Cultural relics carry splendid civilization, inherit history and culture, and maintain the national spirit, which are non-renewable and cannot be replicated, and once lost and damaged, their impact is immeasurable. In modern times, a large amount of wealth in Asia, Africa and Latin America, including cultural relics that once witnessed their ancient and splendid civilizations, has been continuously lost to Western countries due to war, looting, colonial occupation, illegal trafficking and other reasons, and has been placed in palatial museums or private mansions, showing off the wealth of its occupiers, and also telling the suffering of the country of origin and the crimes of the plunderers.
Transnational disputes involving the ownership of cultural relics involve the demands of all parties, the international concerns they arouse, and the interests of all countries that are incomparable to any other kind of property disputes, and their impact goes far beyond the level of economic interests, and is more related to national sentiment and cultural sovereignty. For example, the bronze beast head of the Old Summer Palace, which was cut and plundered by the British and French forces in the Second Opium War, will arouse the national feelings of hundreds of millions of Chinese every time it appears at international auctions; For another example, in 2019, the "Road to Return - Exhibition on the Return of Lost Cultural Relics for the 70th Anniversary of the Founding of the People's Republic of China" opened at the National Museum of China, which attracted widespread attention and high praise from all walks of life. The sense of national honor and self-confidence brought about by the successful recovery of lost cultural relics can be seen from this.
Recently, after the scandal of the theft of about 2,000 pieces of the British Museum's collection was exposed, many countries that were once under British colonial rule immediately declared that the theft highlighted the absurdity of the British Museum's refusal to return the cultural relics on the grounds that the cultural relics could be better protected, and demanded that the cultural relics be returned to the country of origin as soon as possible. Although looted and stolen cultural relics should be returned, in line with the simple concept of justice and moral standards of human society, due to the complex historical, legal, international pattern and practical interests, it is difficult and long for the countries of origin of cultural relics, including China, to recover lost cultural relics. The recovery and return of lost cultural relics constitutes a worldwide problem that needs to be solved urgently.
The concept of the recovery and return of lost cultural relics
Cultural relics are the cultural imprint and historical evidence of a nation, and all nations and countries enjoy ownership of the cultural relics they create, which is a natural right that cannot be devoided. From the perspective of historical roots, the large-scale loss of cultural relics worldwide is the product of Western aggression, colonial rule and violent plunder, and has witnessed the humiliating history of various countries that have lost cultural relics, including China. In this sense, the repatriation of lost cultural relics is a correction of historical crimes such as colonialism, aggression and plunder, and a restoration of international order, fairness and justice. Especially after the end of World War II, the Western colonial system collapsed, countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America achieved national independence, and the awareness of cultural sovereignty was constantly raised. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted numerous resolutions in support of the countries of origin of cultural objects to recover cultural objects looted during colonial and war, expressing the common will of the majority of the international community.
However, in the face of an international environment that is increasingly conducive to the return of cultural relics, the countries receiving cultural relics have stepped up their efforts to unite and unify their positions, and have put forward "cultural relics internationalism" as a conceptual support for refusing to return them. The so-called "internationalism of cultural relics" refers to the fact that human beings have a common ancestor, and the history of various peoples is a whole that influences and integrates with each other, and cannot be separated from each other; As the carrier of civilization, cultural relics thus constitute the common wealth of mankind and cannot be enjoyed exclusively by a country or nation. In 2002, a number of well-known museums in the West jointly issued the Declaration on the Value of Global Museums (hereinafter referred to as the "Declaration"), which put forward the reasons for refusing to return cultural relics, which became a representative position document on the internationalization of cultural relics.
The Declaration first constructs the concept of a "universal museum", pointing out that unlike museums in the general sense, "universal museums" are not museums in specific countries, but "encyclopedic" museums, aiming to provide global visitors with a platform to visit, appreciate, compare and study the achievements of various civilizations and cultures of all mankind. Therefore, the "Universal Museum" will continue to hold, exhibit and collect cultural relics from all over the world, so that the civilizations of various countries can complement each other here, and it is more conducive to the cultural relics to exert their historical, cultural and artistic value.
Second, the declaration pointed out that the vast majority of foreign cultural relics collected and exhibited by the "Universal Museum" were acquired in history, and their legitimacy could only be measured by the laws of that time, and the prohibition of looting cultural relics and the prohibition of collecting cultural relics of unknown origin were legal principles that were gradually established after the second half of the 20th century. In other words, the conditions under which foreign cultural relics that were placed in European and American museums decades or even centuries ago are not comparable to those of today, and it is unfair to demand that museums return foreign cultural objects acquired in history on the basis of contemporary laws.
