Abstract

The fear of setting a precedent is a much-rehearsed argument used by Western museums to refuse the return of cultural heritage objects to their country of origin. After proposing to consistently distinguish among returns, restitutions, and repatriations as distinct phenomena, the article details three reasons that contradict this fear of setting a precedent: as each case is historically situated, one agreement is not easily transposable to other cases; the current practice of returns does not suggest that massive transfers are looming; and, most importantly, there is no will or plan, among experts and political authorities in claiming countries, to ask for massive returns. In turn, the fear of setting a precedent does open questions about the future museums: are universal museums at risk of disappearing? The museum as an institution is hardly at risk, as objects returned to another country will continue to live in the world of museums. Western universal museums should see return claims as an opportunity to rethink their mission and relations with other museums worldwide rather than a threat.

摘要

害怕开创先例是西方博物馆拒绝将文化遗产物品送回其原产国的一个经过反复演练的论点。在提出始终将返还、归还和遣返作为不同现象区分之后，文章详细阐述了与这种害怕开创先例相矛盾的三个原因：由于每个案例都有历史背景，一个协议不容易转用于其他案例；目前的返回做法并不表明大规模转移即将来临；最重要的是，声索国的专家和政治当局没有意愿或计划要求大量回报。反过来，对开创先例的恐惧确实对未来的博物馆提出了质疑：世界博物馆有消失的危险吗？博物馆作为一个机构几乎没有风险，因为返回到另一个国家的物品将继续存在于博物馆的世界中。西方世界博物馆应该将退货索赔视为重新思考其使命以及与全球其他博物馆的关系的机会，而不是威胁。