Review Reports - Fifty-Five Years After the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property: Hiccups and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a well-researched study that examines the legal and practical challenges faced in implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Prohibition and Prevention of the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 55 years after it entered into force.

Page 1, line 11: Abstract: The syntax of the sentences in the abstract is occasionally compromised. Furthermore, keywords could be chosen more clearly. For example, concepts such as "Cultural heritage law," "implementation gaps," and "UNESCO Convention reform" could be added.

Page 1, line 31: The introduction is both short and lacks sufficient references. The introduction does not clearly state the research question or hypothesis. This should be noted.

Page 2, line 49: A literature review should be included. A critical synthesis of the literature would make the article's contribution more evident.

Page 2, line 50: The "Materials and Methods" section is severely lacking in methodological detail and clarity.

The method should include the following subheadings:

Research approach, data collection, data analysis, and limitations.

The application of the "legal and analytical" approach has not been fully explained. For example: Which countries' legal systems were compared?, What selection criteria were used to select these countries?, What time period did the analyzed court decisions date from?

Page 3-17: In the findings and discussion section, some of the sources are outdated (1980s–1990s). Sources from the last five years should be used. It is also recommended to include UNESCO or UNIDROIT reports published within the previous 5 years.

The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section should begin by clearly stating the study's theoretical and practical contributions.

Adjust the format and citation system to the journal guidelines. For example, the article uses "[1] (p. 30)". However, as far as I know, page numbers are not displayed. Check the journal's rules. There are also incorrect formatting errors in the "References" section. For example, publication dates are not in bold.

Author Response

Comment 1: [Abstract: The syntax of the sentences in the abstract is occasionally compromised. Furthermore, keywords could be chosen more clearly. For example, concepts such as "Cultural heritage law," "implementation gaps," and "UNESCO Convention reform" could be added.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. The abstract has been revised for clarity and improved syntax. The incomplete sentence has been corrected, and the overall structure has been refined to better reflect the aims, methodology and findings of the study. Additionally, the keywords have been updated and now include more precise and relevant terms, such as ‘Cultural heritage law’, ‘implementation gaps’ and ‘UNESCO Convention reform’, in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestions. (updated text: Page 1, lines 11-27)

Comment 2: [Page 1, line 31: The introduction is both short and lacks sufficient references. The introduction does not clearly state the research question or hypothesis. This should be noted.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion regarding the introduction. We have expanded the introduction to provide more context and a stronger scholarly foundation. Furthermore, we have clarified the research gap and explicitly formulated the central research question, as recommended. These revisions aim to strengthen the introduction’s clarity, context, and academic grounding while maintaining the original structure and numbering of references. (Updated text: Page 2, lines 42-56)

Comment 3: [Page 2, line 49: A literature review should be included. A critical synthesis of the literature would make the article's contribution more evident.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion regarding the inclusion of a separate literature review. After careful consideration, we believe that the introduction situates the study within the current literature, identifies gaps, and establishes the research question. Furthermore, additional references and relevant studies are presented throughout the subsequent sections of the article. Therefore, we consider that a separate literature review section would largely replicate content already covered and possibily would not add substantial value to the article.

Comment 4: [Page 2, line 50: The "Materials and Methods" section is severely lacking in methodological detail and clarity. The method should include the following subheadings: Research approach, data collection, data analysis, and limitations. The application of the "legal and analytical" approach has not been fully explained. For example: Which countries' legal systems were compared?, What selection criteria were used to select these countries?, What time period did the analyzed court decisions date from?]

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the methodology section to provide a clearer explanation of our legal and analytical approach, including the selection of countries, the time period of judicial decisions analyzed, the data collection and analysis methods, and the study’s limitations. (Updated text: Pages 2-3, line 68-102)

Comment 5: [In the findings and discussion section, some of the sources are outdated (1980s–1990s). Sources from the last five years should be used. It is also recommended to include UNESCO or UNIDROIT reports published within the previous 5 years.]

