State Immunity and Cultural Objects on Loan.

State Immunity and Cultural Objects on Loan; Copyright page; Table of Contents; Foreword; Chapter 1: Introduction; 1.1: Preface; 1.2: What is immunity from seizure?; 1.3: Why would immunity from seizure be necessary?; 1.4: Approaches to granting immunity from seizure; 1.5: What are cultural objects?; 1.6: Cultural objects as good will ambassadors?; 1.7: What is a State?; 1.8: International agreements related to international cultural cooperation and immunity from seizure; 1.9: Method and structure of this study; Chapter 2: The notion of customary international law.

2.1: Custom as a source of international law2.2: State practice and opinio juris; 2.3: Duration of the practice; 2.4: Uniformity of the practice; 2.5: Practice accepted as law: opinio juris; 2.6: Dissenting States; 2.7: In conclusion; Chapter 3: State immunity and cultural objects; 3.1: Immunity from jurisdiction; from absolute to restrictive immunity; 3.2: Immunity from measures of constraint; 3.3: 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property; 3.3.1: General introduction; 3.3.2: Commercial transactions and international art loans; 3.3.3: State enterprises.

3.3.4: Immunity from measures of constraint3.4: European Convention on State Immunity; 3.5: Inter-American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States; 3.6: Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee; 3.7: Draft Convention on State Immunity by the International Law Association; 3.8: Institute of International Law; 3.9: In conclusion; Chapter 4: Situation in the United States of America; 4.1: State immunity: situation in the United States of America; 4.1.1: General approach of the United States in respect of State immunity; 4.1.2: State immunity under the FSIA.

4.1.3: Retroactive application: Republic of Austria v. Altmann4.1.4: The 'commercial exception': Westfield v. Federal Republic of Germany; 4.1.5: The 'takings exception': Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain; 4.1.6: Once more the 'takings exception': Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation et al.; 4.1.7: One more time the 'takings exception': Orkin v. Switzerland; 4.1.8: The 'commercial exception' and the 'takings exception' combined: the Herzog case; 4.2: Immunity from measures of constraint for State property; 4.2.1: Sections 1609-1611 of the FSIA.

4.2.2: Seizure attempts in practice: Rubin v. the Islamic Republic of Iran4.3: Special legislation involving immunity from seizure for cultural objects; 4.3.1: Federal immunity from seizure legislation; 4.3.2: Immunity from seizure legislation in the State of New York; 4.4: Case law with regard to immunity from seizure legislation; 4.4.1: Romanov v. The Florida International Museum Inc.; 4.4.2: Magness v. Russian Federation; 4.4.3: Delocque-Fourcaud v. Los Angeles County Museum of Art; 4.4.4: Deutsch v. Metropolitan Museum of Art; 4.4.5: Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam.

4.4.6: Berckheyde painting The Golden Bend in the Herengracht in Amsterdam.

This study examines whether there is any rule of (customary) international law stipulating that cultural objects belonging to foreign States that are on loan for temporary exhibition are immune from seizure, or whether such a rule is emerging.

Print version record.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide