Cultural Property: International Conventions and United States Legislation

CRS Report for Congress
Cultural Property:
International Conventions and
United States Legislation
April 8, 2004
Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorneys
American Law Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Cultural Property: International Conventions and United
States Legislation
Summary
The looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, initially described as a devastating
blow to the world’s cultural heritage, has raised interest in measures to protect
cultural patrimony. While more recent reports revealed that the loss of museum
holdings had been exaggerated, the damage continues to be assessed as significant.
There is broad international consensus that antiquities and art deserve special
protection from the ravages of war, as is codified in the 1907 Hague Regulations, the
1949 Geneva Conventions, and the 1954 Hague Convention. Other agreements
address protection of world heritage from pilfering and smuggling, including
conventions drafted under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations International Institute
for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). However, there is no international
consensus on the most appropriate and effective means of providing protection. U.S.
law to prevent the illicit “black market” trade in art and antiquities imposes both civil
and criminal sanctions on art thieves, looters, and smugglers.
This report describes relevant treaties, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483,
current U.S. law, and proposed legislation, including H.Con.Res. 113, the Iraq
Cultural Protection Act (H.R. 2009 and H.R. 3497), and the Emergency Protection
for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004 (S. 1291 and S. 671, the latter of which has
passed the Senate as an engrossed amendment to H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade
and Technical Corrections Act of 2004). The report will be updated as events
require.

Contents
International Conventions on Cultural Property......................1
Protection for Cultural Heritage During Armed Conflict...........1
Peacetime Protection under U.N. Conventions...................3
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483........................5
United States Law on International Cultural Property .................5
Law Applicable to the Armed Forces..........................5
National Stolen Property Act.................................5
Cultural Property Implementation Act..........................6
Iraq Sanctions Regulations...................................7
Proposed National Legislation to Address Post-War Looting of Iraqi
Cultural Property .........................................7
The Iraq Cultural Protection Act..............................8
Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004.....9

Cultural Property: International Conventions
and United States Legislation
The illicit trade of art and other cultural property constitutes a significant portion
of the worldwide “black market” of illegal trade.¹ Many States have adopted
domestic laws to prevent the export of illicitly-obtained cultural property, and there
has been some movement towards building an international regime to better prevent
the illicit trade of such items. Still, there is little international consensus on how best
to protect cultural property. The issue of protecting cultural property has not been
high on the congressional agenda in recent years. However, the issue has been
gaining attention in many contexts, especially with respect to the war in Iraq and its
aftermath.
International Conventions on Cultural Property
Cultural property receives special protection under treaties pertaining to the laws
of armed conflict. In addition, there are major international conventions that address
illicit trade. However, despite continued losses of cultural treasures through war and
illicit trade, there is no generally accepted enforcement regime, meaning that
individual States generally determine what, if any, sanctions apply within their own
jurisdiction. This is especially so with regard to property that was not stolen, but was
exported in violation of the source country’s export control laws.
Protection for Cultural Heritage During Armed Conflict. Codified
provisions for the protection of cultural property during armed conflict first appeared
during the U.S. Civil War.² Before then, looting and plunder of conquered territories
were an accepted facet of warfare; invading armies sought out treasures to carry
home as trophies of conquest and destroyed much of what they could not remove.³
Nonetheless, the rules set forth during the Civil War quickly gained currency. In

1907, they were adopted by nations and incorporated into the Hague Regulations

¹ In 2001, it was estimated that the illicit trade in art and other cultural property was
surpassed only by the so-called “black market of illegal drugs and weapons” as the largest
and most profitable type of illegal trade worldwide. Marilyn Phelan & Lucille Roussin,
Public International Law: Cultural Property, 35 I^NT’^LL^AW. 649 (2001) (quoting Major
General Conforti, Head of the Protection of National Heritage Command of the Italian
Carabinieri).
² See The Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field,
General Order No.100, arts 34-36 (1863) (“Lieber Code”).
³ For an overview of the treatment of cultural heritage objects from ancient wars to modern
armed conflict, see Anthi Helleni Poulos, The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection
of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: An Historic Analysis, 28 I^NT’^LJ.
L^EGALI^NFO. 1 (2000).

