Page 170 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

Indiana Jones and the Illicit Trafficking and Repatriation… 161

states‘ duties and responsibilities/ delimitation of communities‘ protected
interests, buyers‘ duties and responsibilities, sellers‘ duties and responsibilities
and standing to invoke property rights in cultural property [Audi, p. 137].
Although Audi does not explicitly make this connection, he laid the
foundation for exposing the all-pervasive divide in the community affected by
and the legal research into the broader debate concerning the illicit trafficking
and repatriation of cultural objects between cultural internationalism and
nationalism as it is then possible to place the argument bites and so the clusters
he identifies into the even broader overarching categories of these ideologies.
Specifically, each of Audi‘s argument-bites within the five groups he identifies
can be viewed as either a bow in the quiver of cultural internationalism or
cultural nationalism. For example, one competence argument-bite pair
(identified by square brackets) is that ―[s]ource nation patrimony law should
not be enforced in domestic (market country) courts because they are against
public policy versus [s]ource national patrimony laws establish ownership and
we must honor ownership as defined by the state in question out of deference,
comity, or public policy‖ [Audi, p. 134], respectively reflects a cultural
internationalist and cultural nationalist argument. A moral argument pair is
that ―[c]ultural property should be considered the inalienable (non-
transferable) property of states versus [c]ultural property is like any other
(freely transferable)‖ [Audi, p. 134]. Again, the former represents a cultural
internationalist view and the latter a cultural nationalist view. Similarly,
cultural nationalist and internationalist perspectives are reflected respectively
in rights argument pairs such as ―[s]tates (or social groups) have the right to
own their cultural property before other claimants versus [o]ther entities
(museums, collectors, etc.) have the right to own cultural property if they
wish‖ [Audi, p. 135]. As regards administrability, the argument-bite that
―[t]his regulation is so restrictive that it encourages the black market versus [i]t
is a state‘s duty to protect its own cultural property through restrictive
regulations‖ [Audi, p. 135] again respectively reflects cultural internationalism
and cultural nationalism.
Finally, a historical argument-bite pair that ―[t]he state or group claiming
the title to this cultural property in fact has no historical claim to the property
because so much time has elapsed versus [t]he state or group claiming the title
has a historical claim for a fact-specific reason‖ [Audi, 2007, p. 136] also
correspondingly display cultural internationalist and nationalist perspectives.
To the extent that these argument-bites are then placed within clusters, these
clusters then show differing perspectives. Though Audi does not explicitly
name these ideologies, he concludes through a legal semiotic analysis of