UNESCO’s Revised Ethics Code a ‘Missed Opportunity’, Says Antiques Trade Body

The UK’s Antiquities Dealers’ Association (ADA) has recently criticised UNESCO’s revised ethics code for cultural property traders, warning that loosely defined terms could expose legally owned objects to restitution claims and impose unworkable demands on parts of the market.

Adopted on 22 May following a five-year review, the International Code of Ethics for Traders in Cultural Property sets out 10 voluntary principles for art market professionals, spanning provenance, due diligence, transaction records and co-operation with national authorities. Krista Pikkat, UNESCO’s director of culture and emergencies, described it as a “practical framework to guide responsible conduct” and “combat illicit trafficking”.

However, in a statement published on 28 July, the ADA called the revision an “opportunity missed”. The association, which represents auction house specialists and advocates for the controlled sale of ancient art, argues that expressions including “illegally alienated”, “proper” due diligence and “reasonable cause” remain inadequately defined. 

The organisation also objects to provisions asking traders to co-operate when a country of origin seeks an object’s return, saying a claim alone does not establish that an object is illicit. “Long experience has shown that countries of origin claim items whatever their status, so without qualifying that the item must be illicit, the code would prove unacceptable to the market,” the statement said.

The ethics code for cultural property traders was first adopted in 1999 as a voluntary professional complement to UNESCO’s 1970 treaty against the illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property. 

Some of the disputed wording appears in this earlier version, which instructed the trade not to transfer objects when they had “reasonable cause” to believe they had been stolen, “illegally alienated”, clandestinely excavated or illegally exported. It also asked those possessing such objects to co-operate with return requests.

Nevertheless, the ADA’s statement warns that objects “legally sold and exported years ago are now being deemed national property and illicit in domestic law” as countries tighten their cultural heritage legislation.

The tension between a country or origin’s ownership claims and a sale taking place in another jurisdiction was illustrated in June, when Mexico’s government urged Sotheby’s in New York City to withdraw a Teotihuacán mask and a Veracruz ceramic figure from sale. Writing on Instagram at the time, Mexico’s secretary of culture, Claudia Curiel de Icaza, noted that the National Institute of Anthropology and History had identified the object as part of the country’s cultural heritage.

Responding to the claim, a Sotheby’s spokesperson told The Art Newspaper that the auction house applies “rigorous due‑diligence standards to every object” and complies “with all local and international laws”. “Having reviewed the provenance of these lots in detail and corresponded directly with UNESCO, we find no basis for the claim,” they added.

The ADA’s comments also come amid a broader reconsideration of professional ethics surrounding cultural property. 

On 25 June, the International Council of Museums adopted its revised ethics code, which states that museum ethics should go beyond legal compliance. It asks institutions to acknowledge their role in colonialism, adopt reparative practices and investigate objects where ownership histories are illegal or “otherwise problematic”.

In the same month, the Metropolitan Museum of Art returned two sculptures to Cambodia after new information from an investigation into the collection of dealer Doris Wiener, which helped to clarify their histories.

Ocula contacted UNESCO for comment.