ELECTION 2016: Breaking Down Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

By Nick Laneville

November 1, 2016

Throughout his campaign to be the next President of the United States, Donald Trump has expressed a range of views on foreign policy.  Issues that have been particularly pronounced in his rhetoric in this area are those of collective security, immigration, and trade.  This blog post will attempt to explain his positions on those issues, and, where possible, envisage the outcomes of his policy decisions if they were to be enacted.

Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Iowa.  Photo Courtesy of DonaldJTrump.com.
Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Iowa. Photo Courtesy of DonaldJTrump.com.

Collective security

Donald Trump has expressed serious discontent with the manner in which the United States and its allies orchestrate collective security.  Particularly, he takes issue with the way in which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is run.  He contends that the United States pays far more than its share while other members unfairly enjoy the fruits of the United States acting as the “policemen of the world.”  In the first presidential debate, he noted that the United States “pay[s] approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO,” and he submits further that too few of the 28 member states spend the requisite 2% of GDP on defense.

His position is that “[t]he countries [that the United States is] defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”  The removal of U.S. support from nations that are allegedly not paying their share could indeed incentivize them to change course and begin upholding their obligation to spend on defense.  However, such removal could mean a bleak and short future for NATO.  If the United States, as the strongest military power in NATO, refuses to honor its obligation under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty which essentially commits it and all of the other members to collective self-defense should an armed conflict break out, then the credibility and force of the Organization will take a serious hit.  The looming threat of an expansionist Russia, bordered by small (and in this hypothetical scenario, former) unprotected NATO members such as Estonia, could indeed lead to some tense diplomatic situations if collective security is disrupted.

Immigration

The full extent of Donald Trump’s immigration plan is beyond the scope of this post, but certain aspects of his plan do have effects on foreign policy, so those are addressed here.  Perhaps the flagship policy of Donald Trump’s campaign has been “The Wall” that he intends to build along the southern boarder of the United States, and, unsurprisingly, this is likely the policy that would have the greatest impact on foreign relations and policy.

Particularly, the means by which Trump intends to pressure Mexico into paying for the wall may have an impact on United States-Mexican relations (and others).  To that end, he has suggested the promulgation of a proposed rule under the Patriot Act which would limit the ability of Mexicans to transfer funds to Mexico from the United States.  The rule would require aliens wishing to wire money outside of the United States to affirmatively prove by relevant documentation that they are in the United States legally.  Because Mexico receives, approximately $24 billion USD per year in remittances from Mexican nationals living abroad, “the majority of that amount com[ing] from illegal aliens,” Mexico will want to avoid the enactment of this rule which would curb the flow of these remittances.  The United States will then offer to not enact the rule in exchange for Mexico paying the $5-$10 billion USD to build the wall.

This plan is a difficult one to square with law as it stands in the United States.  First, Trump’s proposed interpretation of the text of the Patriot Act would likely be subject to controversy and litigation.  His proposal necessitates an expansion of the definition of the term “account” in the Patriot Act to include wire transfers, while the text expressly carves wire transfers out of that definition, holding that “Account does not include: (A) A product or service where a formal banking relationship is not established with a person, such as check cashing[ or] wire transfer[.]”  Expanding that definition would likely require legislative action, which would, at the very least, delay this program.

Secondly, the impact of forcing aliens to prove that they are in the United States legally before they can transfer money abroad will not only impact Mexicans and Mexico.  The proposed ruling will impact all aliens wishing to transfer funds, which could have a dilatory and negative impact on individuals and businesses that operate in the United States, but do not have United States citizenship.

Trade

Trump has stated that China is one of the United States’ primary adversaries in trade, frequently accusing it of unfair trade practices which harm domestic markets and industries.  He has suggested that a means by which to change the dynamic of the United States’ trade relationship with China would be to impose (or at least threaten to impose) steep tariffs on China.  This, however, would not be a tenable approach as it is a clear violation of Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”).  He has also suggested that China is unfairly subsidizing its exports to the United States and dumping goods, which could be grounds for the legal imposition of higher tariffs on Chinese products assuming a finding by the relevant agencies that China is either engaging in unfair trade practices or that its actions are causing injury to the domestic market.

An alternative route that Mr. Trump has proposed is to pull out of the World Trade Organization altogether.  While this would permit him to raise tariffs on China, this would also have some other rather catastrophic effects on American and global trade.  It would mean a rescission of the covered agreements and all of the benefits that accompany those including the low tariffs that the United States benefits from through the GATT and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.  It would require a renegotiation of tariff levels through free trade agreements with all of the members of the WTO whom the United States does not already have agreements with, and even some of the nations with whom it does have agreements.  Extracting the United States from the World Trade Organization would be like the Brexit, but far more complex and with fewer benefits.

