VZCZCXRO2703
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHRN RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHFR #1676 3441501
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 101501Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS PARIS FR 001676 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC UNESCO
SUBJECT: MEETING OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE 
FOR PROMOTING THE RETURN OF CULTURAL PROPERTY TO ITS COUNTRY OF 
ORIGIN OR ITS RESTITUTION IN CASE OF ILLICIT APPROPRIATION 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY.  The Subcommittee of the Inter-governmental Committee 
for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Country of 
Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation 
(Subcommittee) (ICPRCP) met at UNESCO Headquarters, November 18-20, 
to negotiate draft rules of mediation and conciliation.  Under the 
Chairmanship of the Greek delegate, an experienced international 
lawyer, the Subcommittee reached agreement on most of the rules. 
The major outstanding issue concerns whether participation in the 
proposed mediation and conciliation procedure should be limited to 
member states. This question will be before the Inter-governmental 
Committee when it meets in 2010.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  At its meeting in May 2009, the Inter-governmental Committee for 
Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Country of Origin 
or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (Committee) 
decided to constitute a subcommittee to continue inter-sessional 
discussion on the draft text of "Rules of Procedure on Mediation and 
Conciliation".  The Committee had adopted the first three of eleven 
draft rules.  The Subcommittee (Argentina, Burkina Faso, China, 
Greece, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Libya, Mexico, 
Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, U.S.) was chaired by 
the Greek delegate, Konstantine Oikonomides. 
 
¶3.  The Subcommittee was able to reconcile differing views on the 
operational aspects of the rules.  Among those issues, only the 
question of whether the UNESCO Director General would have a role in 
appointing mediators or conciliators when the parties cannot agree, 
remains open (Art.7,para 2). On this point, the Subcommittee agreed 
that further consultation would be needed. 
 
¶4.  With regard to the central issue of scope, however, no agreement 
was possible.  The Italian delegation came to the meeting with new 
proposals for Article 4 of the draft rules. The Italians, who 
dominated the discussion, argued that public and private 
institutions and even individuals could be parties, if they are in 
possession of cultural property, are not represented by a state and 
the procedure is initiated by a state (Art.4, para 2bis).  Korea, 
Mexico and Romania supported the Italian proposal.  Others (Canada, 
U.S., Japan, Argentina) expressed reservations about expanding the 
scope to include institutions and individuals when other processes 
were available to them such as the International Council of Museums. 
 They also argued that the procedure could clash with domestic 
processes and could politicize the case.  In the clear absence of 
agreement, the Subcommittee decided to send draft Article 4, para 1 
and 2bis to the Committee. 
 
¶5.  The Committee is expected to meet in May or June of 2010.  It 
will have before it the first three articles which it adopted in May 
2009 as well as Articles 4 through 11 which the Subcommittee 
discussed at this session. (Text sent to ECA/P, MPKouroupas) Since 
agreement was reached on those articles, except as herein noted, the 
Committee will concentrate on Article 4 (scope). 
 
¶6.  COMMENT.  Department may want to consider targeted approaches to 
other committee members to gain support for the position that the 
process should be confined to states. The Department may also wish 
to consider whether proposed Article 4 para 2bis contravenes the 
UNESCO Constitution(Article I para 3): "With a view to preserving 
the independence, integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures 
and educational systems of the states members of this Organization, 
the Organization is prohibited from intervening in matters which are 
essentially within their domestic jurisdiction." END COMMENT. 
 
KILLION