Finally, the Universal Museum has a world-class collection and research of cultural relics, and the cultural relics continue to be carefully cared for by them, which is more conducive to conservation. In addition, after years of collection, exhibition, and protection, the cultural relics of other countries acquired by the "Universal Museum" in various ways in the early days have become part of these museums, and thus form part of the cultural heritage of the countries in which they are located. Therefore, it is in the interest of the peoples of all countries, including the country where the museum is located and the country of origin of the cultural object, to continue to hold these cultural objects by Universal Museums.
The Declaration provides a systematic interpretation of the internationalism of cultural relics. Although some of these propositions seem reasonable, a careful examination of their wording reveals that the manifesto, which takes the internationalism of cultural relics as its basic concept and the core concept of "universal museums", bears a logical paradox that cannot be defended by itself: on the one hand, it holds high the banner of internationalism of cultural relics, claiming that "universal museums are not only institutions serving the citizens of one country, but also all countries in the world"; On the other hand, it emphasized that these artifacts of other origin already formed part of the so-called Universal Museums, and thus formed part of the cultural heritage of the countries in which those museums were located. In this way, it inevitably fell into the trap of cultural relics nationalism.
Some scholars have pointed out that the "globalism" of museums is hypocritical, and it is tantamount to wearing the fig leaf of internationalism of cultural relics, announcing to the world that universal museums have their own history, their own politics, and they defend their own heritage, not world heritage. In addition, the fact that most of the foreign artifacts acquired by Universal Museums occurred in modern times in the absence of legal regulation does not in itself prove their legitimacy. More importantly, while these precious cultural relics from other countries in Western museums attract public visits and appreciation, they also encourage irresponsible solicitation and acquisition. Ignoring or even legitimizing the looting and destruction of cultural relics in history will inevitably encourage all kinds of cultural relics crimes, especially transnational trafficking in cultural relics.
With the increasing convenience of transportation and the continuous economic and social development and the continuous progress of science and technology in the countries of origin of the vast majority of cultural relics, if these cultural relics can be returned to the country of origin and placed in the original historical and cultural environment, they will not only not be damaged, but also help to restore the fragmented historical and cultural memory, enhance the public's understanding of the civilization and history carried by the cultural relics and their own appreciation, so as to better recognize and gain insight into the historical and cultural identity of various ethnic groups. What's more, Western museums such as the British Museum have been stolen frequently in recent years, and the promise that "cultural relics are better protected here" has completely lost its appeal and credibility.
It can be seen that neither the concept of "global museums" nor the concept of "internationalism of cultural relics" can conceal the inherent national character of cultural relics, nor can it provide a legitimate basis for these museums to refuse to return foreign cultural relics.
Legal obstacles to the recourse and return of lost cultural relics
Although war and plunder have always been morally condemned, it has not been legally prohibited or punished for a long time from ancient times to modern times. From a historical perspective, it is not difficult to find that the looting of wealth (including precious cultural relics) and the destruction of facilities (including cultural sites) often constitute the main objectives of warfare. However, what makes human beings unique is their ability to reflect and the courage to correct mistakes. From another point of view, the history of mankind is also a history of extraordinary struggle against the atrocities of war. With the improvement of human civilization and the terrible price paid in the two world wars, human society finally established in the second half of the 20th century a system of international law prohibiting the looting of cultural relics during war, prohibiting the trafficking of cultural relics during peacetime, and facilitating the recovery and repatriation of lost cultural objects. At the same time, with the development of the economy and society and the improvement of the level of rule of law, countries around the world have gradually established legal systems for the protection of cultural relics and the prohibition of trafficking in cultural relics. Despite this, the country of origin of cultural relics still faces many difficulties and challenges in recovering lost cultural relics at both the international and domestic levels.
First, there are obstacles under international law. Since the end of World War II, the international community has successively formulated a series of international treaties in the field of prohibiting wartime looting of cultural property and promoting the return of lost cultural objects, including the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in The Hague in 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "1954 Hague Convention"), and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (hereinafter referred to as the "1970 Convention"), adopted in Paris in 1970 ) and the Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Convention"), signed in Rome in 1995. These conventions constitute the three pillars of international law for the protection of contemporary cultural relics and the recovery and repatriation of lost cultural objects. Despite the undoubted value and positive significance of these international conventions, they are still unable to systematically address the issue of international law for the recovery and repatriation of lost cultural objects.