governing land warfare,⁴ and are now considered to be customary international law
– binding on all nations regardless of ratification. Defenders of territory are required
to identify and mark cultural monuments and buildings where cultural property is
stored, and are prohibited from using such sites for military purposes. Invaders are
to refrain from deliberately attacking the designated sites and destroying, seizing, or
requisitioning protected property except in case of imperative military necessity or
where the defending forces are exploiting protected buildings for impermissible
military purposes. Soldiers are not permitted to pillage or loot. Occupying forces are
to treat public cultural and religious property as if it were private property, not
subject to seizure as war booty unless absolutely necessary.
The mass, systematic looting and destruction of artifacts during World War II,
coupled with advances in the destructive capability of weapons, made apparent the
need for a more comprehensive agreement. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949⁵
declared it a grave breach – a war crime subject to universal jurisdiction – to “destroy
clearly recognized historic monuments, works of art, or places or worship.” The
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property⁶ was negotiated as
the first comprehensive treaty setting forth belligerents’ obligations with respect to
cultural property. The Hague Convention elaborates on the earlier agreements,
placing the responsibility on contracting Parties to prohibit any destruction, theft,
pillage, or misappropriation of cultural property (art. 4). It specifically provides that
an occupying power must take an active role, to the extent possible, in the protection
of cultural property, in the event the national authorities are unable to provide
protection (art. 5). State Parties to the First Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention
(“HP”), signed at the same time as the Hague Convention, undertake further to
prevent the exportation of cultural property from territory they occupy during an
armed conflict (HP art. 1), and to ban the importation of cultural property from any
occupied territory into their own territory (HP art. 2). These Parties also agree to
return property exported in contravention of the occupant’s obligations (HP art. 3),
to pay an indemnity to good faith purchasers of such property (HP art. 4), and to
return any cultural property in their custody for safekeeping to the competent
authorities of the territory previously occupied (HP art. 5).⁷
“Cultural property” is broadly defined in the Hague Convention as all “movable
or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people”
(art. 1). The Hague Convention provides for an international register of specially

⁴ Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, October 18,

1907, Annex I (“Hague Regulations”) arts. 27, 47, 56, 36 Stat. 2277, TS 539.

⁵ The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, 6
U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter “Geneva IV”].
⁶ Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, May

14, 1954, 249 U.N.T.S. 215.

⁷ Parties to the Protocol may opt out of either Section I (HP arts. 1-4) or Section II (HP art.
5) at the time of signing or accession (HP art 9). President Clinton recommended that the
United States exercise its option to declare Section I, which would obligate an occupying
power to take specified measures to prevent the export of cultural property from an occupied
territory during armed conflict, as non-binding to the United States. See Sen. Treaty Doc.

106-1 at 12-13.

protected places. It does not, however, specify any type of enforcement process to
bring about the restitution of stolen artifacts to their country of origin. Instead, the
Convention leaves each nation to decide for itself what, if any, sanctions apply within
its own jurisdiction to protect cultural property (art. 28). There are more than 100
State Parties to the 1954 Convention, but the United States, though a signatory, is
still not among them.⁸
Protecting cultural property during armed conflict has continued to be an issue
of international concern, but there still is little consensus on principles beyond those
contained in the 1954 Convention. In 1999, the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
was concluded.⁹ The Second Protocol, among its provisions, applies the standards
of the 1954 Convention to certain internal conflicts, specifies sanctions for serious
violations of cultural property and defines the conditions in which individual criminal
responsibility shall apply. It establishes a twelve-member Intergovernmental
Committee to oversee the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols. The
Protocol came into force on March 9, 2004, three months after the deposit of
twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. The United
States is not a Party to the Protocol.
Peacetime Protection under U.N. Conventions. Beyond the Hague
Conventions, the international community has increasingly recognized that danger
to cultural heritage is not limited to times of war. In 1970, the General Conference
of UNESCO adopted a new international convention on illicit traffic in cultural¹⁰
property (1970 UNESCO Convention). This agreement calls on State Parties to
take a variety of measures, consistent with their national laws, to better regulate and
document traffic in cultural property. Parties are to adopt the use of a certificate that
indicates an export is authorized under domestic controls. Parties are also to take
measures, consistent with national legislation, to prevent institutions from acquiring
illegally exported items. A separate bar on importing stolen cultural property is
stated more categorically, because market countries – those that primarily import
cultural property – have historically been reluctant to recognize that all imports from
source countries in violation of their national export controls are illicit per se.
Market countries are to take measures to recover and return stolen cultural property,
but a Party seeking the return of such items is obligated to pay compensation in the
case of either an innocent purchaser or a person holding valid legal title. Finally, the