Donald Trump has consistently disparaged the trade agreements that the United States is party to, and has said that he will change the commitments that the United States has made under those.  What is unclear is how, and to what extent he intends to do that.  In Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on October 22, he proclaimed that every single United States trade agreement will be unwound if he is President, but again, it is unclear to what extent those will be “unwound.”  A complete overhaul of all trade agreements would be quite an undertaking, and its outcome would be impossible to determine at this juncture.

(Nick Laneville is the Senior Articles Editor for Volume 32 of the American University International Law Review.)

 

Advertisements

ELECTION 2016: Breaking Down Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy

By Ayat Mujais  (@Ayat_Mujais)

October 31, 2016

Numerous individuals, and much of the media, call Hillary Clinton a foreign policy “hawk.”  In general, Clinton often supports the use force along with using diplomacy and negotiation tactics, often called “shillary-clinton-secretary-of-state-portraitmart power.”  She has a record of endorsing new wars, and can be seen as confrontational or an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy issues.  She has a wealth of knowledge from her background as a Senator and as Secretary of State, which many say may assist the US in being more successful in global conflicts.  But what are the specifics of her foreign policy? How will her policies affect international relations?  These are important questions that this post will address.

China

Clinton’s policy on China is split – she is tough in most her policy stances, yet still wants to increase cooperation with the Chinese. In terms of positive policies, Clinton is poised to continue President Obama’s “pivot” to Asia.  Clinton wants to reinforce US allies in Asia-Pacific and increase cooperation in common interest areas.  However, Clinton has a long record of rhetoric against China that has caused tensions with Chinese officials.  She has a strong and critical stance against China’s human rights record, which she has often spoke openly about, to the frustration of Chinese officials.  Moreover, she is against China’s push into the South China Sea, and has called for increased deterrence against Chinese cyber-attacks.

Secretary Clinton’s policy on China will certainly affect US-Chinese international relations.  Some experts have said that Clinton needs to be “cautious and pragmatic” in her approach, since China is critical for the economy and world order in general.  Her policy on speaking out against China’s human right’s record and push into the South China Sea have already raised tensions among Chinese officials.  The Chinese view Clinton as an interference in their goals towards the South China Sea and other geopolitical aspirations.  Clinton has stated that although dynamics between the US and China are challenging, she believes they are positive.  It is yet to be seen if her foreign policy will continue that positive relationship, or create problems down the road, although many think that relations will become turbulent.

The Middle East

            Islamic State in the Levant

Secretary Clinton has a three-part strategy to combating terrorism, particularly against ISIL.  First, she wants to defeat ISIL in the Middle East, specifically in Syria and Iraq.  Second, she wants to dismantle the infrastructure that provides and facilitates a flow of fighters, arms, and propaganda to terrorist groups.  Finally, she wants to increase US and US Allies’ defenses against external and homegrown terrorist threats.

In regards to ISIL, Clinton plans to fight them with the aid of a coalition of other Western and Arab states, establish a no fly zone and refugee exclusion zone over parts of Syria, and strengthen Arab fighters on the ground.  In tandem with conducting more US air strikes and the limited use of armed drone strikes, Clinton thinks it is critical to support and arm Sunni and Kurdish fighters already in Syria to build local capacity.  Her policy also includes strengthening intelligence through close regional partnerships to stop the flow of foreign fighters.  Finally, Clinton believes the US needs to play a bigger role in resolving the humanitarian crisis.

Many believe that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will have a more active role in the Middle East and increase the potential for interventions.  This seems apparent from Clinton’s push to Congress to update the Authorization to Use Military Force. What can be called her “militaristic” positions are concerning for other states.  Her policy may also heighten tensions between the US and Russia and the US and Iran, particularly her position on establishing a no fly zone in Syria.  Some experts have stated that her decision making is “flawed,” mainly because of her commitment to intervention and to changing regimes or political processes in the Middle East.

