INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1179
www.rsisinternational.org
The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights:
Balancing Access and Repatriation
Bulia Pulu
1
, Dr. Khoda Meena
2
Research Scholar, Department of Legal Studies, Arunachal University of Studies, Namsai, Arunachal
Pradesh, India
Research Supervisor, Department of Legal Studies, Arunachal University of Studies, Namsai, Arunachal
Pradesh, India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800105
Received: 23 Aug 2025; Accepted: 28 Aug 2025; Published: 10 September 2025
ABSTRACT
Museums play a central role in the conservation of cultural history and in making available to the population
artifacts that represent the rich cultural heritage of people. The past several decades, however, have seen the
emergence of ownership questions, questions of ethical stewardship, and questions of repatriation, which place
the institution of the museum as a relay station in the cultural space in bilateral situations, each with its own
complexities. The present paper will analyze these issues: how museums can protect cultural heritage rights
and how they can strike a balance between the necessity of opening collections to the people and the ethical
and legal obligation to give the objects back to the community of their origin. It discusses various aspects of
the interactions between the international conventions, national legislations, and codes of ethics to govern the
restitution of cultural items and the significance of provenance research, openness, and community
involvement. This interdisciplinary work critiques landmark case studies including the Benin Bronzes and the
Elgin Marbles, alongside contemporary debates in the equally fraught and comparatively less-trodden areas of
digital repatriation and collaborative exhibition practices. The results indicate that museums must implement
policies of diversity, ethics, and innovation, upholding the rights of origin societies, without compromising
their mandate as custodians of cultural heritage worldwide.
Keywords: Museums, Cultural Heritage, Repatriation, Access, Cultural Rights, Ethics, Artifact Restitution,
Provenance, Community Engagement.
INTRODUCTION
Museums are known to be regarded as the custodians of cultural artifacts, which provide the society with a
place to experience history, art as well as human innovativeness
1
. Museums also contribute to the importance
of preserving the tangible material heritage and thus preserve the collective memory of societies and
communities over the years
2
. Museums have however not only had the responsibility of preserving the cultural
heritage, but also in matters concerning the cultural heritage rights such as ownership, right of access, and
repatriation. Disputes about restitution of artifacts to their nations or peoples of provenance have increased
dramatically in recent years and museums must juggle the competing needs of access by the masses, and
cultural rights.
Museums as Custodians of Cultural Heritage
Museums act as storage facilities of history of human beings and preserve the cultural, religious, and artistic
artifacts. These schools offer ground of learning, research, and inter cultural exchange and as such, it places
1
J. Blake, Museums and Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage–Facilitating Participation and Strengthening Their Function in
Society, 13 Int’l J. of Intangible Heritage 18 (2018).
2
J. G. Byrne, Factors Determining the Repatriation of Cultural Heritage from Museums; The Place of Cultural Rights in British
Museums Practice (Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of London 2015).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1180
www.rsisinternational.org
societies in a position to learn about and appreciate how they share similar heritage
3
. By keeping detailed
records, preserving delicate pieces and exhibiting collections to encourage visitors, museums will help to
ensure that cultural inheritance is accessible to the present and future generations
4
.
Figure 1: Museums as Custodians of Cultural Heritage
Balancing Access and Repatriation
Whereas the aim of museums is to render accessible the heritage, there is the tension in cases where there has
been an acquisition of cultural objects based on situations that are today considered as the unethical or unjust
acquisition. The debate about repatriation focuses on the rights of the source communities to repossess their
artifacts that are of great importance historically, religiously or culturally. Museums continue to struggle with
the need to correct past mistakes and to support restitution on the one hand and retain their educational
missions to the public on the other. This balancing act involves legal, ethical and curatorial calculations and
therefore necessitates the museums to be a dynamic intersection between the cultural preservation, human
rights, and international relationships.
REVIEW OF LITREATURE
The section briefly examines some of the most important studies addressing cultural heritage repatriation,
including their legal, ethical, and technological attempts to respond to claims of restitution on the one hand,
and collaborate with source communities on the other hand.
