Thursday, 6 February 2020 from 18:00 to 20:00, Kings College London, a panel discussion: "Who owns history" with Geoffrey Robertson QC,  plus Professor Edith Hall, Department of Classics, King's College London and Professor John Tasioulas, Director of the Yeoh Tiong Lay Centre for Politics, Philosophy and Law, King's College London, Chaired by Professor Philippa Webb, Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London

Event was held at:

SW1.18, Somerset House East Wing
The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

The panel featured a discussion of Geoffrey Robertson's recently published book, "Who Owns History? Elgin's Loot and the Case for Returning Plundered Treasure".

The biggest question in the world of art and culture concerns the return of property taken without consent. Throughout history, conquerors or colonial masters have taken artefacts from subjugated peoples, who now want them returned from museums and private collections in Europe and the USA.

The controversy rages on over the Elgin Marbles, and has been given immediacy by figures such as France's President Macron, who says he will order French museums to return hundreds of artworks acquired by force or fraud in Africa, and by British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has pledged that a Labour government would return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. Elsewhere, there is a debate in Belgium about whether the Africa Museum, newly opened with 120,000 items acquired mainly by armed forces in the Congo, should close.

Although there is an international convention dated 1970 that deals with the restoration of artefacts stolen since that time, there is no agreement on the rules of law or ethics which should govern the fate of objects forcefully or lawlessly acquired in previous centuries.

Who Owns History? delves into the crucial debate over the Elgin Marbles, but also offers a system for the return of cultural property based on human rights law principles that are being developed by the courts. It is not a legal text, but rather an examination of how the past can be experienced by everyone, as well as by the people of the country of origin.

Follow the link to read Professor John Tasioulas' paper in response to Geoffrey Robertson's 'Who Owns History' panel discussion at Kings College London.

In a new article, published by the widely-read centre-right news and comment website ConservativeHome, committee member and political philosopher Dr Rebecca Lowe sets out a moral argument and an aesthetic argument for the return of the sculptures, in the hope of appealing specifically to those of a conservative disposition. The first of these arguments focuses on why democrats should respect "the importance of the marbles to Greece”. The second argument focuses on the aesthetic costs of the separation of the sculptures, and the way in which, as parts of an art object, they “belong together, as well as with the rest of the building”.

To read the full article, click the link here.

Dr Lowe concludes: "if you claim to support democracy, respect for the kind of attachment or belonging that derives from the ‘individuated nature of nations’, or even just the value of tradition, then ask yourself: why Britain, and not Greece?”.

For more information on this event please also visit the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sport.

23 October 2013 , Athens, Greece 

Eddie O’ Hara, Chairman of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS ON

THE RETURN OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

OLYMPIA 23-27 OCTOBER 2013

THE CASE FOR THE REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES

I am fortunate today to have available to me the best possible of visual aids to support the case which I shall put before you.  We are sitting in a museum, past winner of the Museum of the Year Award, the principal display of which is the very subject which I shall be presenting.  We also sit within sight of that subject, the Parthenon, whose surviving sculptural components – not adornments – components, are at issue.

THE PARTHENON MARBLES, known also as The Parthenon Sculptures, formerly but I am pleased to say no longer The Elgin Marbles, are the subject of one of the oldest and most passionate disputes over the return of cultural property.

THE BRITISH COMMITTEE FOR THE REUNIFICATION OF THE PARTHENON MARBLES has been campaigning for thirty years in support of the reunification of these marbles.  I pay tribute to Eleni Cubittand her late husband James for their inspiration and initiative in establishing the committee, and the many distinguished academics, many now deceased, who have served the committee over that time.  Over the years similar groups have been established in other countries.  Now there are nearly 17 organisations on four continents, most of them affiliated to the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS). 

I must first present the background to the dispute.  This will be simply factual and descriptive – and brief.  It will not include analysis of the artistic merits of the Parthenon and its sculptures.  It will necessarily skate over some scholarly details.  I apologise for this to those with much knowledge of the subject if this is superficial.  My purpose is to spend as much of my time as possible on the dispute over reunification of the Parthenon Marbles.