"Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers!": Why the United Kingdom Should Respond to Repatriation Claims and the Lesson the United States Can Teach.

Throughout human history, imperial powers colonized other countries and, subsequently, took much of their cultural property. Today, previously looted countries actively seek the return of their cultural property while former colonial powers face the decision of whether to return appropriated artifacts and remains. The United States and United Kingdom (U.K.) serve as two juxtaposing case studies, highlighting the willingness to and resistance against the repatriation of cultural property. The United States maintains a large and successful repatriation program. Under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, federally funded museums must inventory and return cultural property with connections to Native American tribes. Conversely, the U.K. enacted two weak laws to govern the return of cultural property: the Human Tissue Act of 2004 and the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act of 2009. Because neither U.K. Act mandates the repatriation of relevant cultural property, the Acts leave the decision of whether to repatriate to the museums benefiting from possessing the property. The British public largely abhors their government's strong stance of ownership over previously colonized countries' cultural property--notably the British claim of ownership over the Parthenon Marbles, Benin Bronzes, and Rosetta Stone. Furthermore, international organizations promote repatriation and reproach the U.K.'s resistance toward repatriation. With little to no international or domestic support regarding their retention of such property, the U.K. should reconsider a practical repatriation framework. This Comment recommends that the U.K. should look to the United States's successful framework and adopt a similar approach. Nevertheless, the Comment also addresses issues with the United States's framework of dealing with cultural property--principally, the lack of an exception for scientific studies--and presents the U.K. with strategies to mediate such issues. This Comment ultimately proposes legislation that would be amenable to the U.K., with the hope that the legislation balances the public's desire to repatriate cultural property with the British government's apparent desire to retain as much cultural property as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]