First, the Convention has no retroactive effect and is not binding on acts or facts prior to its entry into force. Although in the process of formulating the above three conventions, the countries of origin of cultural relics generally hoped that the conventions would clearly stipulate their retroactive effect in order to solve the problem of the return of historical stolen and looted cultural relics, due to strong opposition from cultural relics market countries, none of the three conventions clearly provided for their retroactive effect.
Second, as a product of the game of interests and compromises between the countries of origin of cultural relics and the countries in the market for cultural relics, most of the above-mentioned conventions have shortcomings such as vague wording of core provisions, relatively narrow scope of application, and weak supervision mechanisms, resulting in ineffective application of the Conventions.
Finally, the Convention is binding only on its States parties, and many marketing States have consistently refused to accede to conventions that are unfavourable to them, in particular the 1995 Convention, on the basis of safeguarding their vested interests.
In summary, it can be seen that there are many institutional and regulatory deficiencies and obstacles in the existing international treaties, which are not sufficient to provide a comprehensive and strong international legal guarantee for the recovery of lost cultural relics in the country of origin.
The second is the obstacle of domestic law. With the development of economy and society, countries around the world have gradually established a sound legal system for the protection of cultural relics and the prevention of trafficking in cultural relics, but due to legal traditions and self-interest considerations, there are still systems and rules that pose obstacles to the recovery of cultural relics at the level of private law and public law.
From the perspective of private law, the system of bona fide acquisition, the statute of limitations and the extinction of the statute of limitations, which are widely existing in the domestic laws of various countries, constitute the three main domestic legal obstacles to the recovery and return of cultural relics. "Acquisition in good faith" refers to the legal act between the transferor and the transferee of movable property for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the movable property, and the transferor still obtains the ownership of the movable property even though the transferor does not have the right to transfer the ownership. The bona fide acquisition system aims to protect the security of transactions and is widely adopted by civil and commercial laws around the world. In the practice of transnational cultural relics trade, buyers often claim to be "bona fide" purchasers, and claim ownership of cultural relics on this basis.
Since the burden of proof system commonly adopted in the civil procedure laws of various countries is that "whoever asserts and who presents evidence" is a system commonly adopted in the civil procedure laws of various countries, in a transnational cultural relics recourse lawsuit, the country of origin or the original owner of the cultural relics claims that the current owner purchased the cultural relics in bad faith, and in principle, needs to bear the burden of proof. However, since most transactions in cultural objects with flawed provenance are closed to the public, and often after several changes of hands, it is obviously extremely difficult for the country or person of origin to bear this burden of proof. It can be seen that the bona fide acquisition system and the rule of proof in civil litigation of "who asserts and who bears evidence" pose a major obstacle to the recovery of cultural relics through litigation.
"Statute of limitations" refers to a system in which a person without a right continues to exercise a right with the intention of exercising a right and acquires his right after a certain period of time, with the aim of protecting the legal relationship arising from the fact of long-term possession, preventing the long-term separation of possession and ownership, and maintaining social stability. The statute of limitations is based on Roman law and is inherited by the laws of most civil law countries. Therefore, even if the owner of the cultural object purchased the cultural object in bad faith, or even knew that it was a stolen cultural object, after a certain period of continuous possession, he could still obtain ownership based on the statute of limitations.
In addition to bona fide acquisition and the statute of limitations, the extinction statute of limitations system, which is widely present in national laws, is also a legal obstacle to the recovery of cultural relics. "Statute of limitations" refers to "a system in which a right of claim is extinguished due to the non-exercise of a right for a certain period of time". Although national laws vary on the nature, duration, commencement, interruption and suspension of the statute of limitations, the system generally constitutes an insurmountable legal obstacle to the recovery of cultural objects lost for more than 20 years through litigation. For example, in the "Recourse to the Sitting Buddha in the Flesh", which has attracted attention from all walks of life, the main reason why the local villagers' committee in Fujian Province filed a cross-border recourse lawsuit in the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands before December 2015 was that the seated Buddha statue was stolen in December 1995, and if the lawsuit is not filed as soon as possible, the 20-year statute of limitations under the Dutch Civil Code will expire, which will have an adverse legal effect.
