Keeping Up with the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act: Proposed Cultural Property Import Restrictions from Lebanon and Mongolia and an Extension for El Salvador

December 23, 2024

By Emily G. Finch

On November 14, 1970, member states signed the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, an effort to combat international issues related to the illicit trafficking of cultural property.^[1] To date, 147 countries have ratified or accepted the Convention. The United States implemented Article 7(b) and Article 9 of the Convention through the passage of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA) in 1983.^[2]

The CCPIA authorized import restrictions based on bilateral or multilateral agreements the President of the United States enters into with foreign states^[3], in emergencies, where there is a risk of destruction or loss to objects or sites, as designated by the President of the United States^[4], or as related to stolen cultural property, when a State Party’s has documented the property in the inventory of one of their cultural heritage institutions^[5].

The CCPIA also established the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) which investigates requests for bilateral or multilateral agreements made by State Parties and makes recommendations to the President. The CPAC is comprised of eleven Presidential-appointed members, two to represent museum interests, three who are experts in archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, or the like, three who are experts in international sales of cultural property and three to represent the general public’s interests.^[6]

The CCPIA has been in the news frequently in the latter half of 2024. On July 26, 2024, the U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti and Secretary of the Indian Ministry of Culture, Govind Mohan, signed a Cultural Property Agreement between the United States and India.^[7] For more on the significance and background of this agreement, read this article by the Center for Art Law’s Director of Legal Research, Atreya Mathur.^[8] On September 10, 2024, the United States issued a final rule resulting in emergency import restrictions on certain categories of Ukrainian cultural property, after the Ukrainian Government requested such restrictions in compliance with emergency actions under the CCPIA on March 5, 2024.^[9] Most recently, on September 24^th and 25^th , the CPAC held meetings to review new requests for import restrictions on cultural property coming from Lebanon and Mongolia and the extension of the United State’s cultural property agreement with El Salvador.^[10]

Background

Lebanon

The Republic of Lebanon, a founding member of the League of Arab states and a member of the UN, borders Syria, Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea.^[11] Lebanon’s January 2024 request for cultural property protection included provisions for the protection of archaeological material from the Paleolithic period and ethnological material dating from the 17^th century to present day.^[12] Greater detail on the list of materials covered in Lebanon’s request can be found here. Lebanon is part of the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, a dense area of antiquities trade source nations, which through presence on trade routes, proximity and involvement in armed conflict, and their long and rich histories make them susceptible to antiquities trafficking.^[13] For example, in September 2023, New York law enforcement and federal authorities returned twelve looted antiquities, valued at around nine million dollars.^[14]

Mongolia

Mongolia is a landlocked nation bordering Russia and China. Mongolia has had a lengthy history from its origins governed by nomadic empires dating back to the 4^th century B.C.E. to its transition to independent democracy in the late twentieth century.^[15] In 2024, Mongolia, for the first time, requested cultural property protection for cultural artifacts, archaeological material, and a wide array of ethnological materials.^[16] Greater detail on the list of materials covered in Mongolia’s request can be found here. In Mongolia, climate change has made cultural property more susceptible, literally, by exposing it and making it more discoverable, and through changes to the agrarian economy, which have driven people towards looting as a means to supplement income. ^[17] As a response to this and Mongolia’s increasing involvement on a global stage^[18], in August 2019, Mongolia hosted a multi day workshop on combating illicit cultural property trafficking featuring visits to some of Mongolia’s historic sites to discuss how to best protect the nation’s rich cultural and historic heritage.^[19]

El Salvador

El Salvador is the smallest and most densely populated nation in Central America, and shares borders with Guatemala and Honduras.^[20] The United States first entered into a bilateral agreement with El Salvador in March 1995, and the agreement has already been extended five times.^[21] In 2020, the agreement was amended and extended to include additional categories of ethnological material.^[22] El Salvador’s request for an extension would permit continued protections for archaeological material ranging from 8000 B.C.E to 1550 A.D. and ethnological material from the Colonial period (1500s) to the mid-twentieth century. ^[23] El Salvador’s current MOU has produced the successful return of looted artifacts to El Salvador; recently, in February 2024, the Department of Homeland Security coordinated the return of thirteen pre-Columbian clay and stone artifacts caught in route to Illinois.^[24]