⁸ While the United States participated in the negotiation of the Convention, concerns about
some of its language kept the Executive branch from pursuing its ratification until 1999. See
Senate Treaty Doc. 106-1. Specifically, it appears the term “export” was thought to be
inadequately defined, the standard of liability to be too strict and inapplicable to non-
conventional warfare, and the Department of Defense was concerned that the Kremlin could
be designated as a “cultural heritage site” and thus immune from attack.
⁹ Jean-Marie Henckaerts, New Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed
Conflict: The Significance of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the
Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Sept. 29, 1999), available
at http://www.helpicrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf.
¹⁰ Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Nov. 14, 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231.

1970 Convention specifies other steps, such as various educational and scientific
programs, that may be adopted by Parties in furtherance of international cooperation
on protecting cultural property. The United States became a Party to the 1970
Convention in 1983.¹¹
In 1972, UNESCO adopted a separate “Convention Concerning Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” (1972 UNESCO Convention). In part, the

1972 Convention calls on Parties to take a variety of additional educational,

scientific, and administrative measures to promote the protection of covered property.
In this regard, the 1972 UNESCO Convention is not dissimilar from the 1970
Convention. But while the 1970 Convention also focused on the adoption of
domestic legal measures to curb illicit trafficking, the 1972 Convention establishes
new international entities – the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage
Fund – to aid in the identification and preservation of covered property. The 1972
Convention expressly recognizes natural features, formations, and similar sites as a
component of “world heritage,” along side cultural property. The United States
ratified the 1972 Convention in 1973.¹²
In 1995, a convention to refine legal standards for trade and protection of
cultural property was concluded under the auspices of UNIDROIT. The declared
purpose of this UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural
Objects is to establish “minimal [common] legal rules for the restitution and return
of cultural objects between Contracting states.”¹³ It is designed to give a general right
of restitution to persons or states from whom cultural property was stolen.¹⁴ Within
this framework, the Convention allows for restitution claims by private individuals;
just compensation to the bona fide purchaser of a forfeited artifact, providing the
purchaser exercised due diligence; and if an object is termed of “great cultural
importance,” recognition of the export laws of the source nation. The Convention
includes specific procedural requirements for claims of restitution, and attaches
concrete statutes of limitation on those claims.¹⁵ Only 21 countries have thus far
ratified or acceded to the UNIDROIT Convention.¹⁶ Most of the primary market

¹¹ See Listing of Parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, available at
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/1970/html_eng/page3.shtml (last updated Oct. 3, 2003).
¹² Convention on the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, ratified Dec. 7,

1973, entered into force 27 U.S.T. 37.

¹³ Preliminary Draft, UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural
Objects, June 24, 1995, available at http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/unidroit.html (last
viewed on Mar. 30, 2004).
¹⁴ See Phelan & Roussin, supra note 1, at 657 (explaining that the UNIDROIT Convention
provides an international framework for the recovery of stolen or illegally exported cultural
property).
¹⁵ See UNIDROIT Convention, supra note 13, art. 5 (defining what constitutes illegal export
and significant impairment, and setting a three year limit on any return request and a fifty
year limit on a return for a expired permit).
¹⁶ See Status Report, UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural
Objects, available at http://www.unidroit.org/english/implement/i-95.htm (last viewed on
(continued...)

