B. La jurisprudence arbitrale en matière de biens culturels
3. The Role of International Institutional Dispute Resolution in Art and Cultural Heritage
Matters: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Its Arbitration and Mediation Center
Abstract
This paper illustrates the positive role that international institutions can play in art and cultural heritage dispute resolution, with a particular focus on the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The first part of this paper looks at the back-ground and recent trends of institutional involvement in this area. This is followed by an overview of the reflections on art and cultural heritage dispute resolution undertaken in WIPO’s work, in particular in the forum of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Folklore. Finally, the paper explains the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s experience with art and cultural heritage dis-pute resolution, illustrated with concrete case examples.
Synthèse
Cet article souligne le rôle positif joué par les institutions internationales dans le règle-ment des différends relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel, et analyse en particulier les travaux de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI). La première partie de cet article est consacrée à un historique et aux engagements récents des institu-tions dans ce domaine. Ensuite de quoi il est dressé un bilan des réflexions menées dans le domaine de la résolution des litiges relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel au sein de l’OMPI, plus particulièrement dans le cadre du Comité intergouvernemental de la
∗ 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.
S
ARAHT
HEURICH∗3. The Role of International Institutional Dispute Resolution in Art and Cultural Heritage Matters: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Its Arbitration and Mediation Center
Abstract
This paper illustrates the positive role that international institutions can play in art and cultural heritage dispute resolution, with a particular focus on the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The first part of this paper looks at the back-ground and recent trends of institutional involvement in this area. This is followed by an overview of the reflections on art and cultural heritage dispute resolution undertaken in WIPO’s work, in particular in the forum of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Folklore. Finally, the paper explains the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s experience with art and cultural heritage dis-pute resolution, illustrated with concrete case examples.
Synthèse
Cet article souligne le rôle positif joué par les institutions internationales dans le règle-ment des différends relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel, et analyse en particulier les travaux de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI). La première partie de cet article est consacrée à un historique et aux engagements récents des institu-tions dans ce domaine. Ensuite de quoi il est dressé un bilan des réflexions menées dans le domaine de la résolution des litiges relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel au sein de l’OMPI, plus particulièrement dans le cadre du Comité intergouvernemental de la
∗ 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.
priété intellectuelle relative aux ressources génétiques, aux savoirs traditionnels et au folklore de l’OMPI. Pour terminer, cette étude décrit l’expérience du Centre d’Arbitrage et de médiation de l’OMPI en ce qui concerne le règlement des litiges relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel, et illustre celle-ci à l’aide d’une série d’exemples tirés de la pratique.
Table of contents
PageI. Introduction ... 32 II. The Role of International Institutional Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) in Art and Cultural Heritage Matters ... 34 A. Early Calls for Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 34 B. Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR v Ad Hoc Approaches ... 36 C. Recent Trend Towards International Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 37 III. General Reflections on Art and Cultural Heritage ADR in WIPO’s Work ... 39 A. Brief Overview of WIPO ... 39 B. ADR Reflections in the Context of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Folklore (IGC) ... 40 C. ADR References in the Context of Related WIPO Programs ... 42 IV. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s Experience in Art
and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 43 A. Background of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ... 43 B. WIPO ADR Service for Art and Cultural Heritage ... 45 C. ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program ... 47 D. Practical Case Examples of WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 48 V. Conclusion ... 50
I. Introduction
Following early discussions on the need for institutionalized initiatives, international institutions in the field of art and cultural heritage have increasingly recognized the po-tential of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)1 in this sector.
1 ADR is used in the wider sense here as referring to out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation and expert determination. A more detailed explanation of the different ADR mechanisms and their advantages in art and cultural heritage disputes can be found for example in THEURICH SARAH, Art and Cultural Heritage Dispute Resolution, WIPO Magazine, July 2009, Issue 4, pp. 17 et seqq, available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipo_magazine/en/
pdf/2009/wipo_pub_121_2009_04.pdf (29.02.2012).
Already in 1995, the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects referred to the possibility of submitting disputes over the restitution of stolen cultural objects or the return of illegally exported cultural objects to arbitration in article 8.22. Since then, a number of international institutions have become more prominently involved by setting up specific ADR structures and frameworks for art and cultural herit-age matters. The efforts of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organ-ization (UNESCO), the World Intellectual Property OrganOrgan-ization (WIPO) and the Inter-national Council of Museums (ICOM) are particularly noteworthy in this regard.
This paper aims to illustrate the positive role that international institutions can play in art and cultural heritage ADR. Particular focus is thereby set on WIPO’s work and general policy reflections on this topic, as well as the practical experience of the WIPO Arbitra-tion and MediaArbitra-tion Center.
The term “art and cultural heritage” is used in the broad sense in the present context.
Without attempting a definition, which would exceed the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that the term is understood as to include both tangible cultural heritage (e.g., a sculp-ture or a vase) and intangible cultural heritage (e.g., folklore or a song). Tangible and intangible cultural heritage may also converge in one object, such as a “painting that depicts a myth or a legend”3. Furthermore, relevant legal issues that may pertain to “art and cultural heritage” are understood here as to cover issues of a tangible nature (e.g., restitution), as well as of an intangible nature (e.g., intellectual property). The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has indeed encountered disputes in which such differ-ent issues were combined in a single case. For example, one case related to a dispute in which the return of a physical cultural object was claimed, in addition to intellectual property issues because of the reproduction of an image of the object4.
