The Need to Follow Human Right Based Approach to Repatriate Looted Cultural Objects of Ethiopia.

Abstract

Cultural objects are a human rights issue, as their looting and retention violate rights such as freedom of thought and access to history. A human rights-based approach to repatriation enhances cultural rights obligations, provides redress for historical injustices, and integrates insights from both fields. It involves families, communities, civil society, and authorities, addressing the social, political, and legal contexts of responsibilities. Ethiopia is a country famous for its historical, cultural and natural heritages. Many of the cultural heritages have been recognized as world heritage by UNESCO.

This article focuses on Ethiopian looted cultural objects specially during Robert Napiers expedition in 1968 at the battle of Maqdala.

Key Words: Human Right Based approach, Repatriation, Cultural Objects, Looted Cultural Objects

Introduction

“Cultural heritage is significant in the present, both as a message from the past and as a pathway to the future. Viewed from a human rights perspective, it is important not only in itself, but also in relation to its human dimension.”[1]

Every year, thousands of artefacts disappear from museums, churches, private collections, public institutions or archaeological sites.[2]

Historically, millions of cultural objects have been taken from their rightful homes through organized looting.[3]   Conquering armies have plundered the cultural works of defeated countries and valuable arts.[4] Pillage and plunder of a defeated city by the victorious power was familiar in ancient times and was considered as it is the right of the victor.[5]Defeated population was for the most part barred from any rights and protection at the time. Anything valuable and somewhat usable materially or morally linked to them was looted. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries in particular, the massive displacement of cultural artifacts from colonized and defeated territories resulted both from punitive expeditions, military lootings, or war tributes, as well as from trades and exchanges for collection purposes or to meet the “necessities” of scientific research.[6]

Currently, almost 90% of Africa’s heritage is outside the continent, in particular, 80-90% of it can be found in European museums.[7] African countries have had to face the problem of the removal of cultural properties from the continent to other parts of the world over many decades and perhaps centuries.[8]

Ethiopia, a country rich in cultural heritage and historical significance, has been subject to numerous instances of looting and plundering of its valuable artifacts and treasures over the centuries at different time in the cover of research, war, illicit trafficking. I will explore it in the later part of the article.

Cultural object and human right are deeply interconnected.[9] As cultural objects are fundamental resource for other human rights and the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage is a human right guaranteed by international law, and it must be taken seriously.[10]Moreover, cultural objects are fundamental resource for other human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the economic rights of the many people who earn a living through tourism related to such heritage.  Therfore, to align international human right instruments protecting the existing cultural objects and repatriation of looted one is essential.

Thus, this article argues that repatriation of looted cultural property should be approached from a human rights based approach[11] perspective. As this approach emphasizes the rights of individuals and communities to access and enjoy their cultural heritage, as well as the duty of states and institutions to respect these rights.

Human rights approach recognizes that the looting and removal of cultural treasures from their places of origin  violate human rights of the owners and continued possession of these treasures by foreign entities perpetuates historical injustices and denies the right to their own cultural heritage.[12] Adopting a human rights approach to repatriation, the focus on broader understanding of the cultural, social, and historical significance of these treasures for the true owners and encourages dialogue, cooperation, and collaboration between countries, museums, and institutions to find mutually beneficial solutions that respect the rights of all the parties involved.

 Methodology

This article adopts a doctrinal research method which relies on the review of a combination of primary and secondary sources. Among the primary sources the researcher will apply domestic and  international laws relevant to  repatriation of cultural objects.  Secondary sources will consists of journals, articles, and internet sources in the field of cultural heritage law as well as on the basic concepts of contemporary human rights norms. Comparative analysis will be employed to examine successful repatriation cases from other countries.