September 2024 CPAC Review

A July 22, 2024, post by the U.S. Department of State’s Home Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announced the September 24-25 CPAC meeting, noting that public written comments were welcome before September 16, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. EDT, and that public members could register to speak at the September 24^th virtual open session.^[25] The public was directed to make comments with a focus on the four factors the CCPIA calls into consideration when evaluating the need and appropriateness of bilateral/multilateral agreements.^[26]

1. Is the cultural patrimony of the State Party in jeopardy from the pillage of its archaeological or ethnological materials?
2. Has the State Party taken measures in light of the 1970 UNESCO Convention to appropriately safeguard its cultural patrimony?
3. Are Less drastic remedies not available, and would import restrictions, if applied, be of substantial benefit in deterring the loss of cultural patrimony?
4. Would Import restrictions be consistent with the general interest of the international community in the “interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purpose”?^[27]

Public Comments Analyzed

Public comments on the proposed agreements with Mongolia and Lebanon and extension of El Salvador’s MOU took place as advertised on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. EST.^[28] The Zoom call hosted by members of the CPAC, largely focused on public feedback related to the proposed agreement with Lebanon, and members were presented with the considerable risk to Lebanon’s cultural heritage due to its proximity to ongoing global conflicts and the market demand for MENA region antiquities, and the Republic of Lebanon’s relationship with Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and paramilitary group.^[29] In 1997, the United States designated Hezbollah a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, and in 2013 the EU, after much deliberation, designated Hezbollah’s armed wing a terrorist organization.^[30] The weighing of these factors played a similarly significant role in the written public comments as well.

In total sixty written public comments were submitted during the window advertised in the State Department’s public notice.^[31] Of the comments submitted, one was blank, and while many featured portions that were copy and pasted, several were exact duplicates.^[32] Thirty seven out of the fifty-four distinct comments opposed one or all of the agreements, and one blanket no was premised in large part out of the accusation the Department of State’s notice was insufficient and thus the process invalid, where only vague information about the nature of the import restrictions being considered were provided in the August 15,2024 publication of the Federal Register.^[33]

Overall, the largest concern indicated was the inclusion of coins in Mongolia and Lebanon’s requests. Various groups took issue with treating a moveable mechanism of commerce as cultural heritage or cultural heritage that could be isolated to ownership by the these two states solely or specifically; this issue was so significant for some it was the sole reason they refused to support the agreement and even suggested if the coin protections were removed they would reconsider the requests submitted.^[34] There was only one comment written as a blanket support for all three agreements, and almost all yes comments focused on the support of one specific agreement. Academics, archaeologists, and art market professionals, independently and on behalf of professional organizations, submitted comments.^[35]

Lebanon

Seven of the thirty-seven comments opposing agreements were Lebanon specific and asked CPAC to deny Lebanon’s request for an agreement. While two solely took concern with the role Hezbollah plays in the current Lebanese political landscape, the other “no” comments also contained concerns over the inclusion of coins. The eight comments submitted exclusively in support of the proposed agreement with Lebanon touched on concerns for preservation and protection of human history that is particularly rich in the MENA region, the economic development opportunities for Lebanon related to the preservation and sharing of its cultural resources, and the opportunity to proactively limit a flood of cultural property onto the international market.