            Iran

Hillary Clinton has a strict policy towards Iran.  Her policy includes imposing sanctions on Iran for failure to comply, as Iran continues violating UN Security Council resolutions through their testing of ballistic missiles.  Clinton wants Iran to abide by the multinational nuclear deal that was established, which she supported.  She also wants to increase the costs on Iran for its “destabilizing behaviors” throughout the Middle East.  Particularly, Clinton wants to counter Iran’s influence over groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

Although US-Iranian relations have been normalizing as of late, there are still many issues between the two nations, not only ideologically but with policies regarding Syria and Yemen.  Many hope that the recent dialogues and engagement between the two nations will continue, which seems most likely under a Clinton administration, although perhaps not as much as some would like.  Clinton has stated that she is willing to take military action if Iran breaks from the nuclear deal, which certainly does not sit well with Iranian officials.  US-Iranian relations will depend on how much cooperation and dialogue Clinton will pursue as president.

            Israel  

Similar to most US Presidents, Secretary Clinton has been friendly with Israel throughout her political career.  Clinton’s foreign policy towards Israel is to maintain Israel’s military superiority in the region.  She wants to remain a partner with Israel in terms of joint efforts in the region, including intelligence.  In general, Clinton wants to reaffirm her bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should she become president.

This policy will likely strengthen international relations between the US and Israel.  A poll shows that 68% of Israelis view Clinton favorably, compared to 43% for Trump.  However, only 32% of Israelis think that Clinton will get along better with Netanyahu as compared to Trump. Some critics believe that international relations may falter between the two states due to Clinton’s record of “unconditional support” to Israel, and that her previous lack of criticism could create tensions if she is forced to criticize in her role as President.

Russia

Considering current events, relations between the US and Russia are tense. Obama has notably been tough on Russia in his policy stances, and Clinton seems poised to continue down that path as well.  Clinton seeks to increase sanctions against Russia due to its intervention in Ukraine.  Secretary Clinton will raise the cost of Russian aggression, both financially and politically.  Clinton’s Russian policy includes countering Russian aggression by strengthening the European Reassurance Initiative, permanently placing more allied troops and weapons throughout Eastern Europe.  Clinton will further expand US missile defenses in Eastern Europe, adding to the political and military consequences of Russia’s recent actions.

Clinton’s policy is unlikely to better US-Russian relations should she become President.  Clinton has called Putin a “bully” in the past, so personal relations between the two are already tense.  It is clear that Putin prefers Trump over Clinton.  Therefore, Clinton’s foreign policy will likely have a negative effect on international relations with Russia.

National Security

Clinton’s foreign policy regarding national security both increases and decreases national security mechanisms.  On one hand, Clinton’s policy includes maintaining current restrictions on NSA surveillance, closing Guantanamo Bay, and prohibiting the use of harsh interrogation techniques.  On the other hand, Clinton’s policy will increase screening of individuals traveling to states that have issues with terrorism, strengthen US military alliances, and build a global counterterrorism infrastructure.

Clinton’s policy also leaves the US within NATO.  Clinton has praised existing alliances within NATO, and thinks that the US should continue to strengthen our allies as it supports US interests, both with our European allies and opposition to Russian expansion.  In Clinton’s view, NATO partnerships makes the US stronger globally, and may assist with US regional tactics, such as the potential no fly zone in Syria.  This policy will certainly strengthen US-EU ties.

Regarding US international relations, Clinton’s foreign policy on national security will likely strengthen many of our relationships, particularly with our European allies.  Most of the EU favors Clinton, although there have been some doubts. Clinton’s national security, for the most part, may assuage these doubts. Clinton would further encourage EU allies to be responsible for their own security by exchanging US commitments for EU commitments, which will probably have strong effect one way or the other. However, Clinton’s policies, particularly regarding NATO, will likely further increase tensions with Russia, as US participation in NATO prevents increase in Russian empowerment and expansion in Eastern Europe.

Trade, Climate, and Energy

In line with most politicians, Clinton wants to ensure that the US in engaged in free trade agreements that create more jobs in the US.  This is one of the reasons she is opposed to the TPP, and supports the export-import bank.  Additionally, Clinton will likely follow Obama’s climate policies; now that the US has signed the Paris Agreement, Clinton wants to ensure that the US abides by this agreement through limiting global carbon emissions.  Moreover, Clinton wants to expand US investment in renewable energy and ban drilling for oil in the US arctic region. Finally, Clinton’s policy includes the continued blocking of attempts by TransCanada to construct the Keystone XL pipeline.

Clinton’s foreign policy on trade and climate will likely have both positive and negative effects on international relations. On a positive note, continuing to adhere to the Paris Agreement and serve as a leader for combating climate change will sit favorably with other nations who have ratified the agreement. However, her policy to prevent the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline may cause slight tensions with Canada, although nothing that can’t be overcome. Further, her opposition to the TPP blindsided states in the region, particularly US allies, and has undoubtedly raised concerns among them on the impact of this opposition.

