미국내 소재 우리 문화재의 환수를 위한 법적 고찰 - 미국 연방도품법을 중심으로 -
A Study on the Return of Korean Cultural Objects Located in America - Focused on the National Stolen Property Act -
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
우리나라가 일제강점기, 미군정 및 한국전쟁 등 격동기를 거치면서 우리 문화재 중외국으로 도난 되거나 밀반출된 것이 많다. 2011년 현재 미국 내 우리 문화재의 현황을 살펴보면, 124개 처에 21,736건 37,972점이 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 미국 내 우리 문화재의 경우, 만국박물관회 이후 조선정부가 외교적인 우호증진의 일환으로 기증(시카고 박물관 및 보스턴박물관의 경우)한 경우도 있고 부호들이 관상용으로 구입한 문화재도 있으며, 1940년대 후반부터 1950년대 초반 사이에 우리나라에서 도난되어 미국으로 반출된 문화재도 있을 것이다. 본고는 1940년대 후반부터 1950년대 초반 사이에 우리나라에서 도난되어 미국으로 반출된 국유문화재의 환수를 위하여 미국 연방도품법을 중심으로 살펴보고 우리나라의 관련 법제도 고찰하는 것을 그 주된 연구목적으로 한다. 미국내 외국 문화재가 기원국으로 반환되는 과정은 다음의 순서로 행해진다. 즉 그문화재의 반환은 일단 미국정부가 미국 연방도품법에 의거하여 미국내 소재 외국문화재를 압류하여 몰수한 다음, 외교적 경로를 통해 그 문화재의 기원국으로 이전하는 형태로 이루어진다. 본고는 NSPA의 내용, NSPA와 외국 매장문화재보호법과의 관계, NSPA와 미국 연방문화재협약이행법(Cultural Property Implementation Act)과의 관계를 살펴본 다음, NSPA 관련 구체적인 사례로서 United States v. Hollinshead, United States v. McClain, United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, The Republic of Turkey v. OKS Partners, The Government of Peru v. Johnson 등을 상세히 설명하고 분석한다. 그런 다음, 본고의 결론 부분에서는 1940년 후반 1950년 전반에 걸쳐 국내에서 도난되어 미국으로 반출된 우리 국유문화재의 환수를 위해서는 그 문화재의 국유란 사실을 밝히거나 반출시점에 적용될 우리 법상 국유란 것을 증명하는 것이 중요하다는 점을 언급한다. 아울러 결론 부분에서는 그 문화재가 국유인 것을 증명할 수 있다면 NSPA에 의거하여 미국 연방정부가 소장자를 기소하도록 하거나 그 소장자를 상대로 직접 민사소송을 제기할 수 있을 것이라는 점을 밝힌다.
Abstract
A Study on the Return of Korean Cultural Objects Located in the U.S.A.-with focus on the National Stolen Property Act-As Korea went through the social and political upheaval era such as the Japanese colonial rule period, American Military Government period in Korea, Korean War, a lot of the Korean cultural properties was either stolen or looted in Korea and illegally exported into America. The number of the Korean cultural properties identified and located in America as of 2011 is 37,972, and their possessors are located in 124places in America. Some of them were the gifts given from the Korean government to the American counterpart, or were purchased by the wealthy persons in America, and others stolen or looted from the late 1940s to the early 1950s. This Article aims at analyzing the National Stolen Property Act (hereinafter "NSPA") in America and the relevant Korean laws in order for the Korean government to seek for the return of the Korean cultural objects located in America, which had been stolen in Korea from the late 1940s to the early 1950s. The foreign cultural objects located in America, in general, will be returned to the state of origin in accordance with the following process. In other words, they will be transferred to the originating country through the diplomatic channel after they are seized and forfeited by virtue of the NSPA. At the outset, the Article will explore the contents of the NSPA, the relationship between the NSPA and the foreign found-in-the-ground laws,and the relationship between the NSPA and the Cultural Property Implementation Act in America. Afterwards, as far as the NSPA-related cases in America are concerned, the Article will explain and analyze US law cases such as United States v. Hollinshead, United States v. McClain, United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, The Republic of Turkey v. OKS Partners,and the Government of Peru v. Johnson. Next, in the Conclusion, I will stress that it is very pivotal for the Korean government to prove the national ownership of the Korean cultural objects, stolen in Korea from the late 1940s to the early 1950s and currently located in America by taking evidence or analyzing the Korean law effective in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. In this regard, I will also make it clear that, if so, the Korean government can bring a lawsuit against the American possessor of the Korean cultural objects stolen from the late 1940s to the early 1950s or that it can urge the American government to prosecute the American possessors of the stolen Korean cultural properties.