At the level of public law, the domestic laws of many countries prohibit the transfer of ownership of objects in public collections to foreign governments or foreigners by providing that they constitute cultural heritage in the public collection. This creates a legal obstacle to the return of foreign artifacts by Western public museums. For example, around 2014, China launched a recourse against the Musée Guimet in France, demanding that it return the stolen gold ornaments from the Qin Gong Tomb in Dabaozi Mountain, Lixian County. Despite the positive cooperation between the French government and the Musée Guimet, negotiations between the two sides were difficult due to the provisions of the French Cultural Heritage Code, which prohibits the transfer of cultural objects in state-owned museums. Subsequently, after consultations between China and France, the two sides reached a consensus on the issue of the return of cultural relics, which led to the withdrawal of the donation to the Musée Guimet by the original donor of the gold ornaments, so that the gold ornaments were withdrawn from the catalogue of cultural relics in the French national collection, and then returned to China by the original donor. The return of the lost gold ornaments from the Dabaozi Mountain site is a successful case of China and France promoting the return of lost cultural relics through consultation and cooperation, and exploring a new way to overcome domestic legal obstacles and realize the return of cultural relics.
The path to the recovery and return of lost cultural relics
On the issue of the recovery and repatriation of lost cultural relics, the international community has always been divided into two groups with opposing interests and opposing positions, namely, the countries of origin of cultural relics (the countries of origin) and the countries of the cultural relics market (the countries of origin). They have been engaged in long-term struggles in the international legal, political and public opinion arenas based on the concepts of cultural relics nationalism and cultural relics internationalism respectively. Although the international legal and public opinion environment has been developing in favor of the return of cultural relics in recent years, the overall strength of the country of origin of cultural relics is still relatively weak, and the international discourse power and international rule-making power are still mainly held by the cultural relics market country, and it is still difficult for the country of origin to recover the lost cultural relics, and the recovery and return of cultural relics constitutes a global problem that needs to be systematically solved.
China is the largest developing country in the world and one of the countries with the worst loss of cultural relics. According to UNESCO statistics, since 2015, China (including Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions) has replaced the United States as the world's largest market for cultural relics and artworks. As an ancient civilization and a world power, as well as the dual status of a country of origin and a market country for cultural relics, China has the ability and conditions to lead the international community to jump out of the pattern of opposing interests and zero-sum game thinking of the two blocs, bridge differences, integrate consensus, and provide Chinese solutions to solve the world problem of recovering and returning lost cultural relics.
Guided by the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind. As mentioned above, for a long time, the two major groups of countries of origin and market countries for cultural relics have supported their own interests with the concepts of nationalism and internationalism of cultural relics, respectively, and have fallen into a zero-sum game and a conceptual dilemma and a dilemma of interests. Different from absolute nationalism and internationalism, from the perspective of value pursuit, the community of shared future for mankind raises the perspective of examining problems to the level of common interests of all mankind, provides a new theory for resolving the irreconcilable contradiction between the country of origin of cultural relics and the country in the market for cultural relics, and provides basic theoretical guidance for the establishment of a fairer and more reasonable new international order in the field of cultural relics recovery and return. In other words, the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind organically reconciles nationalism and internationalism of cultural relics, and accurately reflects the essential characteristics and dialectical relationship of contemporary international order and international relations in the field of cultural relics recovery and restitution.
Specifically, under the guidance of the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind, the elements of cultural relics can be broken down as follows. First of all, the cultural relics created by a country and its nation constitute an indispensable part of the internal structure of the country's cultural sovereignty, and are the logical extension of national sovereignty in the cultural field. Therefore, no culture should become a tool of others, an object of observation and play with by other cultures; Countries are naturally the best custodians of their cultural heritage, not only because a country is most concerned about its own cultural heritage, but also because it is an essential requirement for the realization of its cultural sovereignty.
Secondly, the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind interprets the logical dialectical relationship between the diversity of civilizations of all countries and the unity of human civilization, which is the key to understanding the basic characteristics of human society and the progress of human civilization. All countries should transcend the estrangement of civilizations, the mutual learning of civilizations should transcend the clash of civilizations, and the coexistence of civilizations should transcend the superiority of civilizations through exchanges among civilizations. It is necessary to actively carry out exchanges of cultural relics and jointly protect and share the dividends of cultural relics. Therefore, the lost cultural relics should be returned to the country of origin, but the dispute over the ownership of cultural relics should not become an obstacle to international exchanges and mutual learning of cultural relics. At the same time, each country is the most suitable and convenient protector, manager and researcher of its own cultural relics, but in exceptional circumstances, if a country loses the ability or willingness to effectively protect cultural relics due to special circumstances such as war, the international community shall jointly assume the responsibility for the protection of cultural relics, take ensuring the safety of cultural relics as a prerequisite for their return, and provide international assistance when necessary.