(Ayat Mujais is an Associate Executive Editor on Volume 32 of the American University International Law Review.)

Symposium Panel One – Resale Royalty Rights: A Comparative Discussion on Increased Moral Rights for Artists in America

By: Alejandra Aramayo & Reema Taneja*

Speakers:

  • Kevin Amer, Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, United States Copyright Office
  • Irina Tarsis, Esq., Founder and Director, Center for Art Law; Chair, Cultural Heritage and the Arts Interest Group, American Society of International Law
  • Lisa L. Jones, Director, Silver and Decorative Arts, Costumes, Textiles and Fashion, Sloans & Kenyon Auctioneers and Appraisers

Moderator:

Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law


Many countries, particularly in the European Union, have adopted resale royalty rights.  However, to this day, the United States has failed to implement them into federal legislation; despite the fact that in the last twenty years, U.S. courts have addressed the doctrine at the state level.  In an attempt to combat this issue, speakers in Panel one evaluated the implementation of resale of royalty rights in various countries and assessed whether the United States should follow suit.

Resale royalty rights, also known as droit de suite, originated in France in 1889.  They enable visual artists to benefit from the increased value of their works over time by granting them a percentage of the proceeds each time their work is sold at auction.  The average royalty rate is three to five percent and is capped for each sale made.  Irina Tarsis emphasized that many heirs have benefitted from resale royalty rights as over seventy countries have implemented legislation providing for such rights.  She observed that these countries have had a positive experience.  For example, despite United Kingdom legislation enforcing these rights, sales in London have reached record numbers.  Similarly, France has a number of societies in the country that collect the dues owed to artists for the resale of their works.  However, Lisa Jones noted that the maximum royalties an artist in the European Union can receive for the resale of his or her work is 12,500 euros.  To shed light on the relationship between this cap and value of the pieces, she explained, for instance, that Andy Warhol, whose Triple Elvis was sold at Christie’s New York for $81.9 million, would only receive 12,500 euros for the resale.

Ms. Tarsis observed that while the United States Constitution permits laws granting artists certain rights, this country currently does not provide for resale royalty rights.  While the U.S. is a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which grants these rights, the U.S.’s obligations under that convention are optional and reciprocal.  Kevin Amer highlighted that this means American artists do not recoup royalties for the resale of their works, even when the works are sold in countries providing for resale of royalty rights.

The current status of the resale royalty rights in the U.S. is murky.  California passed a resale royalty rights law in 1976, but the Ninth Circuit struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the commerce clause.  The case is pending appeal.  As both Mr. Amer and Ms. Tarsis noted, the U.S. Copyright Office, published a report in 1992 recommending against resale royalty rights because of concerns over the negative effect they would have on the secondary art market in the U.S.  Its follow-up report in 2013 suggested that the rights’ benefits on artists was not conclusive, and would only affect a small number of established artists.  Auction houses have vehemently spoken out against resale royalty rights.

Despite these developments, all three speakers recommended that the U.S. consider implementing resale royalty rights at the federal level.  Mr. Amer noted that the number of countries with similar legislation has doubled in the past several years, and suggested that Congress may wish to consider granting resale royalty rights to artists to eliminate this disparity.  Ms. Tarsis observed that there are an equal number of people supporting and rejecting a federal law providing for resale of royalty rights.  She emphasized, however, that while U.S. auction houses are fighting against these rights, the artists themselves are not united.  She opined that the artists must come together because they are the ones that would benefit from the proposed legislation.  Ms. Jones observed that artists should be allowed resale royalty rights to protect the reputation and the value of their work, especially given the high prices at which some of their pieces can sell for at auction.  She further highlighted that although the maximum royalties received for an artist’s work is capped, receiving some money is better than not receiving anything at all.  However, she did note that a buyer collecting the works of a mid-range artist might not be willing to bid high amounts for the artist’s pieces at auction.

