The quest for the restitution of cultural property has not been an easy endeavour. Despite the availability of multiple legal regimes securing various channels for the restitution of cultural property, improvement has been quite sluggish. This article argues that the debacle to the restitution process lies in the simultaneous operation of two diametrically opposed conceptions of cultural property- the nationalist and internationalist schools of thought. The 1954 Hague Convention sees cultural property as the cultural heritage of all mankind whilst the 1970 Convention takes the view that it is the cultural heritage designated by each country. These two approaches have been used to characterise nations theoretically in the international arena into source nations with nationalistic interests and market nations with international concerns. The conflict between both conceptions of cultural property becomes evident where the nationalists seek to employ legal and extra-legal means to protect their cultural heritage and facilitate their return and restitution; whereas, internationalists sabotage these efforts on the ground that cultural heritage is the common heritage of mankind thereby contradicting the notion of return. This article finds that although both schools of thought have divergent propositions, they nonetheless share a common theoretical underpinning- utilitarianism, which validates their respective ideologies. Since utilitarianism supports the maximisation of the overall happiness of a collective group, nationalists can predicate the protection of their cultural heritage on the need to secure this happiness just like the internationalists. This article, therefore, seeks to examine if the common theoretical foundation which both schools of thought share can serve as a reconciliatory tool that bridges the gap between them towards the promotion of the interest of the international community in protecting cultural heritage.

中文翻译：

---

功利主义：融合民族主义和国际主义文化财产概念的二分法

寻求归还文化财产并非易事。尽管有多种法律制度可确保通过各种渠道归还文化财产，但改善进展缓慢。本文认为，归还过程的失败在于两种截然相反的文化财产概念——民族主义和国际主义思想流派的同时运作。1954年的海牙公约将文化财产视为全人类的文化遗产，而1970年的公约则将其视为各国指定的文化遗产。这两种方法被用来在理论上将国际舞台上的国家划分为具有民族主义利益的源头国和具有国际关切的市场国。当民族主义者寻求使用法律和法外手段来保护他们的文化遗产并促进他们的归还和归还时，两种文化财产概念之间的冲突就变得很明显；而国际主义者破坏这些努力的理由是，文化遗产是人类的共同遗产，因此与回归的概念相矛盾。本文发现，虽然两个思想流派的命题各不相同，但它们有一个共同的理论基础——功利主义，这为各自的意识形态提供了依据。由于功利主义支持集体群体整体幸福的最大化，民族主义者可以像国际主义者一样，将保护其文化遗产的前提放在确保这种幸福的需要上。因此，这篇文章，