So far, under the guidance of the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, cultural relics nationalism and cultural relics internationalism have formed a dialectical and unified relationship: as a realistic path for the protection of cultural relics, the cultural relics state is the basis for maintaining the safety of cultural relics, restoring and displaying the true and complete value of cultural relics, and realizing the cultural sovereignty of all countries; From the perspective of the goal of promoting the sustainable development of human civilization, the internationalism of cultural relics is reflected as a useful supplement to nationalism. Only by giving full play to the positive functions of internationalism on the basis of nationalism can the conditions be created to ensure the organic unity of the return and security of lost cultural relics.
The path is to coordinate the domestic rule of law and the foreign-related rule of law. To promote the recovery and return of lost cultural relics, the mainland should strengthen institutional construction within the domestic legal system, and continuously improve the ability and level of using legal means to recover lost cultural relics; On the other hand, it is necessary to actively participate in global governance, promote the evolution of international law in this field in a more fair and just direction, and be a participant, promoter and leader in the settlement of cross-border disputes over cultural relics.
From the perspective of domestic rule of law construction, first of all, it is necessary to speed up the revision and improvement of the law, build a legal system and rules for the recovery of lost cultural relics in line with the national conditions of the mainland, and provide a solid legal guarantee for the recovery and return of cultural relics. The first is to make full use of the historical opportunity of revising the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics, systematically formulate legal provisions for the recovery of cultural relics lost overseas, and clarify the subjects of recourse and the responsible institutions. Taking into account the actual situation of China's lost cultural relics, it is necessary to clarify the subjects of recourse for illegally lost state-owned cultural relics and non-state-owned cultural relics. It should be pointed out that with the promulgation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign State Immunity in September 2023, the mainland has officially shifted from the principle of absolute immunity to the internationally accepted principle of restrictive immunity on the issue of state sovereign immunity. This has cleared the way for the mainland to file a lawsuit in a foreign court for the recovery of state-owned cultural relics. Therefore, the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics of the Mainland should make it clear that the administrative department for cultural relics under the State Council shall be responsible for the recourse of lost state-owned cultural relics on behalf of the state, and shall have the right to file a recourse lawsuit for the loss of state-owned cultural relics as a plaintiff in the relevant national courts.
The second is to systematically revise and improve the legal system for controlling the import and export of cultural relics on the mainland, and change the current law of unilateral control over the entry and exit of cultural relics. The mainland legislature should have an accurate understanding of the reality that China has both the status of a country of origin and a market country for cultural relics, and under the guidance of the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind, make substantial amendments and improvements to the system for the entry and exit of cultural relics, so that Chinese law can control both the illegal exit of Chinese cultural relics and the illegal entry of foreign cultural relics, forming a two-way defensive barrier.
The third is to revise and improve the legal system for civil and commercial matters, make special provisions on the bona fide acquisition of stolen cultural relics, the statute of limitations, and the burden of proof system for litigation for the recovery of cultural relics, and establish a civil and commercial legal system and rules that meet the characteristics of the recovery of lost cultural relics and the requirements of relevant international treaties. Judging from the legislative experience of various countries in the world, after acceding to the "1970 Convention" and the "1995 Convention", more and more countries have amended their domestic laws such as civil and commercial laws and civil procedure laws to solve the conflict between domestic laws and the provisions of the Convention, and have made special provisions for disputes involving cultural relics within the scope of the Convention. For example, after acceding to the 1970 Convention, the Netherlands amended its Civil Code to make a number of special provisions on the trade in cultural objects within the scope of the Convention, including reversing the burden of proof, that is, imposing the burden of proof on the possessor of the cultural property, rather than the original owner, to bear the burden of proof for bona fide purchase; A special statute of limitations longer than 20 years shall be applied to litigation involving the return of cultural objects whose claims fall within the scope of the 1970 Convention.