Applicability of Human Right Based Approach to Cultural Object Repatriation

1. History of Looting

Ethiopia, a country rich in cultural heritage and historical significance, has been subject to numerous instances of looting and plundering of its valuable artifacts and treasures over the centuries at different time in the cover of research, war, illicit trafficking.[13] Since the 18th century, a large quantity of cultural treasures mainly manuscripts have been stolen, looted, or smuggled out of the country by travelers who came to the country as explorers, diplomats and scientists.[14]For instance even though the total number of Ethiopian manuscripts taken is still unknown, Amsalu Tefera counted 6928 Ethiopian manuscripts currently held in foreign libraries and museums. This figure does not include privately held or unofficial collections.[15]

The expedition of 1968 is widely recognized as a campaign for the release of British prisoners, however it was initially an imperial campaign against the King of Ethiopia, king Tewodros II. Richard Holms, the acting director of the British Museum, enlisted with the British army that was dispatched to “rescue” British hostages at Maqdala, the capital of Emperor Tewodros, but at the same time, a vast army of “scientific” personnel was dispatched to bring knowledge and treasures from the nation. Holms’s task was to deliver priceless items to the Museum.[16] As part of Ethiopia’s industrial revolution, Tewodros founded the Medhanialem library, which now houses over a thousand manuscripts, prior to the fight. Following Tewodros’s suicide after losing the war, British soldiers pillaged the nation’s capital, looting the library and the treasury. Two hundred mules and fifteen elephants were required to move booty.

Legal Frameworks that Govern Cultural Objects

International Legal Frameworks

THE 1995 UNIDROIT CONVENTION

Although, a small number of the states that have ratified 1995 UNIDROIT convention, it form a basis for the interpretation of the notions which appear in the UNESCO Convention.[17]The limitation of UNESCO Convention that cultural objects which are clandestinely excavated and illegally exported are not covered since they to a particular category of stolen objects is a rather unfortunate one since it restricts effective protection of cultural property and also runs contrary to a widely accepted notion that stolen objects should be returned to their countries of origin, however, is reflected in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.[18]Whereas the 1970 Convention relies on cooperation between States, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention aims to harmonize the private law of Member States to ensure the return of unlawfully removed objects.[19]

The 1970 UNESCO Convention

The 1970 UNESCO Convention was the result of a long process of forming mentalities towards the protection of cultural property during which illegal trade in art was flourishing and claims for the return and restitution of cultural objects were augmenting.[20]This Convention advocates international co-operation to protect cultural heritage of State Parties from illicit import, export and transfer of ownership.It aims to attain a minimum level of uniform protection against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects and a certain degree of international co- operation and solidarity in this respect. Any import, export, export or transfer of ownership contrary to the Convention, is deemed illicit.[21] It commands that state parties should try by any means possible to oppose practices involving the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property taking place contrary to this Convention.

Domestic Legal Frameworks

FDRE Constitution

The FDRE constitution devotes more than one third of its content to provisions on fundamental human and people’s rights.[22] Moreover, there are provisions that deal with national policy principles and objectives which either establish important guarantees or have direct relevance to the interpretation of fundamental rights.[23] The Constitution imposes a responsibility and duty to the respect and enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms at all levels of the federal and state legislative, executive and judicial bodies.[24] The Constitution further elevates the horizon of human rights through reference to international and regional human rights instruments as thresholds for the interpretation of its human rights provisions.[25] It requires that the bill of rights “shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human instruments adopted by Ethiopia”. This implies that the place that FDRE constitution gave to human rights. It should be worth noted that the relevant instruments need not have been ratified by Ethiopia.[26]

Article 9(1) of the Ethiopian Constitution declares the supremacy of the Constitution.[27] Hence, a literal reading of this provision clearly indicates that international instruments, which, under Article 9(4), are made part and parcel of the laws of the land upon ratification, are subordinate to the Constitution. Since human rights treaties are also part of a special kind of international agreements, they should be understood to be subordinate to the Constitution.[28] However, the inclusion of the interpretation clause (Article 13/2 in  relation to the fundamental rights chapter) has led some scholars to conclude  that international human rights instruments adopted (and not just ratified) have a  status higher than, or at least equal to, Chapter 3 of Constitution itself. Something worth note here is, the conformity is required only when there is the need for interpretation which excludes cases where clear differences exist between the Constitution and international instruments as well as cases of clear constitutional provisions which merely require application of the Constitution. This may make us to conclude; even international human rights instruments have a status subordinate to the Constitution.

