENOLD MARC-ANDRÉ, New Develop-ments in the Restitution of Cultural Property: Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution, International Journal of Cultural Property, Volume 17, Issue 1, February 2010, pp. 1 et seqq.

2 ICOM is an international nongovernmental organization that maintains formal relations with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). ICOM is committed to the conservation, continuation and communication to society of the world's natural and cultural herit-age, present and future, tangible and intangible. For further information on ICOM, see http://icom.museum/ (24.04.2012).

3 WIPO is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to developing a balanced and accessible inter-national intellectual property system. Its areas of activity include in particular copyright, cultural her-itage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, often in consultation with cultural institutions, such as museums, archives and libraries, as well as with indigenous peoples and local communities and other stakeholders. WIPO also provides not-for-profit alternative dispute resolution services through the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, including in the art and cultural herit-age sector. For further information on WIPO, see www.wipo.int (24.04.2012) and on the WIPO Ar-bitration and Mediation Center, see www.wipo.int/amc (24.04.2012).

4 http://.museum/uploads/media/110701_DP_Mediation_EN.pdf (24.04.2012).

The ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program is part of a general collaboration between ICOM and WIPO. This collaboration goes back a number of years and has been formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the two organizations on 3 May 2011⁵. Under that Memorandum, WIPO and ICOM agreed to collaborate in a number of areas relating to museums and the management of intellectual property. This concerns in particular copyright, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, the digit-ization of cultural artifacts, as well as dispute resolution.

This paper briefly sets out the background to the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Program (II), followed by an explanation of the different procedural and administrative features of the ICOM-WIPO Mediation Framework (III).