Regrettably, neither the Civil Code promulgated by the mainland in 2020 nor the Civil Procedure Law amended in 2023 make specific provisions on the recourse of cultural relics within the scope of the adjustment of the international treaties to which the mainland is a party. At present, only judicial practice has interpreted the jurisprudence of "taking the light to the heavy", and it is presumed that the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen cultural relics should not be applied when the system of bona fide acquisition is not applicable to lost, buried, hidden and drifted objects. In view of this, in order to adapt to the characteristics of the recovery of lost cultural relics and establish a civil and commercial legal system compatible with international treaties, the mainland should revise the civil and commercial laws as soon as possible to make it clear that the bona fide acquisition system does not apply to stolen state-owned cultural relics; For other stolen cultural objects, a rule of reversal of the burden of proof should be established; For historical cultural relics, the state reserves the right of recourse against them, and the relevant requests are not subject to the statutory statute of limitations.
From the perspective of foreign-related rule of law, it is necessary to continuously strengthen the ability to use international law to resolve international disputes over the ownership of cultural relics, and strive to create new mechanisms and platforms for the settlement of international cultural relics disputes. First of all, the mainland should actively exert its influence in UNESCO and other international organizations, make full use of the "Belt and Road" initiative, the "Forum on China-Africa Cooperation", the "BRICS Cooperation Mechanism", the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization" and other international cooperation platforms, and join hands with countries with the same or similar demands to vigorously strengthen the right to formulate international rules in the field of recourse and return of cultural relics, break the dominance of Western countries in formulating international rules, and make use of international consultation mechanisms and the formulation of international soft law rules in advance. Promote the bridging and improvement of the gaps in the existing international treaty system and rules.
Second, we should make full use of the International Institute for Mediation, the world's first intergovernmental international legal organization dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation, which is being established under the leadership of the mainland, and build it into a new mechanism and platform for the settlement of international disputes over cultural relics. As mentioned above, the recovery and repatriation of lost cultural objects often involves complex historical, legal, cultural and national sentimental factors, and cannot provide a satisfactory legal solution based on existing international and domestic law alone, whether litigation or arbitration. In contrast, mediation is carried out on the basis of equality and mutual respect, which can often take into account the differences in culture, thinking and law of different parties involved in the case, fully give the parties involved in the case equal and free choice, create a fair and just dispute resolution atmosphere, and is more conducive to achieving a mediation result that satisfies both parties.
Therefore, as a global public good of the rule of law provided by China to the international community, the International Organization for Mediation is committed to resolving international disputes through mediation, going beyond the limitations of justice and arbitration, and is committed to handling differences in a peaceful manner, resolving disputes through dialogue and consultation, and abandoning the zero-sum game with mutual benefit and reciprocity. This new type of international dispute settlement institution is in line with the characteristics of international cultural relics disputes, and can provide new options and new mechanisms for the settlement of international disputes over the recovery and return of cultural relics. Therefore, in the process of constructing the mechanism of the International Organization for Mediation, the mainland and the relevant initiating countries should pay full attention to the unique role of mediation in resolving international disputes over cultural relics, incorporate such disputes into the mediation mechanism and formulate corresponding mediation rules, so as to contribute China's wisdom to solving the global problem of recovering and returning cultural relics.
"The cultural movement is linked to the national movement, and the cultural context is connected to the national context." The loss and return of Chinese cultural relics have witnessed the rebirth of the Chinese nation, the nirvana of the phoenix, and the changes in the national fortunes from humiliation and danger to great rejuvenation. The large-scale loss and repatriation of cultural relics around the world reflects the vicissitudes of life in developing countries that have suffered from colonial aggression and are committed to safeguarding cultural sovereignty and national interests after achieving national independence. After long-term efforts, China's international status has been greatly enhanced, its international influence has been significantly enhanced, and it is increasingly approaching the center of the world stage. In this context, as an ancient civilization and a major country in the world, China has actively participated in and led the formulation of legal rules and the innovation of dispute settlement mechanisms in the field of cultural relics recovery and repatriation, which is not only aimed at safeguarding its own cultural sovereignty and interests, but also an inevitable requirement for playing its role as a responsible major country and promoting the construction of a fairer and more just international order.
Source: People's Tribune, Issue 20, 2023
Author: Huo Zhengxin
Editor: Hu Liang
[Statement: This number is an official public welfare account to serve the decision-making of governments at all levels, enterprises and institutions, and this article is reprinted for the purpose of conveying more information. If there is a source labeling error or other inaccuracies, please contact us. We will correct it in a timely manner. Thank you]