Once the principle of restitution is accepted, on what grounds should we draw the line? Who will decide the limits? If we accept the principle of restitution without recognising its universal application, on what grounds will we defend the decision to retain certain works, whose history is, by its very nature, linked to contexts of domination? Far from providing a secure framework, the framework law risks, on the contrary, opening a legal and political Pandora’s box.
This law calls into question the very conception of museums and heritage in France. The universalist model, often invoked to justify the preservation of artworks, is based on the idea that public collections belong to humanity as a whole. But this principle now clashes with claims to cultural sovereignty made by the countries of origin. By attempting to reconcile these two approaches without taking a decisive stance, the framework law resolves nothing; indeed, it institutionalises a deadlocked conflict.
The risk is therefore twofold. On the one hand, a gradual loss of international credibility if the promised restitutions are delayed or prove insufficient. On the other, an internal weakening of the French heritage model, which is subject to increasingly frequent challenges. Between these two pitfalls, the government is feeling its way forward, multiplying compromises and ambiguities.