Douglas and Hayes (2019) studied the place of digital technologies in aiding in this process
5
. They provided
an example of how the communication between the museums and the source communities became easier
because of increasing access to digital images of cultural artifacts and sharing them across cultures, which was
associated with the greater transparency and cultural sensitivity. Their research showed that digital access had
the potential to supplement the physical repatriation by ensuring communities are able to reconnect with their
past in the face of logistical or legal difficulties.
Frigo (2023) addresses the issue of restitution of cultural property and decolonization of museums, as well as
the intersection between the duty of the law, values, and identity
6
. The researchers pointed out that museums
had a long track record of inconsistencies in carrying out their duties as mandated in the area of restitutions and
that there was a need to blend legal obligations and the need to engage source communities ethically.
3
T. Macek, The Restitution of Cultural Heritage: A Mediating Role of Systems Approach, in Law, Humanities, and Tourism: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the
Restitution of Cultural Heritage 203 (Tadeja Jere Jakulin & Milka Sinkovic eds., 2025).
4
R. Olsen, Museum Morals: Re-Evaluating the Collection, Exhibition, and Repatriation of Indigenous Cultural Belongings in the
Modern Age (2024).
5
S. Douglas & M. Hayes, Giving Diligence Its Due: Accessing Digital Images in Indigenous Repatriation Efforts, 2 Heritage 1260
(2019).
6
M. Frigo, Restitution of Cultural Property and Decolonization of Museums: Issues of Consistency Between Fulfilment of Legal
Obligations, Ethical Principles and Identity Links, in Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development and Human Rights 175 (Routledge
2023).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1181
www.rsisinternational.org
According to Frigo, in order to achieve a cultural justice and practices of egalitarian relationships in museum
operations, decolonization practices were a prerequisite.
Odugie and Onochie (2025) studied the regulatory systems and issues of the repatriation of Benin artifacts
through postcolonial African prism
7
. They discovered that the legal arguments cannot be used to claim that
repatriation issues can be solved exclusively through the legal framework because it is widely accepted that
historic, political, and institutional influences tend to determine the results. In their study, they showed that
consideration of ethical aspects in the process of restitution, international collaboration, and community
participation are relevant in a well-coordinated and fair restitution procedure.
Jessiman (2014) focused on the development of the process of solving cultural heritage repatriation disputes
between museums and indigenous people
8
. The paper has discussed past and recent cases, focusing on ethic,
legal, and social intricacies of restitution claims. According to Jessiman, the key to resolving them was usually
open communications, negotiation, and recognition of cultural and spiritual affiliation of aboriginal
communities to the artifacts. This study emphasized the potential of museums as mediators between the needs
and desires of every viewer and the right and demands of source communities.
Lenzerini, (2016) discussed the overall issue of cultural identity, human rights, and the repatriation of cultural
heritage belonging to indigenous populations
9
. The paper contested that cultural heritage was part and parcel of
identity and collective rights of indigenous people and repatriation was not only a legal issue rather a human
rights issue. Launched by the case of Elzerini, which claims the application of international legal and ethical
frameworks with regard to their assistance in restitution, the rising responses to indigenous claims reflected a
broader understanding of indigenous rights along the lines of global heritage governance.
Legal And Ethical Frameworks
The purpose of museums in the preservation of cultural property is bound by curatorial, educational needs and
legal requirements as well as ethical duties of the museum. The same issues that surround the ownership of
artifacts, their restitution, and access are given the correct path by the legal frameworks as well as the ethical
standards that are applied in museums. These mechanisms in combination serve to make sure that museums are
responsible despite the preservation and exhibit of cultural heritage.
International Conventions
International treaties act as the major legal tools in dealing with the protection, retention and restitution of
cultural property. The most important are the UNESCO (1970) Convention and the United Nations Convention
on the Illegal Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNIDROIT 1995).
Figure 2: International Conventions on Cultural Heritage
7
G. O. Idugie & A. U. Onochie, Regulatory Frameworks and Challenges in the Repatriation of Benin Artefacts: A Postcolonial
African Perspective on Cultural Heritage Preservation, 9 Afr. J. L. & Hum. Rts. 1 (2025).
8
S. R. Jessiman, Understanding and Resolving Cultural Heritage Repatriation Disputes Between Indigenous Peoples and Museums
(Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia 2014).