Another prominent feature of the Constitution is the implicit recognition of human right principles such as; interdependence, universality and indivisibility of all generations of human rights.

Cultural Right Provisions

The Constitution also guarantees several socio-economic rights as part of the National Policy Principles and Objectives.

Art.39 (2) states; “Every Nation, Nationalities, and Peoples in Ethiopia has the right to express, develop and to promote its culture and to preserve its history.”

Art.41(9); “The state has responsibility to protect and preserve historical and cultural legacies and to contribute to the promotion of art and sport.”  This provision impliedly incorporate state responsibility section of ICESCR Art2 (2).

Art.91: Cultural Objectives

Government shall have the duty to support on the basis of equality, the growth and enrichment of cultures and traditions that are compatible with fundamental rights, human dignity, democratic norms and ideals, and the provisions of the constitution.

Government and all Ethiopian citizens shall have duty to protect the countries natural endowment, historical sites and cultural objects.

Government shall have the duty, to the extent its resource permit, to support the development of the art, science and technology.

Generally the provisions of the constitution create government obligations, rather than individual or collective rights, in a manner similar to the state policy principles and objectives. The general and duty-based formulation makes it difficult to determine justifiability of such rights. Since the Constitution does not indicate their non-justifiability, it can be argued that these rights may be in fact justifiable, at least in the House of Federation. But, justifiability will also depend on the level of activism exercised by the members of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry and the House of Federation. In this regard, it is recommended that socio-economic rights in the provisions of the Constitution should be formulated in a way that establishes individual justifiable rights. The Constitution should follow the formulation employed in the ICESCR or the UDHR, in a way that creates than individual or collective rights than establishing abstract obligations on the government.

Drawback of International Frameworks

Since several important conventions dealing with the restitution of cultural heritage are provided for only in specific cases of restitution proceedings, the scope of application is not broad enough, mainly in the following areas.[29]

First, the substantive laws and regulations applicable to the Convention are limited, and each convention has a clear application. Secondly, the main impediment of these instruments is their non-retroactive nature.[30] That is, they cannot be applied to an act committed before they came into force. Regarding cultural heritage, whether it is the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and 1954 relating to armed conflicts, or the 1970 UNESCO Convention and that of UNIDROIT, their provisions do not concern events occurring before their respective date of coming into force. Consequently, cultural artifacts acquired through colonial conquests cannot be returned on the basis of the existing instruments.

Thirdly, international instruments contain various provisions which limit their scope. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, for example, are limited to situations of armed conflict between recognized States. Developed by Western colonial metropolises, these conventions thus exclude colonial conquests and wars of national liberation that did not qualify as interstate conflicts. Fourthly, restitution claims are often complicated by the diversity of artifacts and legal entities involved thereof. Considering this drawbacks this article opts to follow human right based approach.

HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACH TO CULTURAL RIGHT

HRBA is about establishing yardsticks based on human rights principles to ensure that people’s human rights are put at the very center of policies and practice.[31] In a 2007 resolution that is dedicated to the protection of cultural heritage, the Human Rights Council affirms that ‘cultural heritage is an important component of the cultural identity of communities, groups and individuals, and of social cohesion, so that its intentional destruction may have adverse consequences on human dignity and human rights’.[32] This initiated a ‘human rights based approach’ to cultural heritage protection developed by the Council in subsequent resolutions, in which protection is linked to the right of everyone to take part in cultural life. A human rights based approach empowers people to know and claim their rights. It increases the ability of organizations, public bodies and businesses to fulfill their human rights obligations.[33] It also creates solid accountability so people can seek remedies when their rights are violated and fosters understanding, dialogue, and mutual respect among diverse group.

Major principles (PANEL) principles of HRB approach, are Participation, Accountability, Non-Discrimination and Equality, Empowerment and Legality:

Participation and Inclusivity: People should be involved in decisions that affect their rights. In General Comment No. 21, the notion of participation was interpreted by the committee to include participation in, access to, and contribution to cultural life.

Accountability and Reparations: There should be monitoring of how people’s rights are being affected, as well as remedies when things go wrong. It is about holding accountable those responsible for violations of cultural rights; such as looting, destruction and looking compensation for affected community.