*Both of the authors are junior staffers for Volume 30 of the American University International Law Review writing as a part of our series recapping our February 2015 Symposium: Protecting Art and Cultural Property Through International Law at ASIL

Symposium Editor’s Note

By: Merve Stolzman

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015, the American University International Law Review (“AUILR”), together with the American University Intellectual Property Brief, the American Society of International Law (“ASIL”) Cultural Heritage and the Arts Interest Group, and Center for Art Law, hosted a symposium titled “Protecting Art and Cultural Property Through International Law” at ASIL’s Washington, D.C. headquarters at Tillar House.   The various issues discussed at the event had as their stimulus the strong belief that art and cultural property have a tremendous value to many different actors.  In particular, the discussions focused on how comparative and international law could help to preserve this value.  As the Washington College of Law’s (“WCL”) Dean Claudio Grossman explained, “The passion, values, and emotions that go into art are worthy of protection.”

Artists often see their work as an expression of their thoughts, feelings, creativity and personality.  Understandably, they therefore wish for better rights to protect their work and reputation.  Unlike writers or musicians, artists in the U.S. do not receive royalties when their work is re-sold.  The U.S. is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which provides for such rights.  However, unlike seventy of its counterparts, predominantly in Europe, the U.S. has not chosen to implement this aspect of the Convention domestically.  Given the positive experiences of those states that have granted artists resale royalty rights, the U.S.’s reluctance to follow their lead is puzzling.

While the resale royalty rights legislation enacted in California is currently being attacked on constitutionality grounds, speakers in Panel one suggested that the main problem is not that the U.S. legal system lacks the foundations to provide for such rights at the federal level.  Rather, stakeholders, namely auction houses, have lobbied hard against resale royalty rights because of the potential ramifications such rights will have on their business.   Lisa Jones confirmed that at least for mid-range auction houses, introducing resale royalty rights could detrimentally affect purchasing.  However, Kevin Amer noted that the experiences of other countries have illustrated that the impact on the art market is exaggerated.  Irina Tarsis observed that the auction houses’ interests have taken center stage partly because artists have failed to unite and vocalize their interests to counter the auction houses’ lobbying efforts.

At the end of Panel one, speakers noted the fear that targeting the obligation to pay resale royalties solely to auction houses would drive the art market “underground” into the private sphere.  They hinted that this could have major repercussions for authentication because buyers often rely on auction houses to thoroughly investigate the provenance of a particular piece before agreeing to sell.  This observation highlighted the interconnectedness of the issues presented throughout the symposium.  As the speakers in Panel two explained, the art market is currently flooded with looted works.  This has had a profound impact on authentication, and has increased the likelihood that museums and private buyers will purchase illicit works.  The looting problem has also severely damaged the cultural heritage of the countries from which these works were stolen.

Many by now have likely seen the video ISIS posted online last week of its members destroying precious Assyrian antiquities displayed in the Mosul Museum in northern Iraq.  Arguably, this video was not only aimed at undermining Iraq’s rich pre-Islamic culture, but also provoking a retaliatory response.  The video illustrates that ISIS is acutely aware of the significance art and antiquities have on cultural identity.  ISIS has not only been guilty of destruction, however.  It has also substantially profited from the looting and sale of Syrian and Iraqi antiquities.  Reports suggest that ISIS made around $36 million in Syria last year from a single looting incident.

As the opening keynote, Patty Gerstenblith explained, armed conflict is the “perfect storm” within which large-scale looting can take place.  While such conduct has had a long history, it was not until the mid-twentieth century that the international community attempted to protect cultural property through international agreements.  The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict prohibits the destruction and seizure of cultural property during armed conflicts, and the export of such objects from occupied territory.  The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property addresses the international art market, and obligates states parties to regulate the import, export, and restitution of illicit works.

The opening keynote and speakers from Panel two emphasized that the ultimate aim of these conventions was to disincentivize looters from stealing art and antiquities for personal gain.  The question remains how best to do so.  Ms. Gerstenblith opined that the current legal regime lacks efficacy, and proposed that the international community unify the two legal regimes for combating the looting problem, one focusing on armed conflict, and the other on the international market.  Eden Burgess highlighted the need for domestic approaches to tackle the looting problem, and commended the efforts of organizations such as the International Committee of the Blue Shield to train soldiers on the ground to prevent looting and destruction of cultural property.  Leila Amineddoleh acknowledged that regulating the looting of objects during an armed conflict is difficult, if not impossible, and emphasized that this is why educating and encouraging buyers to investigate the origins of the works they wish to purchase is key.  Bonnie Magness-Gardiner asserted that disrupting transnational criminal networks, and prosecuting individual looters through a variety of criminal charges reduce incentives to engage in the trafficking of cultural property, but highlighted the evidentiary issues that often arise in the course of such prosecutions.

