www.zak24.pl
KSIĘGARNIA NAUKOWO - AKADEMICKA

Restitution of Cultural Property: A Hard Case – Theory of Argumentation…

37,99 

ISBN: 978-83-7865-462-9
Rok wydania: 2016
Liczba stron: 230
Format: 130 x 210 mm

oprawa miękka

Opis

Restitution of Cultural Property: A Hard Case – Theory of Argumentation – Philosophy of Law

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego

Autor: Kamil Zeidler

The problem of restitution of cultural property is by no means a new one. This study’s aim is to reconstruct the philosophical-legal issues connected with restitution of cultural property by using the tools that philosophy of law supplies. Each concrete case of restitution, thanks to its presentation and analysis via the proposed method, does not so much become a case that is easy to solve – it will certainly remain a hard case – but rather its central features will become apparent, as a result of its concrete location in the space between morality, politics, economics, and law. In addition, it will become possible to distinguish and understand its complex structure of argumentation, and survey the typical arguments that occur in restitution discourse, in order to recognize them, organize them, and eventually raise them. The final effect of the study aims to be the creation of a theoretical model that will make it possible to look into every individual case relating to restitution.

Table of contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 1
Restitution as a hard case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.1. Hard cases in contemporary philosophy of law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.2. Restitution – conceptual issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.1. The concept of restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.2. Causes of restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.2.3. Divisions within restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.2.4. Other applications of the concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.2.5. Restitution claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.3. In what sense is a case of restitution a hard one? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Chapter 2
Cultural property as the object of restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.1. Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2. Cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3. Cultural property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.3.1. The concept of cultural property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.3.2. Moveable and immoveable cultural property . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.3.3. The value of cultural property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.4. Cultural property as common property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.4. Other relevant concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Chapter 3
Restitution – between morality,
politics, economics, and law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1. Locating the issue of restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.2. Restitution between law and morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.3. Restitution between law and politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.4. Restitution between law and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.5. Restitution between morality and politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.6. Restitution between morality and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.7. Restitution between politics and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 4
Restitution con! ict as argumentation discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.1. Theories of argumentation discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.2. Arguments relating to restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.2.1. The argument from justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.2.2. The argument from ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.2.3. The argument from acquisition in good faith . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.2.4. The argument from place of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.2.5. The argument from place of allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.2.6. The argument from right of loot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.2.7. The argument from illegal export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
4.2.8. The argument from national a& liation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2.9. The argument from cultural a& liation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.2.10. The argument from historical a& liation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.2.11. The argument from territorial a& liation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.2.12. The argument from personal a& liation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.2.13. The argument from social utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.2.14. The argument from most secure location . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.2.15. The argument from historical eventuation . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.2.16. The argument from passage of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.2.17. The argument from prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.2.18. The argument from time limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.2.19. The argument from discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.2.20. The argument from investments undertaken . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.2.21. The argument from possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
4.2.22. The argument from obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.2.23. The argument from reciprocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Conclusions, or in search of answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Opinie

Na razie nie ma opinii o produkcie.

Napisz pierwszą opinię o “Restitution of Cultural Property: A Hard Case – Theory of Argumentation…”

Twój adres email nie zostanie opublikowany. Pola, których wypełnienie jest wymagane, są oznaczone symbolem *