Non-Discrimination and Equality: All forms of discrimination must be prohibited, prevented and eliminated. People who face the biggest barriers to realizing their rights should be prioritized.

Empowerment: Everyone should understand their rights, and be fully supported to take part in developing policy and practices which affect their lives.

Legality: Approaches should be grounded in the legal rights that are set out in domestic and international laws.

Significance of human rights-based approach

The practical value of a human rights-based approach to development lies in the following:[34]

A human rights-based approach focuses on the realization of the rights of the excluded and marginalized populations, and those whose rights are at risk of being violated, building on the premise that a country cannot achieve sustained progress without recognizing human rights principles (especially universality[35]) as core principles of governance.

A program guided by a human rights-based approach takes a holistic view of its environment, considering the family, the community, and civil society, local and national authorities. It considers the social, political and legal framework that determines the relationship between those institutions, and the resulting claims, duties and accountabilities. A human rights-based approach encourages sectors and facilitates an integrated response to multifaceted problems. Specific results, standards of service delivery and conduct are derived from universal human rights instruments, conventions and other internationally agreed goals, targets, norms or standards. A human rights-based approach assists countries in translating such goals and standards into time-bound and achievable national results. Accountabilities for achieving these results or standards are determined through participatory processes (policy development, national planning), and reflect the consensus between those whose rights are violated and those with a duty to act. A human rights-based approach seeks both to assist in the participatory formulation of the needed policy and legislative framework, and to ensure that participatory and democratic processes are institutionalized locally and nationally. A human rights-based approach helps to formulate policy, legislation, regulations and budgets that clearly determine the particular human right(s) to be addressed what must be done and to what standard, who is accountable and ensures the availability of needed capacities.

A human rights-based approach to development supports the monitoring of State commitments with the help of recommendations of human rights treaty bodies, and through public and independent assessments of State performance.

Human Right Based Approach to Cultural Heritage in Ethiopia

Indeed Ethiopian human rights instruments and institutions don’t mention issue of cultural heritages restitution explicitly. However, the broader human right instrument, FDRE Constitution, recognizes the importance of cultural rights, identity, art, history and heritage as integral components of human dignity and self-determination, even impose obligation on government (and community) positive and negative obligation.

Article 44 of the constitution guarantees the right to cultural development and preservation as part of the broader protection of human rights, specifically recognizes the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-determination, including the right to preserve and promote their cultural heritage. This provision can be invoked to support arguments for the repatriation of cultural artifacts held in other countries as a means of safeguarding and promoting Ethiopian cultural identity and heritage.

In addition, there are institutions able to play role in advocating for the protection of cultural rights and addressing issues related to management cultural heritages from a human rights perspective of such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC has a mandate to promote and protect human rights in Ethiopia, including cultural rights, and could potentially engage in efforts to raise awareness about the right to culture to the community, to uphold the cultural rights as cultural right is part and parcel of human right. Furthermore, civil society organizations and advocacy groups in Ethiopia may involve in raising awareness about the issue of cultural heritages and advocating for their repatriation. These organizations often work in collaboration with international partners, legal experts, and cultural heritage institutions to advance the cause of repatriation through a human rights lens.

Challenges in Adopting a HRBA to Cultural Heritage in Ethiopia

The main challenges in adopting a human rights-based approach to cultural heritage preservation in Ethiopia are;

Lack of awareness and understanding of the relation between human rights and cultural heritage. Many stakeholders, including government officials, heritage management agencies, and local communities, may not fully notice the importance of integrating human rights principles into cultural heritage conservation efforts. In Ethiopia human right institution as well as legislations call ‘human right’ mostly first generation rights. Little attention was given to cultural right violation.

Another challenge is the limited capacity and resources available for implementing a human rights-based approach to cultural heritage preservation. Ethiopia faces numerous socio-economic challenges, and allocating sufficient resources to ensure that cultural heritage preservation is carried out in a manner that respects and upholds human rights can be difficult.

There may be resistance or pushback from certain stakeholders who prioritize economic development or other interests over the protection of cultural heritage sites and artifacts. Balancing these competing interests while upholding human rights principles can be a delicate and complex process.

