English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property adopted on May 3, 2017, aka the “Blood Antiquities Convention” (hereinafter referred to as the “2017 Nicosia Convention”), is a legal reaction to the rising level of vandalism of cultural sites and illicit trade in cultural property, especially in the Middle East, in the recent decades 1 However, it is necessary to see the impact of this new instrument in the combat of crimes against any and all cultural property, including the heritage originating from the Far East. The following study aims at examining the chain of events illustrating crimes against Khmer cultural property in the 20th century and the development of the legal framework fostering international cooperation in the field of cultural property protection and restitution as a way of argumentation for or against the adoption of the 2017 Nicosia Convention to combat crime against Asian cultural property. The development of crimes against Asian cultural property is currently predominated by the occurrences in Syria or Afghanistan. However, the destruction of sites and illicit trafficking in cultural property is by no means a phenomenon restricted to that area. Especially in the turmoil of political changes and armed conflicts of the 19th and 20th century, Cambodia, South Korea, China and Japan have suffered irrecoverable cultural losses and, given the development and globalisation of the market and cultural institutions, objects looted under these past circumstances are still emerging. While the instances of plunder in the 19th century pose no legal discussion due to the validity of the right of spoil at the time, e.g. the South Korea vs France case over Korean manuscripts looted in 1866 by the French,2 the cases of illicit export of looted property in the post-1970 world certainly do.

The Blood Antiquities Convention and Asian Cultural Property. A Remedy or Disappointment? The Case of Cambodia