9
F. Lenzerini, Cultural Identity, Human Rights, and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples, 23 Brown J. World Aff.
127 (2016).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1182
www.rsisinternational.org
The 1970 UNESCO Convention forms a system of prevention of the illicit export, importation, and change of
ownership of cultural property. It requires the signatories to other nations to enforce the protection of cultural
heritage, such as the illicit acquisition of entities and their repatriation to their original countries. In the case of
museums, this convention places a stress on due diligence of provenance research prior to acquisition of the
artifacts, that they are not unlawfully removed out of the original context.
10
The UNIDROIT Convention fills in the gaps of the UNESCO framework as it involves the legal recourse to
exercise the recovery and restitution of stolen or illicitly taken cultural objects. In contrast to the instrument of
UNESCO, UNIDROIT deals directly with civil law procedures, and provides legal means to compensate, to
restore or deliver cultural objects. Museums must thus be familiar with laws both internationally i.e. issues of
cultural heritage, and national i.e. cultural organizations about which there may be a dispute.
Such conventions define the roles museums play, but also create the precept that cultural heritage belongs to
the collective memory of mankind, and cannot be disrespected. Signatories are urged to collaborate at an
international level, and as a result of these simplified forms of restitution have been formed, including the
repatriation of the Benin Bronzes and the ongoing discussions of the Elgin marbles.
Ethical Guidelines
Although ethical codes do not have the force of law, they help impossible cases that lack legal certainty or
have not yet been recognized by legal conventions. The good practice of the International Council of Museums
(ICOM) Code of Ethics has been taken as the prime focus of an ethical museum practice. Transparency,
accountability, and respect of the cultural property are further issues of concern addressed by the ICOM
guidelines that point to the moral responsibility of museums to correspond with the communities where
cultural artifacts belong.
The key concepts of ethical principle are:
Provenance Research: Researching the history of each artifact, its provenance, the situation of its
possession, and its chain of custody, in order to demonstrate its legitimate ownership.
Community engagement: Enabling transparent communication with the communities associated with
artifacts, their sense of cultural and spiritual connection to them, and collaborating on decision-making
on exhibition, interpretation, and restitution.
Acknowledgment of Historical Injustices: confronting and addressing of colonial or coerced practices
that led to collections, recognition of past injustices displays and publications, and restitution practices.
Collaboration and Restitution: cooperating and consulting with communities in co-curation of
exhibitions and the repatriation of cultural items were deemed proper, even in the absence of legal
means
11
.
With a proper convergence of law and ethics, museums can negotiate complicated situations where the
interests of cultural rights crash into access and educational duties. Such ethics as ethics in museum shall carry
with it the ability to transform museums into trusting, collaborating, and justice-seeking institutions and not
just blind containers of artifacts.
10
E. Smith, R. Ristiawan & T. Sudarmadi, Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage–Country Report: Indonesia, 8 Santander
Art & Culture L. Rev. 383 (2022).
11
I. Stamatoudi & K. Roussos, A Sustainable Model of Cultural Heritage Management for Museums and Cultural Heritage
Institutions, ACM J. on Computing & Cultural Heritage (2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1183
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1: Summary of Legal and Ethical Frameworks for Museums
Framework
Type
Instrument /
Guideline
Purpose / Key Focus
Legal
Convention
1970 UNESCO
Convention
Prevent illicit import/export;
facilitate restitution
Legal
Convention
UNIDROIT
Convention (1995)
Recovery and restitution of
stolen/exported objects
Ethical
Guideline
ICOM Code of
Ethics
Transparency, accountability,
respect for cultural property
Ethical
Practice
Community
Collaboration
Co-curation, cultural
interpretation
Challenges In Balancing Access And Repatriation
Museums are in complex situations when trying to be publicly attractive to cultural heritage and on the other
hand, where they have to repatriate the artifacts to its originating community as being dictated by the ethical
and legal obligation. These grievances have their historical, logistical, and social aspects, and each of them
must be considered and managed with appropriate strategies.