Lack of clear guidelines or frameworks for incorporating human rights considerations into cultural heritage preservation practices can hinder efforts to adopt a human rights-based approach in Ethiopia. Without specific guidelines and tools to guide decision-making and implementation, it can be challenging for stakeholders to effectively integrate human rights perspectives into their work.

Institutions in charge of enforcing heritage laws lack institutional independence and the existence of political, influence specialty to enforce national and international heritage laws.

Generally, addressing these challenges will require a committed effort to raise awareness to the community, build capacity for stakeholders, allocate resources, and develop clear guidelines for integrating human rights considerations into cultural heritage preservation practices in Ethiopia.

Illustrative Cases of Restitution through HRBA

The first one is the case of the sacred deer head (Maaso Kova) from the Yaqui, a people in Sonora and Arizona across both sides of the Mexican-US border.[36] In June 2021, the Museum of World Cultures in Stockholm restituted ceremonial objects to the Yaqui, including Maaso Kova.[37] According to the Swedish Museum, the ceremonial objects were collected in 1934 in Tlaxcala (central Mexico), when some Yaquis were forcibly deported, obliged to become combatants, and subjected to forced labor. Maaso Kova represents a deity for the Yaqui, and its retention and exhibition by a foreign museum were perceived as offenses. Even if the pieces were collected and exported according to applicable laws, the collection witnessed a moment of extreme vulnerability suffered by the Yaqui.[38] Restitution was achieved after the intervention of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) and for the Special Rapporteur (EMRIP). For them, the withholding of the sacred item represented a violation of the cultural rights of the Yaqui.[39] The EMRIP facilitated the dialogue between the parties involved and an agreement was reached for returning the collection. Besides the human rights angle of cultural property, this case illustrates the role that international organizations can play in the context of restitution.[40] This may be inciting for concerned body to take action toward applying HRBA toward repatriation claim

Way Forward

• Issue of cultural heritage should be made a priority: It is obvious that tourism industry is good source of income in Ethiopia, effective combat of displacement of cultural property require resources in the form of money, trained manpower, facilities and logistics. Once the government of the country puts full effort toward cultural heritage management, it can ‘kill two birds with one stone.’ Economic development in one hand and fulfilling its state obligation imposed by ICESCR to respect, protect and fulfill. This sector should be seen equal with other sector as it is vital sector. There should be adequate funds to operate in the sector internally.
• Museums should considerem collections through a human rights lens
• Ethiopia should collaborate with cultural institutions and other states to create policies grounded in human rights, establishing clear channels for restitution requests and fostering dialogue and reconciliation among stakeholders.
• International Human right Organizations should make clear legislations that embrace repatriation of cultural objects as part of human right.

Conclusion

Cultural objects are a human rights issue, as their looting and retention violate rights such as freedom of thought and access to history. A human rights-based approach to repatriation enhances cultural rights obligations, provides redress for historical injustices, and integrates insights from both fields. It involves families, communities, civil society, and authorities, addressing the social, political, and legal contexts of responsibilities. This approach translates universal human rights standards into actionable results while ensuring accountability through community participation. It empowers communities in policy formulation, enhancing transparency and accountability in developing policies that outline human rights obligations.

Human rights bodies can enrich restitution discussions by fostering cooperation between museums and governments. Museums should interpret collections through a human rights lens, as retaining artifacts without community consent may violate cultural rights. While they can perpetuate biased narratives, museums also have the potential to amplify diverse voices. Integrating human rights into restitution debates addresses contemporary issues like obtaining consent and respecting cultural rights. Human rights law can help dismantle colonial biases in collections and frame restitution as reparation. Ethiopia should collaborate with cultural institutions and other states to create policies grounded in human rights, establishing clear channels for restitution requests and fostering dialogue and reconciliation among stakeholders.

Reference(S):

Laws

1. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1/1995, Federal Negarit Gazette, (1995).
2. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.
   3. The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995.