Response: Thank you for your comment. While the study references some older sources to provide historical context, which is essential for understanding the evolution in the interpretation of the Convention, we have also incorporated recent scholarship and reports from the last five years, including Vrdoljak et al. (2024), Peters (2024), Boz (2024), Campfens (2024), Magri (2020), Wallace (2020), Labadie (2021), De Jong (2021), ensuring that the analysis reflects current developments regarding the implementation and evaluation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

Comment 6: [The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section should begin by clearly stating the study's theoretical and practical contributions.]

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the Conclusions and Recommendations section to explicitly highlight both the theoretical and practical contributions of the study, clarifying the interplay between international legal norms and domestic frameworks, as well as the actionable insights for States and cultural institutions. (Updated text: Pages 18-19, lines 869-884)

Comment 7: [Adjust the format and citation system to the journal guidelines. For example, the article uses "[1] (p. 30)". However, as far as I know, page numbers are not displayed. Check the journal's rules. There are also incorrect formatting errors in the "References" section. For example, publication dates are not in bold.]

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully revised the manuscript to align the citation style and reference formatting with the journal’s guidelines.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the main international instrument for the repatriation of stolen cultural property. The article criticises its effectiveness, highlighting its shortcomings (such as vague language and lack of enforcement mechanisms) and suggesting amendments and bilateral agreements to improve its application.

I believe that the text is well-written and rich in information. The issue has been analysed sufficiently and clearly enough.

I have two suggestions for the authors.
1) At the end of the introduction, I would add a paragraph listing and describing the subsequent sections, in order to give the reader a better idea of how the article is structured and how the analysis will unfold.

2) Given the complexity of the subject, I would suggest including one or more tables summarising certain aspects of the paper, such as the Convention's strengths, weaknesses, suggested amendments and bilateral agreements. As reported in point 1, tables will help readers understand the key points of the paper at a glance, and allow the article to be used as a sort of ‘handbook’ for solving the issues raised in the article.

I congratulate the authors on this paper and wish them every success in their work.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our paper.

Comment 1: [1) At the end of the introduction, I would add a paragraph listing and describing the subsequent sections, in order to give the reader a better idea of how the article is structured and how the analysis will unfold.]

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a paragraph at the end of the introduction outlining the structure of the article, describing the methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions, so that readers can better follow the flow of the analysis. (Updated text page:2 lines: 57-66)

Comment 2: [2) Given the complexity of the subject, I would suggest including one or more tables summarising certain aspects of the paper, such as the Convention's strengths, weaknesses, suggested amendments and bilateral agreements. As reported in point 1, tables will help readers understand the key points of the paper at a glance, and allow the article to be used as a sort of ‘handbook’ for solving the issues raised in the article.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion regarding the inclusion of a table summarising the Convention's strengths, weaknesses, suggested amendments, and bilateral agreements. Ηowever, given the theoretical and analytical nature of our study and the absence of quantitative data, we believe that the current structured presentation in the text adequately conveys these points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article should be supplemented with clearly presented research hypotheses and/or research questions. Furthermore, these areas require expansion, particularly within the conclusions section. Some bibliographical footnotes require correction, e.g. 31.

Author Response

Comment 1: [The article should be supplemented with clearly presented research hypotheses and/or research questions. Furthermore, these areas require expansion, particularly within the conclusions section. Some bibliographical footnotes require correction, e.g. 31.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive suggestions. We have revised the article to clearly present the central research question in the introduction (Updated text: Page 2, line 45-55). The conclusions section has also been expanded to highlight both theoretical and practical contributions, summarizing key findings, operational challenges, and potential improvements in implementation and cooperation among States Parties (Updated text: Pages 18-19, lines 869-884). Finally, we have reviewed the bibliographical references and corrected formatting errors, in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The methodology, while comprehensive in scope, presents several areas that require further clarification to strengthen its academic rigor. First, the study employs doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods but does not explicitly justify their selection in relation to the research objectives. A clear rationale for why these methods are best suited to the study’s legal and analytical aims would enhance methodological transparency and coherence. Second, although the primary and secondary sources are listed, the methodology lacks an explanation of the criteria used for data selection—such as temporal scope, jurisdictional diversity, or relevance to implementation challenges—making it difficult to assess the representativeness and reliability of the materials used.

