Foreword;Chapter 1 Introduction; 1.1 Preface; 1.2 What is immunity from seizure?; 1.3 Why would immunity from seizure be necessary?; 1.4 Approaches to granting immunity from seizure; 1.5 What are cultural objects? ;1.6 Cultural objects as good will ambassadors?; 1.7 What is a State?; 1.

8 International agreements related to international cultural cooperation and immunity from seizure; 1.9 Method and structure of this study;Chapter 2 The notion of customary international law; 2.1 Custom as a source of international law; 2.2 State practice and opinio juris ; 2.3 Duration of the practice; 2.4 Uniformity of the practice; 2.5 Practice accepted as law: opinio juris ; 2.6 Dissenting States; 2.

7 In conclusion;Chapter 3 State immunity and cultural objects; 3.1 Immunity from jurisdiction; from absolute to restrictive immunity; 3.2 Immunity from measures of constraint; 3.3 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property; 3.3.1 General introduction; 3.3.2 Commercial transactions and international art loans; 3.

3.3 State enterprises; 3.3.4 Immunity from measures of constraint; 3.4 European Convention on State Immunity; 3.5 Inter-American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States; 3.6 Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee; 3.7 Draft Convention on State Immunity by the International Law Association; 3.

8 Institute of International Law; 3.9 In conclusion; Chapter 4 Situation in the United States of America; 4.1 State immunity: situation in the United States of America; 4.1.1 General approach of the United States in respect of State immunity; 4.1.2 State immunity under the FSIA; 4.1.

3 Retroactive application: Republic of Austria v. Altmann ; 4.1.4 The ''commercial exception'': Westfi eld v. Federal Republic of Germany ; 4.1.5 The ''takings exception'': Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain ; 4.

1.6 Once more the ''takings exception'': Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation et al. ; 4.1.7 One more time the ''takings exception'': Orkin v. Switzerland ; 4.1.

8 The ''commercial exception'' and the ''takings exception'' combined: the Herzog case; 4.2 Immunity from measures of constraint for State property; 4.2.1 Sections 1609-1611 of the FSIA; 4.2.2 Seizure attempts in practice: Rubin v. the Islamic Republic of Iran ; 4.3 Special legislation involving immunity from seizure for cultural objects; 4.

3.1 Federal immunity from seizure legislation; 4.3.2 Immunity from seizure legislation in the State of New York; 4.4 Case law with regard to immunity from seizure legislation; 4.4.1 Romanov v. The Florida International Museum Inc.

; 4.4.2 Magness v. Russian Federation ; 4.4.3 Delocque-Fourcaud v. Los Angeles County Museum of Art ; 4.4.

4 Deutsch v. Metropolitan Museum of Art ; 4.4.5 Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam ; 4.4.6 Berckheyde painting The Golden Bend in the Herengracht in Amsterdam ; 4.4.

7 Portrait of Wally case; 4.5 In conclusion; Chapter 5 Situation in Canada and Central and South America; 5.1 Situation in Canada; 5.1.1 State immunity; 5.1.2 Immunity from seizure of cultural objects; 5.1.

3 Exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls; 5.2 Situation in Central and South America; 5.3 In conclusion;Chapter 6 Situation in the European Union; 6.1 The genesis of mobility of collections; 6.2 The OMC Expert Working Group and the subgroup ''Immunity from Seizure''; 6.3 Conclusions of the subgroup ''Immunity from Seizure''; 6.4 Future work; 6.5 In conclusion;Chapter 7 Situation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; 7.

1 State immunity in the United Kingdom; 7.2 The way towards immunity from seizure legislation; 7.3 The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; 7.4 In conclusion;Chapter 8 Situation in the Netherlands; 8.1 State immunity in the Netherlands; 8.1.1 Act on General Provisions of Kingdom Legislation; 8.1.

2 Code of Civil Procedure; 8.1.3 Regulations concerning the Bailiff and Court Bailiff s Act; 8.1.4 Relationship with the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property; 8.2 Immunity from seizure for cultural objects belonging to foreign States; 8.2.1 The situation during the last decades of the 20th century; 8.

2.2 The situation since the beginning of the 21st century; 8.3 In conclusion;Chapter 9 Situation in various other European States; 9.1 France; 9.1.1 The Shchukin case; 9.1.2 Immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.

1.3 The French Association of Tsarist Bond Holders; 9.2 Germany; 9.2.1 The way towards immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.2.2 Immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.2.

3 The Berlin Court: cultural objects immune under international law; 9.3 Austria; 9.3.1 Immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.3.2 The seizure of Czech cultural objects on loan to the Belvedere; 9.4 Belgium; 9.5 Switzerland; 9.

5.1 The Noga case; 9.5.2 Declarations of the Swiss Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Egyptian authorities; 9.5.3 Immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.6 Liechtenstein; 9.7 Finland; 9.

8 The Czech Republic; 9.9 Member States of the European Union which are in the process of enacting immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.9.1 Italy; 9.9.1.1 Measures of constraint against foreign States in Italy; 9.9.

1.2 The Dance by Matisse; 9.9.1.3 Discussions with regard to immunity from seizure legislation for cultural objects on loan; 9.9.2 Hungary; 9.10 Considerations of several other Member States of the European Union concerning immunity from seizure legislation; 9.

11 The Russian Federation; 9.12 In conclusion; Chapter 10 Situation in Asia, Australia and on the African continent; 10.1 Situation in Asia; 10.1.1 Israel; 10.1.1.1 The Foreign States Immunity Law; 10.

1.1.2 Towards immunity legislation for cultural objects on loan; 10.1.1.3 The content of the Loan of Cultural Objects (Restriction of Jurisdiction) Law; 10.1.2 The Islamic Republic of Iran; 10.

1.3 The United Arabic Emirates; 10.1.4 Pakistan; 10.1.5 The People''s Republic of China and the territory of Taiwan; 10.1.6 Singapore; 10.

1.7 Japan; 10.1.8 Other States of the region; 10.2 Situation in Australia; 10.2.1 Situation with regard to State immunity; 10.2.

2 The 1986 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act; 10.2.3 The Bark Etchings case; 10.3 Situation on the African continent; 10.3.1 Egypt; 10.3.2 South Africa; 10.

3.3 Other States of the region; 10.4 In conclusion;Chapter 11 Immunity from seizure at odds with international law?; 11.1 International agreements addressing illicit import, export, transfer or expropriation of cultural objects; 11.1.1 UNESCO; 11.1.2 Unidroit; 11.

1.3 Council of Europe; 11.1.4 European Union; 11.1.5 Organization of American States; 11.1.6 The 1998 Washington Principles, the 2000 Vilnius Declaration and the 2009 Terezin Declaration; 11.

2 Which obligation would prevail?; 11.3 Immunity from seizure at odds with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights?; 11.3.1 Introduction; 11.3.2 Article 6(1) ECHR; 11.3.3 Article 1, Protocol 1 to the ECHR; 11.

4 In conclusion;Chapter 12 Cultural objects on loan and belonging to foreign States - immune from seizure under customary international law?; 12.1 General; 12.2 State practice and the ratio behind it; 12.2.1 Method of working; 12.2.2 State practice; 12.2.

3 The ratio behind the State practice; 12.3 Academic opinions; 12.4 Primary conclusions; 12.5 Some possible limitations; 12.5.1 Cultural objects which have been the subject of a serious breach of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law, or which are already subject to return obligations under international or European law; 12.5.2 Immunity from seizure: only in civil or also in criminal proceedings? ; 12.

6 Supplementary conclusions; List of Sources; Index; Acknowledgements.