Article and Journals

1. Yvonne Donders, “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights,” in Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, ed. Francesco Francian and Ana FilipaVrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 385.
2. Renold, Marc-André, and Alessandro Chechi, “International Human Rights Law and Cultural Heritage In Cultural Heritage and Mass Atrocities, edited by James Cuno and Thomas G. Weiss. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2022.P.1-3.
3. Camille Labadie, ‘Decolonizing collections: A legal perspective on the restitution of cultural artifacts’, …, (2021). p. 132-146
4. Alessandra Gramolini, The Restitution of Cultural Objects to African Countries: New Form of Decolonisation?, December 28, 2021
5. Zuozhen Liu, Repatriation of cultural objects: The case of China, PhD Thesis, Universities of Amsterdam, 2015.Page 13.[ Zouzhen Liu]
6. Misganaw Gashaw Beza, “A Critical Analysis of Legal and Institutional Frameworks of Heritage Management in Ethiopia”, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHIOPIAN LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 1:1],P.74.[Misganaw Gashaw].
7. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, “Introduction,” in the Cultural Dimension of Human Rights, ed. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 1.
8. Hermann Parzinger, ‘cultural heritage under attack: learning from history’, Getty Publications, 2022. P. 60.
9. Farida Shaheed, Report of the Independent Expert in the Field of Cultural Rights, Human Rights Council, UN doc. A/HRC/17/38, 21 March 2001, Para. 18.
10. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, “Introduction,” in the Cultural Dimension of Human Rights, ed. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), P.1.
11. 11.Tilahun Yazie Tibebu, ‘The Regulation of Illicit Cultural Heritage Trafficking under Ethiopian Law: Analysis of the Problem of Non- comprehensive Criminalization and Inconsistent Penalties’, Bahir Dar University Journal of Law Vol.10, No.1 (December 2019), P.28.
12. Rita Pankhurst, The Library of Emperor Tewodros II at Mäqdäla (Magdala), Bulletin of the of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, (1973), p. 19.
13. 15.Irini A. Stamatoudi, “Cultural Property Law and Restitution”, A Commentary to International Conventions and European Union Law(IHC SERIES IN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT, Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK Northampton 2011). P 128.
14. Ho-Young Song, ‘International Legal Instruments and New Judicial Principles for Restitution of Illegally Exported Cultural Properties Restitution of Illegally Exported Cultural Properties,’ Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, VOLUME 4 NO. 2. (2016).
15. Janet Blake, ‘Defining the Cultural Heritage’, International and Comparative Law, (2000), P. 49.

[1] Karima Bennoune: Cultural heritage is a human rights issue (Wednesday, 26 August 2025 access time 9 min.) Karima Bennoune: Cultural heritage is a human rights issue (Wednesday, 26 October 2016 access time 9 min.) As UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, she decided to address the intentional destruction of cultural heritage as an urgent priority. Her first thematic report to the UN General Assembly, which she presents to the United Nations General Assembly, on 27 October 2016.

[2] https://mag.wcoomd.org/magazine/wco-news-81/the-looting-of-cultural-heritage-has-been-happening-since-the-very-existence-of-cultural-heritage-it-is-not-anything-new-but-what-we-see-now-is-that-looting-has-become-highly-organized/

[3]  Yvonne Donders, “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights,” in Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, ed. Francesco Francian and Ana FilipaVrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 385.

 Renold, Marc-André, and Alessandro Chechi, “International Human Rights Law and Cultural Heritage In Cultural Heritage and Mass Atrocities, edited by James Cuno and Thomas G. Weiss. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2022.P.1-3.

[4] Camille Labadie, ‘Decolonizing collections: A legal perspective on the restitution of cultural artifacts’, …, (2021). p. 132-146

[5]  Yvonne Donders, “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights,” in Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, ed. Francesco Francian and Ana FilipaVrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 385.

[6]  Renold, Marc-André, and Alessandro Chechi, “International Human Rights Law and Cultural Heritage In Cultural Heritage and Mass Atrocities, edited by James Cuno and Thomas G. Weiss. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2022.P.1-3.

[7] Alessandra Gramolini,  The Restitution of Cultural Objects to African Countries: New Form of Decolonisation?, December  28, 2021

[8] Id.

[9] Zuozhen Liu, Repatriation of cultural objects: The case of China, PhD Thesis, Universities of Amsterdam, 2015.Page 13.[ Zouzhen Liu]

[10] Irini A. Stamatoudi, “Cultural Property Law and Restitution”, A Commentary to International Conventions and European Union Law(IHC SERIES IN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT, Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK Northampton 2011). P 128.

[11] Human rights-based approach (HRBA) is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights.

Misganaw Gashaw Beza, “A Critical Analysis of Legal and Institutional Frameworks of Heritage Management in Ethiopia”, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHIOPIAN LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 1:1],P.74.[Misganaw Gashaw].

[13]  Tilahun Yazie Tibebu, ‘The Regulation of Illicit Cultural Heritage Trafficking under Ethiopian Law: Analysis of the Problem of Non- comprehensive Criminalization and Inconsistent Penalties’, Bahir Dar University Journal of Law Vol.10, No.1 (December 2019), P.28.

[14] Rita Pankhurst, The Library of Emperor Tewodros II at Mäqdäla (Magdala), Bulletin of the of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, (1973), p. 19.

[15] Id

[16] Woldeyes, Y. G. (2020). “Holding Living Bodies in Graveyards,” The Violence of Keeping Ethiopian Manuscripts in Western Institutions, M/C Journal, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.1621.

[17]  Borodkin L, ‘The Economics of Antiquities Looting and a Proposed Legal Alternative, ‘Columbia Law Review (1995). P. 95.

[18]  The Convention was signed in Rome on 24 June 1995 and came into force on 1 July 1998. There are presently 29.

[19]  Article 3(1) of the UNINDROIT Convention 1995: ‘The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it’.

[20]  ‘The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property’ was adopted at the 16th General Conference of UNESCO in November 1970 by a majority of the states that were present (Seventy seven states voted in favor of its adoption, one against and eight states abstained) and entered into force on 24 April 1972.

[21]  See Art.3 of the UNESCO Convention (1970).

[22] Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC,(2007). P,4.[Helaine 2007].

[23] Adem Kassie Abebed, “Human Rights under the Ethiopia Constitution: a Descriptive Overview,” Mizan Law Review, Vol. 5 No.1, (2011), P 43. [Adem 2011]

[24] Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC,(2007). P,4.[Helaine 2007].

[25] Ibrahim Idris. ‘The Place of International Human Rights Conventions in the 1994 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution’, Journal of Ethiopian Law Vol. 113, (2000), P. 20.

[26] Vijayakumar Somasekharan Nair, ‘Perceptions, Legislation, and Management of Cultural Heritage
in Ethiopia’, International Journal of Cultural Property, Vol. 23, No. 1, (2016), p. 102.

[27] The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1/1995, Federal Negarit Gazette, (1995). Art. 9

[28] Id. Art. 13(2)

[29] Ho-Young Song, ‘International Legal Instruments and New Judicial Principles for Restitution of Illegally Exported Cultural Properties Restitution of Illegally Exported Cultural Properties,’ Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, VOLUME 4 NO. 2. (2016).

[30] The principle of non-retroactivity is a legal safeguard recognized at the national (often included in constitutional texts), and international level (for example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

[31] Roger O’Keefe, “Tangible Cultural Heritage and International Human Rights Law,” in Realizing Cultural Heritage Law: Festschrift for Patrick O’Keefe, ed. Lyndel V. Prott, Ruth Redmond-Cooper, and Stephen Urice (Builth Wells, UK: Institute of Art and Law, 2013), P.95.

[32] UNHRC, Res. 6/11 on Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, UN Doc, A/HRC/RES/6/11 (28 September 2007), preamble part.

[33]  UNHRC, Res. 6/11 on Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, UN Doc, A/HRC/RES/6/11 (28 September 2007), preamble part.

[34] Janet Blake, ‘Defining the Cultural Heritage’, International and Comparative Law, (2000), P. 49.

[35] Universality means that all people have human rights, even if resource constraints imply prioritization. It does not mean that all problems of all people must be tackled at once.

[36]  Genaro Macias Betancourt , ‘Restitution of Cultural Property and Human Rights’, Journal of International legal review, Vol.2,(2018) P,29.

[37] Id

[38] Id

[39] Id

[40] Id