Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Customs and River Bridges (CURB) Act and The Expanded Anti-Euphoria Act (EAEA) are
in violation of the 1941 Pellegrino Concordat
The EAEA violates Art. 7 of the Concordat.
Art. 7 of the Concordat prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and exports including
measures having similar effects, between the Contracting Parties. Contrary to this provision, the
EAEA imposed a strict quota on opium poppy imports, causing a 60% decline in opium poppy
imports from Arrepy, resulting in an economic shock. The Arrepyan economy also entered into a
Depression, and thousands of Arrepyan poppy farmers and traders lost their sources of income.
The CURB Act violates Art. 21 of the Concordat.
Art. 21 of the Pellegrino Concordat states that “Freedom of movement of persons shall be
secured between the respective territories of the Contracting Parties without prejudice to any
exception justified on the grounds of public morality; public policy or public security; the
protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants and of the environment; the protection
of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of
industrial and commercial property.” Because of the CURB Act customs screening was
intensified on all 8 bridges along the El Caiman River and the Juril International Airport, as well
as in the suspension of the operation of the El Caiman River Ferry. Such suspension greatly
affects the movement of Arrepyans into Resthelian Border since only the ferry, bridges,
commercial air travel and overland routes are the ways to cross the border between the two
countries. With the CURB Act, all modes of transportation became a difficulty for the
Arrepyans. It is shown by the decline in number of the Lathan Pilgrims being able to attend the
pilgrimage.
Moreover, The Drug Intelligence Board recommended that a special joint task force of customs
and police officers be set up specifically to search Lathan pilgrims which shows that even if the
customs restriction was based on reasonable grounds as above mentioned, it is in violation of the
exception provided in the succeeding paragraph of the same Article which states that “such
prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a
disguised restriction on travel between the territories of the Contracting Parties.”
THE OFFICIAL ACTS OF RESTHELIAN CUSTOMS AND POLICE AGENTS AGAINST
ARREPYAN NATIONALS WHO ARE PRACTITIONERS OF THE LATHAN FAITH
VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF
MOVEMENT
The Resthelian officials violated the Lathan pilgrims’ right to free exercise of their religion
The officials violated the pilgrims’ right to manifest their religion contrary to Art. 18(1) of the
ICCPR
Focus on inability to worship their gods through the El Diente Festival and/or the Sacred
Pilgrimage of Cleansing
((1) The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it.
(2) For the purposes of this Convention, a cultural object which has been unlawfully
(3) Any claim for restitution shall be brought within a period of three years from the
time
when the claimant knew the location of the cultural object and the identity of its
possessor, and in any case within a period of fifty years from the time of the
theft.))
First, there are States which mainly provide for the law of the location of the object on
the day of the claim. It’s a first system (ex. 1966 Stroganoff-Sherbatov case and 1968, Koerfer v.
Goldschmidt case). This link to the location of the object on the day when the claim is brought
has been strongly criticised because, it was said, the sole transfer of an object from one country
to another should not lead to a change of owner. This would in fact be too easy. It was said that
as long as an object has been regularly acquired in a country, this right must subsist and must be
recognised when the object is transferred in another country.
This judgment gives me the conclusion of this first part, that is to say that common law
does not give a satisfactory and uniform solution to the problem of the international return of
cultural objects, whether the return is asked by the dispossessed owner or a State on the ground
of the protection of its cultural heritage. International conventions must therefore take over
from common law. (Regional Meeting on “Prevention of illicit traffic and other illegal actions
related to cultural properties” Research officer, Marina Schneider, UNIDROIT, UN
RESOLUTION)
BINDING BA? Resolutions and decisions are formal expressions of the
opinion or will of UN organs. Many types of resolutions on a broad range of
topics have been adopted by the principal organs and their subsidiaries
since the establishment of the organization in 1945. In general, resolutions
adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. (“The
Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”)