countries of Asia, Europe, and North America (including the United States) are not
among them.
The most recent multilateral agreement on cultural property is the 2001
UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.¹⁷ This
Convention is intended “to codify and progressively develop rules relating to the
protection and preservation of underwater cultural heritage in conformity with
international law and practice, including the [1970] UNESCO Convention . . . , the
[1972] UNESCO Convention . . . , and the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea . . . .” The United States is not a Party to this Convention.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1483 (May 23, 2003), regarding the administration of Iraq until an
“internationally recognized, representative government” is established there, calls on
all member nations, regardless of whether they are parties to the 1970 UNESCO
Convention, to assist in the protection of Iraq’s cultural heritage. Paragraph 7
obligates all U.N. member States to take appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return
of stolen articles of cultural value, including a ban on international trade in “Iraqi
cultural property and other archaeological, historical, cultural, religious and rare
scientific items that were removed illegally from the Iraq National Museum, National
Library and other locations since the adoption of resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August.”
It is not clear whether the ban will expire upon the formation of a new permanent
government in Iraq.
United States Law on International Cultural Property
Law Applicable to the Armed Forces. The protection of cultural heritage
during armed conflict is incorporated in the military manuals of the armed forces.
The Army manual on the Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10),¹⁸ for example,
incorporates the international law of war and provides for the recognition and
protection of cultural sites, whether marked as such or not. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) provides punishment for soldiers who participate in looting
or pillage.¹⁹ Battlefield trophies are strictly prohibited, and soldiers may be punished
for trading in captured or abandoned property of any type.
National Stolen Property Act. The comprehensive National Stolen
Property Act (“NSPA”), first enacted in 1934, provides one means for recovering
looted antiquities.²⁰ Under the NSPA, the United States government prosecutes the
offender on behalf of the foreign government. The NSPA criminalizes both the
possession and the trade of any item known to have been stolen, regardless of

¹⁶ (...continued)
Mar. 30, 2004).
¹⁷ Reprinted at 41 I.L.M. 40 (2002).
¹⁸ U.S.D^EP’^{T OF}A^RM^Y,F^I^ELDM^ANUAL27-10,^THEL^AW^OFL^ANDW^ARFARE(July 1956).
¹⁹ Art. 103, 10 U.S.C. § 903.
²⁰ 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

whether the United States has an agreement with the claimant nation. However, the
NPSA applies only if the item in dispute has a value of over $5,000. Moreover, the
statute does not guarantee restitution of the item to the claimant nation,²¹ providing
only for forfeiture of the item to the United States government. A criminal statute,
the NSPA requires a high evidentiary burden of proof, because each element of the
crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leading, some say, to the relative
rarity of convictions under the NSPA. Convicted offenders face up to ten years in
prison and a fine of no more than $10,000.
Cultural Property Implementation Act. Congress enacted implementing
legislation to fulfill U.S. obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983
(the year after the United States became a Party) through the Cultural Property²²
Implementation Act (“CPIA”). The accompanying Senate report pointed to the
increase in looting and destruction of antiquities, which was depriving nations of
their cultural patrimony and the world of knowledge of its past, as the main
consideration necessitating the CPIA.²³ It also noted that the United States’ status as
a principal market for stolen cultural goods was straining its relations with other
nations.
Like the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the CPIA distinguishes between stolen
property and property that has been exported contrary to the laws of a source country.
The CPIA flatly bars the import of any article of cultural property that is stolen from
a museum, religious or secular public monument, or similar cultural institution. The
regulation of illegally exported cultural property is somewhat knottier. The CPIA
does not automatically attach legal consequences to all imports alleged to be in
violation of the export laws of a source country. Rather, a source country that is a
Party to the 1970 Convention may request that the President enter into an agreement
with it for the imposition of U.S. import restrictions on cultural property exported
illegally from it. The requirements for such requests are stringent. The Party must
state that its cultural patrimony is in jeopardy, that import restrictions by importing
countries would serve substantially to overcome a serious danger of pillage, and that
less drastic remedies are not available. Even after such an agreement has been
concluded and U.S. import restrictions imposed, those restrictions may be suspended
if they prove ineffective or if other importing countries do not implement similar
restrictions. Cultural property may be excepted from regulation if it can be shown
that the property has been in the United States for a specified period. This period
may be as brief as three years in the case of good faith, well publicized purchases by
museums and similar institutions, or as long as 20 years in the case of any good-faith
purchaser for value, depending upon the frequency and prominence of the property’s
public display and the availability of other information indicating that the property
has been in the United States. Where the appropriate time limit has not been met,
foreign cultural property that has been stolen or imported in violation of U.S. import
restrictions is subject to seizure and forfeiture. The standards for forfeiture and the