Mongolia

Two unique comments were submitted solely to express their wish that Mongolia’s request be rejected. One comment focused its argument on the notion that few “true” Mongolian coins can lawfully be designated because they fail to meet the definition of archaeological or ethnological as defined by the CCPIA. The other focused on the lack of museum exchange agreements Mongolia had with other countries and argued that Mongolia had not demonstrated there was an illegal market for their cultural heritage. In contrast, seven comments were submitted explicitly to support the Mongolia agreement noting the country has struggled with a new and growing illicit market for their cultural property. Comments were submitted by researchers and archaeologists who shared their personal experience witnessing looting and the precariousness of cultural sites in Mongolia, and many noted the Mongolian government has taken recent actions to more seriously enforce protections for their cultural heritage. The current geopolitical tensions in Russia and China were noted as sources of potential future issues that could affect Mongolia’s economy and its ability to safeguard its cultural heritage.

El Salvador

Three comments were submitted specifically in support for the El Salvador renewal. These comments focused on individual’s experience working in El Salvador’s cultural sites, the ongoing risks to these sites, and the market for pre-Columbian antiquities. Furthermore, one comment took no stance and merely expressed frustration about collaborating with the government of El Salvador on archaeological projects. Only one comment was submitted specifically to argue that the agreement should not be renewed; it focused specifically on the exclusion of Spanish Colonial and Salvadorian coins. El Salvador requested a renewal, not an amendment, and coins were not part of the proceeding agreements; nevertheless, a duplicate of this comment was also submitted. More relevantly, a comment submitted against the agreement with Lebanon and El Salvador’s renewal, argued that El Salvador’s agreement should not be renewed because after decades of agreements El Salvador had not demonstrated that the illicit trafficking dilemma had been improved.

Conclusion

Since the September 24^th virtual open session and oral comment hearing, there have been no additional updates on the status of the proposed agreements with Lebanon or Mongolia, or the renewal of El Salvador’s agreement. Coins played prominently in the public’s consideration of the proposed agreements despite not always being applicable to

the agreement being commented on. One particularly pervasive duplicated comment took issue with the agreements because Lebanon, Mongolia, and El Salvador were all historically part of other empires and therefore lacked the ability to declare cultural property as explicitly their own. While many expect El Salvador’s agreement will be renewed for a sixth time, it remains to be seen where the line will be drawn on Lebanon, which faces multiple internal and external threats to its cultural heritage. While Mongolia’s agreement found support among researchers, academics, and archaeologists with firsthand knowledge of the risks, it remains to be seen if Mongolia will be found to have sufficiently engaged with State Parties or developed internal policies and safeguards to prevent heritage loss to bring about an agreement with the United States.

Recent Updates

The UNESCO’s Special Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property held a special meeting on November 18th to review the intensifying threat to Lebanese cultural heritage as a result of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflicts.^[36] The day before the hearing, several hundred cultural property experts spoke out calling on UNESCO to safeguard Lebanon’s heritage in light of Israeli air strikes.^[37] As a result of these recent developments, thirty four sites in Lebanon have been granted provisional enhanced protection and called on UNESCO Member States to support efforts to preserve Lebanese cultural heritage through financial contributions.^[38]

About the Author

Emily Finch (Center for Art Law Legal Intern, Fall 2024) is a Honors JD/Entertainment, Art, and Sports Law LLM at the University of Miami on the Art Law Track. Emily holds a BA from Kalamazoo and her MSI and Graduate Certificate in Museum Studies from the University of Michigan. She has training and experience as a librarian/archivist and looks forward to building an interdisciplinary career at the intersection of information, law, policy, and cultural heritage management.

Bibliography:

1. UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Nov. 14, 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231, 10 I.L.M. 289 (1971). ↑
2. 19 U.S.C. § 2601. ↑
3. 19 U.S.C. § 2602. ↑
4. 19 U.S.C. § 2603. ↑
5. 19 U.S.C. § 2607. ↑
6. 19 U.S.C. § 2605. ↑
7. U.S. and India Sign Cultural Property Agreement, U.S. Embassy & Consulates in India (July 26, 2024), https://in.usembassy.gov/u-s-and-india-sign-cultural-property-agreement/. ↑
8. Atreya Mathur, Reclaiming the Past: An Overview of the U.S-India Cultural Property Agreement Center for Art Law (Sep. 25, 2024), https://itsartlaw.org/2024/09/25/reclaiming-the-past-an-overview-of-the-u-s-india-cultural-property-agreement/. ↑
9. Emergency Import Restrictions Imposed on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Ukraine, 89 Fed. Reg. 73280 (Sept. 10, 2024). ↑
10. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024, U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, (July 22, 2024), https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24. ↑
11. The Country of Lebanon, The Embassy of Lebanon, https://www.lebanonembassyus.org/the-country-of-lebanon/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2024). ↑
12. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024, U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, (July 22, 2024), https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24. ↑
13. Elle Greaves, The Roaring Trade of Illicit Antiquities, Young Diplomats Society (Oct. 3, 2021), https://www.theyoungdiplomats.com/post/the-roaring-trade-of-illicit-antiquities. ↑
14. Tom Mashberg, A Dozen Looted Artifacts Are Returned to Lebanon, The New York Times (Sept. 7, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/arts/looted-artifacts-lebanon.html. ↑
15. Mongolia, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/mongolia/ (last updated Oct. 29, 2024). ↑
16. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024, U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, (July 22, 2024), https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24. ↑
17. Julia Kate Clark, As Mongolia Melts, Looters Close In On Priceless Artifacts, Smithsonian Magazine (Apr. 11, 2018), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/mongolia-melts-climate-change-looters-close-in-180968764/. ↑
18. Mongolia Advances to Prevent Crimes and Offenses against Cultural Property, UNESCO (Apr. 14, 2023), https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/mongolia-advances-prevent-crimes-and-offenses-against-cultural-property. . ↑
19. https://www.osce.org/secretariat/428906 ↑
20. Mongolia, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/el-salvador (last updated Oct. 28, 2024). ↑
21. Current Agreements and Import Restrictions, U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions (last visited Oct. 7, 2024). ↑
22. Id. ↑
23. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024, U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, (July 22, 2024), https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24. ↑
24. 1,700-Year-Old Artifacts Illegally Headed to Illinois Head Back to El Salvador, CBS Chicago

    (Feb. 2, 2024 7:18 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/1700-year-old-artifactsel-salvador/. ↑

25. Id. ↑
26. Id. ↑
27. 19 U.S.C. § 2602. ↑
28. Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024,U.S. Dep’t of State Bureau of Educ. and Cultural Aff.’s, (July 22, 2024), https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24. ↑
29. What Is Hezbollah?, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hezbollah (last updated Oct. 29, 2024). ↑
30. Id. ↑
31. Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.: Cultural Property Advisory Committee: DOS-2024-0028, Regulations.gov, https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0028-0001 (last visited Oct. 27, 2024). ↑
32. Id. ↑
33. Cultural Property Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting, 89 Fed. Reg. 66483 (Aug. 15, 2024);

    Notice of Receipt of Request From the Government of Mongolia Under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 89 Fed. Reg. 66483 (Aug. 15, 2024); Notice of Receipt of Request From the Government of the Republic of Lebanon Under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 89 Fed. Reg. 66484 (Aug. 15, 2024); Proposal To Extend the Cultural Property Agreement Between the United States and El Salvador, 89 Fed. Reg. 66484 (Aug. 15, 2024). ↑

34. Id. ↑
35. Id. ↑
36. Tessa Solomon, UNESCO Calls Emergency Session for Lebanese Heritage Sites Imperiled by Israeli Bombing, ARTnews (Nov. 7, 2024, 12:49 PM) ARTnews, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/unesco-emergency-session-lebanese-heritage-sites-israeli-bombing-1234723322/. ↑
37. RFI, “UNESCO petitioned to save Lebanon’s heritage sites from Israeli strikes,” RFI (Nov. 17, 2024), https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20241117-unesco-petitioned-to-save-lebanon-s-heritage-from-israeli-strikes/. ↑
38. Audrey Azoulay, Lebanon: 34 Cultural Properties Placed Under Enhanced Protection,UNESCO (Nov. 18, 2024), https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/lebanon-34-cultural-properties-placed-under-enhanced-protection. ↑