Furthermore, the description of the comparative and interpretative analyses does not specify the analytical framework or variables employed, nor does it explain how interpretations were validated or cross-checked. This absence of procedural detail limits the reproducibility and verifiability of the analysis. The research also appears to rely exclusively on textual, legal, and secondary data, without incorporating empirical evidence or field-based perspectives, thereby restricting its ability to evaluate how the Convention operates in real-world contexts. In addition, the study does not explicitly acknowledge its methodological limitations, such as dependence on publicly available documentation and the potential for interpretative bias. Finally, while the study formulates proposals for improving implementation, it does not explain the method or reasoning process through which these proposals were derived from the preceding analysis, leaving a gap between the analytical findings and the normative recommendations.

The results section presents sound and relevant observations but lacks clarity on how these findings were derived from the study’s methodological framework. The results are not sufficiently contextualized or localized before the discussion, and their connection to the previously described doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods is not made explicit. As a consequence, the claims remain generalized and their analytical grounding unclear.

Since the analysis is entirely text-based and interpretative, the methodology should explicitly explain how interpretative reasoning led to the conclusions presented. Without such clarification, the path from legal interpretation to analytical result remains implicit and difficult to verify. Moreover, several statements blend factual description, such as: “inventories are incomplete”) with interpretive judgment, such as: “creating opportunities for circumvention”), without distinguishing the evidence base or analytical reasoning behind each. This overlap weakens the transparency and academic credibility of the findings, as readers cannot determine how each result was obtained or validated. Finally, the absence of an explicit acknowledgment of these methodological limits risks overstating the empirical robustness of the conclusions and may lead readers to overestimate the strength of the analysis.

Best regards

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments. We have revised the methodology section to explicitly describe the rationale for using doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods in relation to the study’s objectives. We have also clarified the criteria for selecting primary and secondary sources, including temporal scope, jurisdictional diversity, and relevance to restitution practices. In addition, the conclusions section has been expanded to make clearer how the study’s recommendations follow from the preceding analysis. We believe these revisions improve methodological transparency and strengthen the link between analysis and conclusions.

Comment 1: [The study employs doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods but does not explicitly justify their selection in relation to the research objectives.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We have now clarified the rationale for selecting the doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods and their direct connection to the study’s research objectives. Specifically, we explain that these methods were chosen to analyse how international legal norms interact with domestic legal systems, to trace divergences in national implementation, and to interpret judicial reasoning relevant to restitution. (Updated text: Page 2, lines 67–74)

Comment 2: [The methodology lacks an explanation of the criteria used for data selection such as temporal scope, jurisdictional diversity, or relevance to implementation challenges.]

Response: We appreciate this comment and have now expanded the methodology to explicitly present the criteria for selecting countries and judicial decisions. We specify the geographical and legal diversity, cultural significance, frequency of restitution cases, and the temporal range from the 1970s–2020s. (Updated text: Page 2, lines 75–84)

Comment 3: [The comparative and interpretative analyses do not specify the analytical framework or variables employed.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The methodology section now explicitly outlines the analytical steps taken: doctrinal interpretation of legal texts, comparative evaluation of domestic legislation, and interpretative analysis of judicial reasoning, including factors such as good faith, lex originis, compensation, and scope limitations. (Updated text: Page 3, lines 85–90)

Comment 4: [The study does not explain how interpretations were validated or cross-checked.]

Response: We have addressed this by clarifying that interpretative findings were cross‑checked through comparison between national legal systems, convergence/divergence in jurisprudence, and consistency with UNESCO operational guidelines and doctrinal literature. (Updated text: Page 3, lines 85–90)

Comment 5: [The study relies on textual/legal sources without empirical data; this limitation should be acknowledged.]

Response: We agree with the reviewer and have strengthened the section explicitly acknowledging methodological limitations, including the exclusive reliance on publicly available legal sources, the absence of empirical field data, and the restricted geographical scope. (Updated text: Page 3, lines 91–102)

Comment 6: [The study should explain how interpretative reasoning led to the conclusions.]

Response: We have expanded the explanation of how interpretative legal reasoning informs the article’s conclusions, linking doctrinal analysis, comparative findings, and interpretative evaluation of case law to the study’s broader recommendations. (Updated text: Discussion section, Page 4 and lines 867–883)

Comment 7: [Some statements blend factual description with interpretative judgment; the distinction should be clearer.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this. We have revised the Discussion section to clarify this.