2 The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) is an independent inter-governmental organization with its seat in Rome and currently has 63 Member States, see http://www.unidroit.org (29.02.2012).
3 Example provided in the context of traditional cultural expressions: Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, Document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat, 2 May 2003, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3, Annex, no 51: “Expressions of” ‘traditional culture (or ‘expres-sions of’ folklore) may be either intangible, tangible or, most usually, a combination of the two […].
For example, a painting may depict an old myth or legend – the myth and legend are part of the un-derlying intangible ‘folklore,’ as are the knowledge and skill used to produce the painting, while the painting itself is a tangible expression of that folklore.” http://www.wipo. int/edocs/mdocs/tk/
en/wipo_grtkf_ic_5/wipo_grtkf_ic_5_3.pdf (29.02.2012).
4 See infra section IV.D.2.
priété intellectuelle relative aux ressources génétiques, aux savoirs traditionnels et au folklore de l’OMPI. Pour terminer, cette étude décrit l’expérience du Centre d’Arbitrage et de médiation de l’OMPI en ce qui concerne le règlement des litiges relatifs à l’art et au patrimoine culturel, et illustre celle-ci à l’aide d’une série d’exemples tirés de la pratique.
Table of contents
PageI. Introduction ... 32 II. The Role of International Institutional Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) in Art and Cultural Heritage Matters ... 34 A. Early Calls for Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 34 B. Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR v Ad Hoc Approaches ... 36 C. Recent Trend Towards International Institutional Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 37 III. General Reflections on Art and Cultural Heritage ADR in WIPO’s Work ... 39 A. Brief Overview of WIPO ... 39 B. ADR Reflections in the Context of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Folklore (IGC) ... 40 C. ADR References in the Context of Related WIPO Programs ... 42 IV. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s Experience in Art
and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 43 A. Background of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ... 43 B. WIPO ADR Service for Art and Cultural Heritage ... 45 C. ICOM-WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation Program ... 47 D. Practical Case Examples of WIPO Art and Cultural Heritage ADR ... 48 V. Conclusion ... 50
I. Introduction
Following early discussions on the need for institutionalized initiatives, international institutions in the field of art and cultural heritage have increasingly recognized the po-tential of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)1 in this sector.
1 ADR is used in the wider sense here as referring to out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation and expert determination. A more detailed explanation of the different ADR mechanisms and their advantages in art and cultural heritage disputes can be found for example in THEURICH SARAH, Art and Cultural Heritage Dispute Resolution, WIPO Magazine, July 2009, Issue 4, pp. 17 et seqq, available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipo_magazine/en/
pdf/2009/wipo_pub_121_2009_04.pdf (29.02.2012).
Already in 1995, the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects referred to the possibility of submitting disputes over the restitution of stolen cultural objects or the return of illegally exported cultural objects to arbitration in article 8.22. Since then, a number of international institutions have become more prominently involved by setting up specific ADR structures and frameworks for art and cultural herit-age matters. The efforts of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organ-ization (UNESCO), the World Intellectual Property OrganOrgan-ization (WIPO) and the Inter-national Council of Museums (ICOM) are particularly noteworthy in this regard.
This paper aims to illustrate the positive role that international institutions can play in art and cultural heritage ADR. Particular focus is thereby set on WIPO’s work and general policy reflections on this topic, as well as the practical experience of the WIPO Arbitra-tion and MediaArbitra-tion Center.
The term “art and cultural heritage” is used in the broad sense in the present context.
Without attempting a definition, which would exceed the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that the term is understood as to include both tangible cultural heritage (e.g., a sculp-ture or a vase) and intangible cultural heritage (e.g., folklore or a song). Tangible and intangible cultural heritage may also converge in one object, such as a “painting that depicts a myth or a legend”3. Furthermore, relevant legal issues that may pertain to “art and cultural heritage” are understood here as to cover issues of a tangible nature (e.g., restitution), as well as of an intangible nature (e.g., intellectual property). The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has indeed encountered disputes in which such differ-ent issues were combined in a single case. For example, one case related to a dispute in which the return of a physical cultural object was claimed, in addition to intellectual property issues because of the reproduction of an image of the object4.
2 The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) is an independent inter-governmental organization with its seat in Rome and currently has 63 Member States, see http://www.unidroit.org (29.02.2012).
3 Example provided in the context of traditional cultural expressions: Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, Document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat, 2 May 2003, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3, Annex, no 51: “Expressions of” ‘traditional culture (or ‘expres-sions of’ folklore) may be either intangible, tangible or, most usually, a combination of the two […].
For example, a painting may depict an old myth or legend – the myth and legend are part of the un-derlying intangible ‘folklore,’ as are the knowledge and skill used to produce the painting, while the painting itself is a tangible expression of that folklore.” http://www.wipo. int/edocs/mdocs/tk/
en/wipo_grtkf_ic_5/wipo_grtkf_ic_5_3.pdf (29.02.2012).
4 See infra section IV.D.2.