Historical Acquisition and Colonial Legacy
A large share of museum holdings, especially in Europe and North America were collected during the era of
colonial expansion. Artifacts were looted, or even stolen, under the circumstances of unequal power, force, or
just straight theft, which has now become an ethical insult and illegal according to modern ethics and
international conventions. This colonial history makes it more difficult to assert ownership as many objects
were taken without due agreement of the communities of origin. The museums that attempt to address such
delicate periods in human history need to take into account the misdeeds of the past without using that as an
excuse to keep specific collections to learn on them or research with them. These issues include the difficulty
of reconciling the past with present day ethical responsibilities and usually in the glare and controversy of the
media.
Figure 3: Colonial-Era Artifact Acquisition and Repatriation Issues
Practical and Logistical Issues
Repatriation cannot simply be equated to a legal or ethical issue, but it comes with huge practical and logistical
complexities. Moving sensitive items across national boundaries is a delicate activity, which also requires
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1184
www.rsisinternational.org
special transportation, climatic wrapping and insurances, so as to maintain the items. Also, the transfer of
ownership of items is frequently legally difficult, sometimes when the provenance is unclear or disputed
12
. The
process is aggravated by financial constraints, which are high in relation to cost of research, restoration and
safe transport of the works. Significant international agreements and cooperation with governments, cultural
organizations and specialists are frequently required to counter such difficulties, which makes repatriation a
highly resource-consuming, well-coordinated exercise.
Public Interest vs. Community Rights
Museums have a two-fold task of retaining and imparting heritage to the masses and to provide other types of
cultural enlightenment. Such a social agenda, however, may come into a clash with the rights of peoples, who
want to have antiques, that linked by historical, spiritual, or cultural associations with them, returned.
Museums have to balance conserving the heritage universality and honoring the demands of source
communities. This balancing can only be achieved through continuous negotiation, collaborative policies, and
the use of flexible solutions including long-term loans and shared custody agreements as well as digitalised
exhibitions that can fulfil the requirements of public interest and cultural rights. When such tensions are not
effectively handled, they have the potential of destroying trust, causing reputational loss, and feeding on
historical-set grievances.
Case Studies
The review of actual cases of artifacts repatriation helps understand the issues and methods museums use to
work between the rights of the people to get access to their cultural heritage and the rights of museums to
display and preserve those cultural properties. The cases of the Benin Bronzes and of the Elgin Marbles depict
the international problems associated with legal, ethical, and diplomatic concerns and processes of restitution.
The Return of the Benin Bronzes
Between 1897 and 1935, the Benin Bronzes English: were acquired by the British through looting during a
Royal Navy invasion of the Kingdom of Benin (modern-day Nigeria). These artifacts were scattered
throughout European museums, and into collections and auction houses, over the course of a century
13
. The
Benin Bronzes have since become synonymous with the cultural dispossession that was brought about by
colonialism and with the tensions pertaining to repatriation.
Recent opportunities have shown that it is drifting towards joint restitution. In Europe, vested agreements have
been concluded by various European institutions like the Humboldt Forum, Germany and the University of
Aberdeen Museum, Scotland, to repatriate Benin objects to Nigeria. In many cases, these agreements provide
mechanisms to temporarily lend and exhibit, collaborate and create educational programming, to ensure the
cultural relics continue to be accessed and learned by both domestic and international audiences. The case
demonstrates how sensitive negotiations, diplomacy, and recognition of past wrongs in the light of moral
understanding are instrumental in implementing culturally just outcomes.
The Elgin Marbles Debate
The Elgin Marbles, marble sculptures of the Parthenon in Athens, were removed by lord Elgin in early
nineteenth century and taken to Britain. Located in the British Museum, they have been repatriation objects
encountered by Greece since long. The controversy highlights the dilemmas of museums in regards to the
balancing between legal ownership and moral concerns, as well as in international relations.
Although the British Museum justifies the presence of Marbles with the legal acquisition that took place during
the reign of the Ottoman Empire, and the cultural and educational potential of having the sculptures in the city,
Greece refers to moral considerations, such as the incompatibility of the pieces with their original architectural
12
V. Tünsmeyer, Repatriation of Sacred Indigenous Cultural Heritage and the Law: Lessons from… (2020).
13
O. Victor & E. U. Nelson, African Art Heritage: Repatriation Strategies, Its Challenges, Impact on Cultural Preservation and Best
Practices, 14 Abraka Human. Rev. 1 (2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1185
www.rsisinternational.org
and geographic settings. This case illustrates the dilemma between access of products by entire world and the
rights of a source country to repatriate that cultural material. The controversy surrounding the Elgin Marbles
has to this day influenced the global debate on restitution policy and on ethics in museums.