Comment 8: [The Results section lacks clarity on how findings were derived from the methodological framework.]

Response: We have revised the section to explicitly link the findings to the doctrinal, comparative, and interpretative methods outlined in the methodology. (Updated text: Page 2-3, lines 67-90 and Pages: 18-19 lines: 869-884)

Comment 9: [The study does not acknowledge methodological limitations clearly enough.]

Response: As noted above, we have expanded the limitations subsection to specifically acknowledge the study’s reliance on legal sources, the limited jurisdictions, the absence of quantitative datasets, and the interpretative nature of the analysis. (Updated text: Page 3, lines 91–102)

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is well conceived with interesting and important research findings. There is a notable important commitment in the research strategies that suppose a high level of scientific rigor in a field of strong international interest: the protection of cultural heritage and the critical evaluation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, more than fifty years after its adoption.

The work is noteworthy for several reasons:

- Relevance and timeliness: The article is proposed at a time when the global debate on the restitution of cultural property is particularly felt. The analysis gives a balanced and documented point of view, useful both for research and for policy.

- Methodological soundness: The integrated use of primary and secondary sources, together with an accurate bibliographic apparatus, gives the measure of a deep and updated knowledge of the subject.

- Clear and coherent structure: From the historical framework to the final recommendations presupposes a logical and well-articulated path.

- Critical but constructive approach: The authors manage to conjugate the appreciation for the progress of the Convention with a lucid analysis of its operational deficiencies.

- Applicative relevance: The concrete value of the contribution is reinforced by the proposals for improvement, especially in the normative and cooperative field.

Overall, the text is good for publication after some minor revisions aimed at further improving its clarity and methodological transparency.

Methodology and transparency of the research

The "Materials and Methods" section gives us a too generalistic description, although adequate. It could be opportune to be more precise on the selective criteria relative to the judicial decisions and the countries taken into consideration. It would be useful to have a summary table with cases and jurisdictions taken into consideration. The replicability could then be improved by clarifying the temporal and geographical amplitude of the analysis on national implementation practices. It could also be enriched with the indication of the theoretical and/or juridical structure used in the comparison of the expression "comparative and interpretative analysis". To facilitate the use by other researches and give greater credit to the study, a reinforced methodological transparency is hoped for.

Integration and balancing of the 'Results' section

It could be useful an integration with enrichment of empirical elements (comparative tables of national legislations, quantitative data on restitution requests and synthesis of the main interpretative divergences in jurisprudence) of the "Results" and "Discussion" sections. The operation would make the structure of the text more balanced putting in evidence the division between the critical interpretation and the analysis of the data.

Critical deepening of the amendment proposals

The normative proposals, such as the one for a standardized export certificate or the application of lex originis, are pertinent and stimulating. But it could be convenient to add even a brief reflection on the political and juridical feasibility of such measures. It would be useful to put them in compared with similar experiences (for example the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention or the 2003 UNESCO Convention) and put them in relation with the amendment procedure foreseen by Art. 25, illustrating possible incremental paths. An analysis of this type would make the recommendations not only theoretically solid but also realistic.

Discussion on the limitations of the study

It could be added a small section on the limitation of the research to put before the conclusion where is mentioned the lack of empirical data from field operators; the geographical limitation of the analyzed sample; and the difficulty of measuring quantitatively the impact of the Convention. This would demonstrate rigor and scientific transparency opening the path to future developments.

Editorial and stylistic minor issues

- Some redundancies between 'Results' and 'Discussion' could be eliminated.

- Section 4.3.2 ('The Convention's Limited Scope') could be subdivided into subsections.

- The argument of non-retroactivity (lines 838–844) would deserve greater evidence.

- Check the uniformity of jurisprudential citations.

- The English is excellent.

The text is optimal and brings a significant value to the literature on cultural heritage law. The proposed revisions aim to make the impact stronger, without requiring further essential research. In particular, it is recommended to make the methodology clearer and to rebalance the Results/Discussion structure. With these interventions, the article will be fully ready for publication.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the study’s relevance, methodological rigor, structured approach, and critical analysis.