참고문헌 (30)
- 국립문화재연구소, "국외소재한국문화재목록", 국립문화재연구소, ~ (2011)
- Adam Goldberg, "Comment: Reaffirming McClain: The National Stolen Property Act and the Abiding Trade in Looted Cultural Objects", UCLA L. Rev, (1035), pp.1031~ (2006)
- Andrea Cunning, "U.S. Policy on the Enforcement of Foreign Export Restrictions on Cultural Property & Destructive Aspects of Retention Schemes", Hous. J. Int'l L, (26), pp.449~455 (2004)
- Roy S. Kaufman, "Art Law Handbook 410" (2000)
- Charles De Visscher, "International Protection of Works of Art and Historic Monuments" (2002), Elsen, Law, Ethics
- Cynthia Ericson, "Note, United States of America v. Frederick Schultz: The National Stolen Property Act Revives the Curse of the Pharaohs", Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L, (12), pp.509~521 (2004)
- George Ortiz, "Why It's Time for Collectors of Antiquities to Reassert the Moral and Intellectual Validity of Their Passionate Pursuit", Art &Auction, (43) (2003)
- Hugh Eakin, "Italy Goes on the Offensive With Antiquities; Seeks Deals With Museums Over Disputed Objects", N.Y. Times, E1~ (2005)
- James F. Fitzpatrick, "A Wayward Course: The Lawless Customs Policy Toward Cultural Properties", N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol, (15), pp.857~864 (1983)
- Jane Gordon, "NOTICED; A Dispute Over Peruvian Artifacts at Yale", N.Y. Times, 2~ (2005)
- Jennifer Sultan, "Combating the Illicit Art Trade in the European Union: Europol's Role in Recovering Stolen Artwork", Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus, (18), pp.759~765 (1998)
- Jessica Eve Morrow, "Note, The National Stolen Property Act And the Return of Stolen Cultural Property to Its Rightful Foreign Owners", B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev, (30), pp.249~ (2007)
- Jessica L. Darraby, "1 Art, Artifact", Architecture and Museum Law, 133~ (2010)
- Jessica L. Darraby, "National Stolen Property Act-Definition of Stolen", Art, Artifact, Architecture and Museum Law, 11, pp.36~ (2010)
- John Henry Merryman, "A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects", Int'l J. Cultural Prop, (4), pp.13~ (1995)
- John Henry Merryman, "The Retention of Cultural Property", U.C. Davis L. Rev, (21), pp.477~ (1988)
- Kurt G. Siehr, "Globalization and National Culture: Recent Trends Toward a Liberal Exchange of Cultural Objects", Vand. J. Transnat'l L, 38, pp.1067~1077 (2005)
- Leo J. Harris, "From the Collector's Perspective: The Legality of Importing Pre-Columbian Art and Artifacts, in The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property" (1999)
- Michael Kimmelman, "Regarding Antiquities, Some Changes Please", N.Y. Times, E1~ (2005)
- Patty Gerstenblith, "The Public Interest in the Restitution of Cultural Objects", Conn. J. Int'l L, (16), pp.197~228 (2001)
- Peter K. Tompa, "Ancient Coins as Cultural Property: A Cause for Concern?", J. Int'l Legal Stud, (4), pp.69~76 (1998)
- Ralph Frammolino, "A Web of Deals", L.A. Times, A1~ (2005)
- Randy Kennedy, "Met Agrees Tentatively to Return Vase in '08", N.Y. Times, B7~ (2006)
- Randy Kennedy, "The Met, Ending 30-Year Stance, Is Set to Yield Prized Vase to Italy", N.Y. Times, A1~ (2006)
- William G. Pearlstein, "Claims for the Repatriation of Cultural Property: Prospects for a Managed Antiquities Market", Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus, (28), pp.123~128 (1996)
- "Selling the Past: United States v. Frederick Schultz, Archaeology" (2002)[URL]
- "The McClain/Schultz Doctrine: Another Step Against Trade in Stolen Antiquities, Culture Without Context"[URL]
- Spencer Simon, "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996", Berkeley Tech. L.J, (13), pp.305~306 (1998)
- "My Eye, Artnet Mag."[URL]