²¹ See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 (noting that the claimant nation may negotiate with the
United States government for the return of the item).
²² Pub. L. 97-446, tit. 3, 96 Stat. 2350, codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.
²³ S. Rep. No. 97-564 (1982).

disposition of forfeited property differ according to whether the property was stolen
or illegally imported. In the case of stolen property, a U.S. buyer for value without
reason to believe the property was stolen is entitled to recover the purchase price,
unless the laws of the source country would allow the uncompensated return of
property stolen from a U.S. institution as a matter of reciprocal practice.
Iraq Sanctions Regulations. With respect to Iraqi cultural heritage,
importation is controlled by 31 CFR part 575, which previously regulated all
transactions with Iraq as well as those involving goods originating in Iraq as part of
the economic sanctions instituted after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. On May 23,
2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a general license lifting most of the
sanctions against Iraq in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483.
However, the license (provided in 31 CFR 575.333) does not authorize any
transactions with respect to Iraqi cultural property or other items of archaeological,
historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from
the Iraq National Museum, the National Library, and other locations in Iraq since
August 6, 1990. Any trade in or transfer of such items, including items with respect
to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed, remains
prohibited.
Proposed National Legislation to Address Post-War Looting
of Iraqi Cultural Property
In response to the looting of Iraqi cultural antiquities in the aftermath of the war
in Iraq, a number of legislative measures have been proposed in the 108^th Congress,
though most have not made it out of committee. On March 25, 2003, within days after
United States troops entered Iraq, a concurrent resolution was introduced in the
House to urge all governments involved in the conflict “to take all reasonable
measures to avoid damage to the cultural antiquities in Iraq until hostilities have
ceased.”²⁴ Other proposed measures include the Iraq Cultural Protection Act (H.R.
2009 and H.R. 3497) and the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act
(S. 1291 and title IV of H.R. 1047).
Some members of the cultural heritage community believe new legislation is
necessary to close a potential loophole in U.S. laws and regulations that could permit
the import of illegally removed Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Although
such imports are currently prohibited under regulations promulgated by the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),²⁵ proponents of specific
legislation view these protections as insufficient. They argue that OFAC’s legal
authority to issue sanctions is derived from Executive Order 12722²⁶ and the Iraqi
Sanctions Act,²⁷ which in turn premise sanctions upon the existence of an emergency

²⁴ H.Con.Res. 113, 108th Cong. (2003). The resolution was referred to the House
Committee on International Relations.
²⁵ 31 C.F.R. § 575.533.
²⁶ Exec. Order. 12722, 55 Fed. Reg. 31,803 (Aug. 2, 1990).
²⁷ Pub. L. 101-513 §§ 586-586J, 104 Stat. 2047 (1990) [hereinafter “Iraqi Sanctions Act”].

