The shift can also e seen in a series of changes in China’s legislative and judicial developments, as well as international involvement in the resolution of cultural property disputes.
The revised Cultural Relics Law of 2024 and the judicial opinions of Chinese courts indicate an attempt to ensure justice for people of origin.
China’s practice in global governance by promoting the restitution of protected public goods through international and institutional cooperation also deserves to be assessed.
In consideration of China’s role in achieving global justice for cultural property and heritage, these practices have been seen accelerating the paradigm shift, along with an innovative proposal for global solidarity, while the country is still confronting challenges as it is transitioning from that of a traditional source state to more nuanced roles in the global circulation and regulation of cultural property and heritage.
Ruida Chen’s conclusion:
China has demonstrated a commitment to building ‘a global community with a shared future’ and putting forward the GCI, which was echoed in the Qingdao Recommendations. These initiatives have contributed to a paradigm shift in the traditional approach to transnational cultural property disputes, restricted to property rights, to a broader consideration of the cultural, historical and identity value of cultural property to its people of origin. Concurrently, a series of more ethical solutions have been proposed.
At the domestic legal level, international cooperation on the restitution of cultural property has been institutionalized through legislation, reflecting a respect for global legal pluralism. A dialogue based on equality and mutual benefit is a constructive way of resolving disputes over the return of cultural property. Overcoming legal obstacles to restitution through legislative and judicial techniques is evident in the form of amendments to statutes of limitations and innovative interpretations of conflict rules.
However, there is still a considerable distance to be covered before the new legal system for the return and restitution of cultural property can be realized. As the country is assuming a more complex status as both source state and market state, the legal framework and licensing system for preventing the import of illegal cultural property into China remains incomplete, and a comprehensive conflict of laws system for the claims that the Chinese courts are increasingly facing requires clarification.
In this context, the implementation of the revised Cultural Relics Law is anticipated to encourage China to establish a more comprehensive system of import control and procedural arrangement in response to the increasing demand for restitution. Conversely, the establishment of global solidarity would not be accomplished by the states and communities of origin acting
on their own. A more functional balance of interests is required between source states and market states seeking greater negotiation and constructive rule.
Although the current paradigm in the field of restitution of cultural property has not yet undergone a complete revolution, there is potential to develop and enhance practices that contribute to the renewal and improvement of the established paradigm. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to elicit a greater and more impactful response to the call to contribute to contemporary changes of historical significance in the world.