Comment 1: [Methodology and transparency of the research: The "Materials and Methods" section gives us a too generalistic description, although adequate. It could be opportune to be more precise on the selective criteria relative to the judicial decisions and the countries taken into consideration. It would be useful to have a summary table with cases and jurisdictions taken into consideration. The replicability could then be improved by clarifying the temporal and geographical amplitude of the analysis on national implementation practices. It could also be enriched with the indication of the theoretical and/or juridical structure used in the comparison of the expression "comparative and interpretative analysis". To facilitate the use by other researches and give greater credit to the study, a reinforced methodological transparency is hoped for.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to provide a more precise explanation of the selection criteria for judicial decisions and the countries considered. We have clarified the temporal and geographical scope of the analysis and detailed the theoretical and juridical framework underlying the comparative and interpretative analysis. These changes enhance the transparency and replicability of the methodology. (Updated text: Pages 2-3, line 68-102)

Comment 2: [Integration and balancing of the 'Results' section: It could be useful an integration with enrichment of empirical elements (comparative tables of national legislations, quantitative data on restitution requests and synthesis of the main interpretative divergences in jurisprudence) of the "Results" and "Discussion" sections. The operation would make the structure of the text more balanced putting in evidence the division between the critical interpretation and the analysis of the data.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We acknowledge the potential value of including comparative tables or quantitative data; however, given the theoretical and analytical nature of our study and the absence of systematic empirical datasets, it is not feasible to provide such elements. We have, however, ensured that the Results and Discussion sections clearly distinguish between factual description and interpretative analysis, providing structured, detailed, and contextualized explanations to support our conclusions.

Comment 3: [Critical deepening of the amendment proposals: The normative proposals, such as the one for a standardized export certificate or the application of lex originis, are pertinent and stimulating. But it could be convenient to add even a brief reflection on the political and juridical feasibility of such measures. It would be useful to put them in compared with similar experiences (for example the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention or the 2003 UNESCO Convention) and put them in relation with the amendment procedure foreseen by Art. 25, illustrating possible incremental paths. An analysis of this type would make the recommendations not only theoretically solid but also realistic.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion regarding the practical and political feasibility of the proposed amendments and bilateral agreements. We acknowledge its importance and have addressed it by adding a paragraph in Section 4.4, following the discussion of potential amendments under Article 25 and agreements under Article 15. This addition contextualizes the recommendations within current international practice, drawing comparisons with the UNIDROIT Convention, and evaluates the proposals as both normatively significant and operationally plausible, thereby enhancing the transparency and applicability of our study.

Comment 4: [Discussion on the limitations of the study It could be added a small section on the limitation of the research to put before the conclusion where is mentioned the lack of empirical data from field operators; the geographical limitation of the analyzed sample; and the difficulty of measuring quantitatively the impact of the Convention. This would demonstrate rigor and scientific transparency opening the path to future developments.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We fully agree that explicitly outlining the limitations of the study enhances methodological transparency and strengthens the academic rigor of the article. In response, we have now incorporated a dedicated paragraph on the study’s limitations within the Materials and Methods section. (Updated text: Pages 2-3, line 68-102)

Comment 5: [Some redundancies between 'Results' and 'Discussion' could be eliminated.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for the observation regarding potential redundancies between the Results and Discussion sections. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and consider that the current structure maintains a clear distinction between the descriptive presentation of observed implementation challenges in the Results and the interpretative and analytical commentary in the Discussion.

Comment 6: [Section 4.3.2 ('The Convention's Limited Scope') could be subdivided into subsections.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. Section 4.3.2 is already organised into distinct subsections (4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.2.3), each addressing a specific dimension of the Convention’s limited scope. Following the reviewer’s comment, we have revisited this structure to ensure that the internal division is sufficiently clear and consistent throughout the section.

Comment 7: [The argument of non-retroactivity (lines 838–844) would deserve greater evidence.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have added a short clarifying passage that explicitly links the analytical discussion in Section 4.3.2.3. in order to avoid repetitions

Comment 8: [Check the uniformity of jurisprudential citations.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. All jurisprudential citations have been checked and harmonized for consistency.

Comment 9: [The English is excellent.]

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comment regarding the quality of English.