While preventing looting should remain the ultimate objective, this only addresses one aspect of the problem.  Owners of looted objects understandably want these works back.  The question then becomes how to restore to them what they have lost.  Responses have been contentious to say the least.   Various stakeholders, including private owners, museums, lawyers, and governments, have been battling over the whether restitution or repatriation is even best means of protecting the art or antiquity in question.  The Elgin Marbles controversy is the prime example.  Nevertheless, speakers in Panel three, and the closing keynote, Tom Kline, were adamant that the return of looted works should be encouraged through transparency and good faith engagement between the current possessors and original owners.

The participants drew upon a series of examples to illustrate both the successes and downfalls of varying restitution and repatriation mechanisms.  These mechanisms include litigation, bilateral agreements imposing import controls, official seizures, negotiation and settlement, voluntary return, and temporary loans.  Gary Vikan provided the museum perspective, emphasizing that if the owners have a good reason for wanting it back, museums should accommodate.  Frank Lord IV highlighted the tensions and obstacles that plague restitution litigation, especially when owners initiate proceedings in more than one country for the same work.  He further noted that for Nazi-looted art, the statute of limitations often has a significant impact on the success of restitution litigation.  Tom Kline advocated for a more comprehensive approach, where museums, source countries, and the original owners can collaborate to find a solution that best caters to all of their respective interests.

One important consideration is that it is often difficult to prove ownership in the restitution and repatriation process.  Provenance research plays an important role in easing this difficulty.  The efforts at the Smithsonian to engage in due diligence before obtaining pieces for its collection, illustrate the indispensable need for provenance research initiatives.  Panelist, Jane Milosch, stressed that while a substantial degree of progress has been made, provenance research has faced many obstacles, particularly because of the lack of funding and connoisseurship in the field.  Colette Loll emphasized that the increasing prevalence of fakes and forgeries in the international art market only makes provenance initiatives more complex, as fakes and forgeries distort the artistic record, and consequently compromise national and museum archives.

AUILR was privileged to have such well-renowned experts in the art and cultural property discourse to discuss how best to respect and protect the substantial value artists, countries, collectors, and museums place on arts and antiquities.  These speakers not only provided a comprehensive assessment of the underlying concerns that undermine the protection of art and cultural property, but also provided unique perspectives on how to best combat these concerns.  As Symposium Editor for AUILR, I hope that the symposium not only raised awareness of these issues in the international realm, but also had a positive impact on the discourse.  I look forward to AUILR and WCL’s future involvement in helping to protect art and cultural property through international law.  Please check back to our blog for the next few weeks to read more detailed descriptions of our keynotes and panels.

Protecting Art and Cultural Property Through International Law

February 18, 2015
1:00-7:00pm
Location: ASIL, Tillar House
2223 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington DC 20008


Presented in partnership with
law review logo (1)WCL IP Brief Logo_page1_image1 ASIL Logo Center for Art Law Logo


Art and cultural property have held a special significance for humankind for centuries. Collectors derive pleasure from the art or cultural property’s aesthetic and emotive value. Creators see the art or cultural property as an expression of their thoughts, feelings, creativity and personality, as well as a means of income. Finally, states and communities perceive such works as a documentation of their heritage, history, and legacy. In granting artists moral rights, and protecting art and cultural property from theft and destruction, we are preserving the value these actors place on these works.

Three panels of distinguished experts will aim to identify the ways in which the international legal discourse has, and has not, contributed to this endeavor through resale royalty rights, protection and preservation mechanisms enumerated in international agreements and national legislation, and restitution and repatriation practices, among others. We hope you will join the discussion.

Opening Keynote: Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law

Panelists:

Kevin Amer, U.S. Copyright Office
Leila A. Amineddoleh, Galluzzo & Amineddoleh, LLP, Fordham University School of Law, Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation
L. Eden Burgess, Cultural Heritage Partners PLLC
Colette Loll, Art Fraud Insights, LLC
Frank K. Lord IV, Esq., Herrick, Feinstein, LLP
Bonnie Magness-Gardner, FBI Art Crimes Team
Jane Milosch, Smithsonian Institution
Irina Tarsis, Center for Art Law, American Society for International Law

Closing KeynoteThomas R. Kline, Andrews Kurth LLP


Registration is free but required – please go to http://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/registration.  4 CLE Credits will be applied for – CLE registration is $220. For further information, contact: Office of Special Events & Continuing Legal Education, 202.274.4075 or secle@wcl.american.edu.

Visit our website: http://auilr.org
Visit our partners: http://www.ipbrief.net/,  www.asil.org,  itsartlaw.com