Comparative Summary of Case Studies
The table 2 below presents a comparative overview of two major artifact repatriation cases, summarizing their
origin, acquisition history, ethical concerns, and current status. This helps to understand how museums
navigate the complexities of heritage preservation while addressing claims from source communities
14
.
Table 2: Comparative Overview of Prominent Artifact Repatriation Cases
Case
Study
Origin
Country
Museum/Location
Year of
Acquisition
Key Issues
Repatriation Status
Benin
Bronzes
Nigeria
Various European
Museums
1897
Colonial looting,
ethical restitution
Partial returns and
ongoing agreements
Elgin
Marbles
Greece
British Museum
Early 1800s
Legal ownership,
cultural significance
Repatriation disputed,
ongoing debate
These case studies highlight the delicate balance museums must maintain between global access to cultural
heritage and the ethical imperative to respect source communities’ rights. They demonstrate the importance of
legal frameworks, ethical guidelines, and collaborative practices in guiding repatriation decisions.
Strategies For Museums
There is need to realize that museums need a comprehensive approach in order to balance the two roles of
preserving cultural heritage and respecting the rights of source communities. These methods take into account
moral, legal and common-sense factors and at the same time allow cultural items to remain accessible to
everyone.
Provenance Research
Provenance research refers to a very thorough study on the history, origin and possession of artifacts. Museums
are required to study the archival documents, acquisition records, and historical settings in order to figure out
whether objects were acquired lawfully and ethically. Thorough provenance studies enhance the legitimacy of
a rightful claim to possession beyond proving ownership and are also used as a way to identify artifacts owed
to restitution. By identifying cases of colonial appropriation or looting, or unethical trade, museums can
anticipate future claims to objects and establish trust with actual communities. Researching provenance also
becomes the method of training the visitors of the museum, in the sense of presenting them clear information
regarding each artifact, as to how it came to the museum.
Collaborative Exhibitions
Consultation with source communities during planning and curation of the exhibition provides an assurance
that artifacts are presented using a culturally ethical and unique approach. Co-curation is the opportunity to
include local stories, practices, and use museums as a space to share a conversation
15
. This strategy will bring
about mutual respect, enhanced community interaction and also recognizes the cultural story behind the
artifacts other than the aesthetic and cultural value that have been placed on them. Jointed exhibitions can as
well give source communities an opportunity to bear their heritage to the rest of the world, an avenue that
opens up chances of communication and mutual interaction.
14
Y. Zhang, Reconstruction and Repatriation of Looted Cultural Heritage Property: Ownership Mechanism (2025).
15
Y. Zhou, Museum Digital Repatriation and Case Studies: Exploring Guidelines for the Future Practice and Digital Bridge to
Cultural Continuity (Master’s Thesis, Georgetown Univ. 2024)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1186
www.rsisinternational.org
Digital Access
Digital technologies have provided the best solution to continuing access to all and cater to the concerns of
repatriation. Online collections, 3D scans and 3D exhibits allow artifacts to be accessible around the world
without the artifacts being removed in person. Digital repatriation can supplement physical repatriation, and
can be advantageous to both, enabling museums to fulfill their educational mandates and be responsible to
their moral duties. Besides, digital archives offer new possibilities of research, documentation, and
preservation, and less stress is put on the use of fragile materials.
Transparent Policies
Emerging of coherent and publicly available guidelines in acquisition, restitution, and exhibition is vital in the
operation of accountability and trust. The museums have transparent policies on the procedures they followed
in handling the claims of repatriation, such as the procedures undertaken in research of provenance, negotiation
process to the source community, and the sustainability of the ethical decisions. Museums are signaling their
adherence to cultural rights, ethical management of heritage and global partnership by making these policies
known. Transparency is one aspect that enables the community to get the logic behind retention, loan or
delivery of artifacts, thereby,,,,, reducing controversy and increase intelligent association with the collections.
