title: Restitution of stolen cultural properties: Lessons and challenges from recent Korean cases
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Lee, Gyooho
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2021-12-13T09:54:07Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2021-12-13T09:54:07Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Lee, Gyooho. 2020. Restitution of stolen cultural properties: Lessons and challenges from recent Korean cases. Pravovedenie 64 (1): 164–175.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.113
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/33846
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The Republic of Korea adopted the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
  the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property on 14 February,
  1983. The Convention has some disadvantages in that its scope does not cover the cultural
  properties stolen from Korean territory during the Japanese colonial era, which lasted from
  1910 to 1945, and the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 because it cannot be retroactively applied
  to cultural properties stolen during these years, and it falls within the field of public international
  law. Hence, in order for the Korean government and the legal community to seek more effective
  methods of restitution of cultural properties stolen during these periods, alternative legal tools
  need to be discussed. Some good examples include the donation or purchase of stolen cultural
  property, arbitration of disputes over the restitution of cultural property, bilateral international
  instruments concerning the restitution of cultural property, and the restitution of stolen cultural
  property though the application of foreign domestic public law or private international law. In
  particular, the main focus of this article is on the restitution of stolen cultural property though
  foreign domestic public law or private international law. At the beginning of the article, it is illustrated
  where overseas Korean cultural properties are located. The article then delves into
  why the focus is on the restitution of stolen cultural property though the application of foreign
  domestic public law or private international law. Three examples are discussed based on these
  scenarios. The article concludes by looking at the lessons learned from these cases and the
  challenges that the Korean government and legal community are likely to face.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Pravovedenie;Volume 64; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: restitution
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cultural property
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: stolen cultural property
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cultural heritage law
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: private international law
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: bona fide acquisition
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Restitution of stolen cultural properties: Lessons and challenges from recent Korean cases
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 164-175.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/33846/1/164-175.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 1,21 MB