Moving towards an integrated approach to fight against illicit trafficking of cultural heritage for the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao

ABSTRACT

The problems surrounding the loss and illegal trafficking of Chinese cultural heritage have intensified in recent times due to an increasing demand for Chinese cultural heritage and huge profits to be gained in the art market. While the Chinese mainland government has taken active measures to protect cultural heritage and combat the illegal trafficking of cultural heritage, two special administrative regions of China, Hong Kong and Macao, have not only failed to take similar measures, but have also functioned as key transit locations for the illicit trafficking of Chinese cultural heritage over the past three decades. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the laws related to cultural heritage between the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macao. This paper argues that, while differences exist in these places, these differences should not be an obstacle to taking an integrated approach to cultural heritage in the region. There is a practical need for an integrated approach given the shared initiative of heritage protection and art market regulation. This paper argues that an integrated approach to cultural heritage is possible and should be pursued.

KEYWORDS:

• China
• cultural heritage
• an integrated approach
• illicit trafficking
• the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Pursuant to the national policy of ‘one country, two systems’, this paper will use the term China when referring to the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese central government, and use the term Chinese mainland or the mainland when discussing the specific law applied within the jurisdiction of the mainland, or when comparing the mainland with Macao and Hong Kong.

This paper will use cultural heritage in most of its context, unless the specific context adopts a different term. For example, the term of cultural relics is commonly used in legal instruments on the mainland; antiquities and monuments are used in Hong Kong’s legislation concerning heritage protection; and cultural objects or cultural goods are often the used in European Union’s legislation.

2. Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics, Article 5 and Chapter 6.

3. To be accurate, Kowloon peninsula was ceded in 1860 and the new territories leased in 1898.

4. For example, the Guangdong-Macao Cooperation Framework Agreement published in 2011 was aimed to promote closer cooperation between Macao and the Guangdong Province, and the development of scientific research and the diversified development of Macao’s economy.

5. For example, the British Museum’s acquisitions policy provides that it will normally only purchase and accept those heritage objects that have documentation to show a legal history back to 14 November 1970.

6. For example, after leading US museums, such as the Getty Museum, were found buying and accepting stolen cultural heritage from Italy and Greece in 2006, the museums’ reputations were seriously destroyed and resulted in an increasing intolerance of illicit trafficking of cultural heritage (Glaister 2006).

7. 25 EU Member States ratified the UNESCO Convention; however, this Convention does not have a direct impact on the signatories, but relies on national laws to implement it. For the UNIDROIT Convention, only 16 EU Member States ratified the Convention, which is largely due to the inconsistencies between the legal rules of Member States and the Convention.

8. Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/200310 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/201211 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

9. For example, Germany and France require an export certificate from the country of origin to allow the entry of cultural goods into their territory, whereas Austria and the Netherlands prohibit the import of cultural goods illegally exported from their countries of origin.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Social Science Fund of Fujian Province under the Grant number [FJ2022JDZ010].

Notes on contributors

Hui Zhong

Hui Zhong, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the School of Law, Xiamen University, China. Her research interest includes cultural heritage law, law of the sea and dispute settlement.