situation occurring with respect to Iraq.²⁸ Accordingly, OFAC sanctions could be
lifted upon a presidential determination that emergency conditions in Iraq no longer
existed;²⁹ a determination that could potentially occur when an Iraqi interim
government is established. At any rate, Iraqi cultural heritage materials do not now
enjoy the tailored protections available under the CPIA.
The Iraq Cultural Protection Act. H.R. 2009, was introduced in the House
on May 7, 2003. The Act would ban the importation into the United States of any
Iraqi archaeological or cultural material that was removed from Iraq after the
issuance of Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990 without a certification from the
Government of Iraq that the material’s exportation was not in violation of Iraqi law.
It would define ‘archaeological material of Iraq’ to mean
any object or fragment or part of an object, including human and
animal skeletal remains and plant and floral remains, that was
first found within the borders of Iraq as such borders existed on
August 2, 1990, that
(i) was built, manufactured, sculpted, produced, or written
by humans;
(ii) is at least 100 years old; and
(iii) was discovered as a result of scientific excavation,
illegal or clandestine digging, accidental discovery, or
exploration on land or under water. . . .”
“Cultural material” of Iraq would mean
any object, regardless of age, including manuscripts, and
materials used for traditional or religious ceremonial purposes,
or a fragment or part of an object, that was, on or after August
2, 1990, in the care of Iraq’s cultural or religious institutions and
is of historic, artistic, religious, scientific, or cultural interest.³⁰
In the event of an attempt to bring a covered item into the United States without the
required documentation, customs officers would be required to hold any such objects and
deliver them to a bonded warehouse in order to allow the consignee 90 days to procure and
file the required certification. Failure to file the documents in a timely manner could result
in seizure and forfeiture of the materials, which would then be returned to Iraq.
H.R. 2009 would also amend the CPIA to (1) redefine an object of archaeological
interest as being at least 100 years old, as opposed to the current standard of being at least
250 years old; (2) allow its application to cultural or archaeological materials from countries
who are not parties to the 1970 UNESCO agreement (and during emergencies, regardless
whether the country requests it); (3) generally extend the period during which import
restrictions under the CPIA may be placed on the archaeological or ethnological material

²⁸ See 149 C^ONGR^EC. S8236-37 (daily ed. June 19, 2003) (statement of Sen. Grassley on
introducing S. 1291, a previous version of Iraqi Antiquities Act).
²⁹ Id.
³⁰ H.R. 2009 § 2, 108^th Cong. (2003).

of any country to ten years; and (4) extend from five to ten years the effective period for
bilateral or multilateral agreements for import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological
materials.
A second version of the Iraq Cultural Protection Act was introduced on Nov. 17, 2003
as H.R. 3497. This version differs from H.R. 2009 in that it excludes coins and coin-like
objects less than 250 years old from the import restrictions; requires certification issued by
the appropriate governing authority in Iraq rather than the Government of Iraq (which may
be ambiguous as a result of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq); brings the period of restriction
in line with U.N.S.C. Resolution 1483 (plus 6 months); and modifies the composition of the
Cultural Property Advisory Committee under section 306 of the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. § 2605).
Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004. On March
4, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections
Act of 2004, with an engrossed amendment that incorporated S. 671. Title IV of H.R. 1047
(as passed by the Senate), the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of
2004 (Iraqi Antiquities Act), would authorize the President to exercise his authority under
the CPIA section 304 (19 U.S.C. § 2603) to implement emergency import restrictions with
respect to Iraqi “archaeological or ethnological material” as if Iraq were a State Party to the
1970 UNESCO Convention. The Act would define “archaeological or ethnological
material” as:
cultural property of Iraq and other items of archaeological, historical,
cultural, rare scientific, or religious importance illegally removed
from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library of Iraq, and
other locations in Iraq, since the adoption of United Nations Security³¹
Council Resolution 661 of 1990.
Certain limitations on Presidential discretion made by section 304(c) of the CPIA, such
as the requirement that a State Party (in this case, Iraq) first request the President to act
before he exercises his discretionary power, would be inapplicable for purposes of the Iraqi
Antiquities Act. The President’s authority to impose import restrictions under the Iraqi
Antiquities Act would terminate on the earlier of (1) 5 years after the date on which the
President certifies to Congress that normalization of relations between the United States and
the Government of Iraq has been established or (2) September 30, 2009.

³¹ H.R. 1047 § 4002. UN Security Council Resolution 661 called on UN members to impose
economic sanctions on Iraq. In accordance with this request, Congress adopted the Iraq
Sanctions Act of 1990, which provides the President with specific authority to comply with
UN sanction recommendations towards Iraq and impose trade embargoes against it. See
Iraqi Sanctions Act, supra note 27.