The above measures can enable museums to maneuver the way through the muddy waters of cultural heritage
stewardship, making sure that artifacts are conserved, and made accessible, as well as, dealt with in an ethical
manner. They introduce a fairer implementation of cultural heritage, where both sides of the case, the interest
of people and the rights of communities and the country in which a particular heritage was created have to be
taken into account.
CONCLUSION
Museums hold one of the most pivotal positions between cultural conservation, education and safeguarding
human and social rights. They have responsibility of ensuring that artifacts are made available to the world
without discriminating the cultural and historical rights of the sources. Practicing such a balancing need to be
assisted by the international legal frameworks, which include UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions and
ethical directions of the ICOM. Good stewardship can include provenance research, working with source
communities in curation, open and clear restitution policies and digital technology to enable access
internationally. The methods mentioned will help museums deal with historical maltreatment, inspire trust, and
promote learning prospects without infringing cultural rights. After all, museum needn t be only stores of
things but strong mediators between the world audience and those cultures into which the artifacts are
contextualized. Transparency, ethical sense of responsibility and inclusiveness holds the key for museums to
fulfill their dual missions that include being custodians of the cultural heritage and proponents of cultural
justice so that the rights of a community are not undermined in preference to public participation.
REFERENCES
1. J. Blake, Museums and Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage–Facilitating Participation and
Strengthening Their Function in Society, 13 Int’l J. of Intangible Heritage 18 (2018).
2. J. G. Byrne, Factors Determining the Repatriation of Cultural Heritage from Museums; The Place of
Cultural Rights in British Museums Practice (Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of London 2015).
3. S. Douglas & M. Hayes, Giving Diligence Its Due: Accessing Digital Images in Indigenous
Repatriation Efforts, 2 Heritage 1260 (2019).
4. M. Frigo, Restitution of Cultural Property and Decolonization of Museums: Issues of Consistency
Between Fulfilment of Legal Obligations, Ethical Principles and Identity Links, in Cultural Heritage,
Sustainable Development and Human Rights 175 (Routledge 2023).
5. G. O. Idugie & A. U. Onochie, Regulatory Frameworks and Challenges in the Repatriation of Benin
Artefacts: A Postcolonial African Perspective on Cultural Heritage Preservation, 9 Afr. J. L. & Hum.
Rts. 1 (2025).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1187
www.rsisinternational.org
6. S. R. Jessiman, Understanding and Resolving Cultural Heritage Repatriation Disputes Between
Indigenous Peoples and Museums (Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia 2014).
7. F. Lenzerini, Cultural Identity, Human Rights, and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous
Peoples, 23 Brown J. World Aff. 127 (2016).
8. T. Macek, The Restitution of Cultural Heritage: A Mediating Role of Systems Approach, in Law,
Humanities, and Tourism: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Restitution of Cultural Heritage 203
(Tadeja Jere Jakulin & Milka Sinkovic eds., 2025).
9. R. Olsen, Museum Morals: Re-Evaluating the Collection, Exhibition, and Repatriation of Indigenous
Cultural Belongings in the Modern Age (2024).
10. E. Smith, R. Ristiawan & T. Sudarmadi, Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage–Country
Report: Indonesia, 8 Santander Art & Culture L. Rev. 383 (2022).
11. I. Stamatoudi & K. Roussos, A Sustainable Model of Cultural Heritage Management for Museums and
Cultural Heritage Institutions, ACM J. on Computing & Cultural Heritage (2024).
12. V. Tünsmeyer, Repatriation of Sacred Indigenous Cultural Heritage and the Law: Lessons from…
(2020).
13. O. Victor & E. U. Nelson, African Art Heritage: Repatriation Strategies, Its Challenges, Impact on
Cultural Preservation and Best Practices, 14 Abraka Human. Rev. 1 (2024).
14. Y. Zhang, Reconstruction and Repatriation of Looted Cultural Heritage Property: Ownership
Mechanism (2025).
15. Y. Zhou, Museum Digital Repatriation and Case Studies: Exploring Guidelines for the Future Practice
and Digital Bridge to Cultural Continuity (Master’s Thesis, Georgetown Univ. 2024)