If Lord Elgin was in...

[bigdaddy1204]

I find a shame, one of the most horrid shames of Europe the fact that the marbles representing the Panathenaic Procession are still in London! It's a disgusting shame (euphemism)!

But the Panathenaic Procession have been stolen! There was no war, it's not war booty, they did not move voluntary into Britain, no, the marbles of Parthenon have been stolen by a robber (euphemism), a filthy brigand of the worst kind (euphemism)! Consider even that during the transport in Britan one ship sunk and we have lost forever a relevent part of the stolen marbles.

I object to you calling Lord Elgin a "filthy brigand". The marbles were not stolen, Lord Elgin obtained permission to move them. As others have pointed out, in the context of the time his actions may well have saved the marbles from further destruction, since the Turks and Venetians had already caused a lot of damage and there was no reason to think things would improve.

Overall I think it's fair that the Elgin marbles should be returned to Greece, now that the country is able to protect them. They are clearly a Greek treasure and it would be a nice gesture if the British Museum would return them. Perhaps in exchange, a deal could be made between the BM and museums in Athens. Museums around the world often send items to each other for temporary exhibitions. The items are then sent back when the exhibition finishes, usually after a month or so. If the British Museum were to return the Elgin marbles, it might be a fair compromise that in exchange a Greek museum could send a few other items for a temporary exhibit, and maybe the British Museum could also send other items to Greece. It would be a kind of ongoing deal, basically involving lending each other items for temporary exhibitions in both countries.

For example the Chinese sent part of the Teraccotta army to London a few years back for a temporary exhibition at the British Museum. After a couple of months, the exhibition finished and the items were returned to China. Maybe a similar kind of deal could be done with Greece. The Elgin marbles would stay in Greece, but other items could be (temporarily) loaned for special exhibitions.

[Cyclops]

Yes, because I have the "translation" which Elgin and his buddies provided. I.e.
First, we do not have the original, the translations can not be verified as correct translations because they lack proper notarisation (and I want to stress that there are even discrepancies between the Italian translation and the English translation of that Italian translation) ergo we can question whether there was a firman in the first place.
Second, even if we assume the translations aren't simple forgeries, the language they contain lacks the formal requirements to be a firman.
Third, even ignoring the first and second points, i.e. assuming that there was a firman and that the translations are accurate, notarised translations, and ignoring their lack of formal requirements, the language which the translations contain, which are the only documents Elgin provided in his hearing, does not grant him permission to saw off pieces of sculpture and take them with him.

Do you follow? There wasn't any firman and even assuming that the documents they provided were in fact firmans, their language does not authorise the actions of Elgin and his gang of hooligans.

I follow your argument. It goes like this. "There isn't a firman, and this is what it doesn't say".

The British Parliament did not touch on the issue of statute of limitations on their hearing of Elgin - they only convered whether he was authorised or not and did a half-assed job.

They ruled on the legitimacy of his possession of the marbles under the common law. You know Parliament is first and foremost a court?

You do not consent by silence in this case. Consent by silence, where it is possible, is applied with extreme restriction and requires some form of action on the "consenting" party which would give the other party reason to believe they consented. In this case the British had every reason to believe the Ottomans had not consented since the valid documents did not exist.

Absolute rubbish, if you wish to pass law don't repeat this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

This principle has applied in English law (eg in the trial of Thomas More) and in international law.

First of all, mediation or arbitration is always the case in International law. No country can take another country to an International Court without the other country consenting - in some cases this has to be in casu, in other cases the countries have agreed by Convention. This is the result of countries being sovereign.

Second, as for the statute of limitations, have a look at Shaw, M, International Law. The UNESCO Committee of Experts to Study the Question of Restitution of Works of Art (Venice Report, this is ICOM btw) - cases of restitution of artworks looted in WW2 do not apply statutes of limitations and a similar motion filed by the Metropolitan Museum with regards to the Lydian hoard stolen in the 1960s was rejected, i.e. they did not accept the claim that a statute of limitations prevented litigation. The 1970 Haag Convention also never mentions prescription or statutes of limitation. The point is: a statute of limitations is not a hindrance in cases of repatriation of works of art, nor has it been.

So, perhaps do not be so cocky next time? International law does not recognize statutes of limitations, especially not with regards to repatriation, even more so when the artwork in question wasn't legally taken in the first place.

You cited ICOM and I quoted the ICOM website contradicting you. Please provide a link as I have little faith in your assertion given your misunderstanding of the ICOM position and the principle of silence indicating consent.

He hasn't proven it, that's the point. A British translation (unsigned) of an Italian translation (signed by the wrong person) of a Turkish firman which nobody has been able to produce yet, with the addition that both the British translation and the Italian translation lack the formal requirements to be translations of a firman in the first place and with discrepancies even between these two "translations", does not constitute proof of authorisation. It only proves that they were fabrications.

The mater has been accepted by a competent British authority, that is Parliament. The onus is on you to overturn that position. Legally this is very clear.

The problem with the Horses is not simply that they were taken from their cultural context, had that been the case it would have simply been a matter of returning them there. The problem which plagues the Horses and does not plague the Parthenon marbles is the fact that the Horses belong to several artistic contexts, i.e. where do they belong? The Hippodrome? The Arc de Triomphe? Whichever ancient Greek context they were in at first? Venice, where they are now as a part of the basilica (if only in replicated form due to air pollution)? This is a problem which is not applicable to the Parthenon marbles because they were never included in any other artwork, they were simply put on display in a museum.

I raise it as an issue of relevance (the item taken "illegally" in 1798) and added complicating circumstances to illustrate the can of worms your arguments would open if taken seriously.

Nobody is speaking about British law, this is an international matter. As I have already explained Elgin did not have authorisation to remove the marbles, i.e. taking them was illegal, and under international law there is not statute of limitations. Britain can hide because they can refuse to go to court, but it doesn't make their holding of the marbles legal.

The items are held in Britain, British law applies there and it has been determined to be legal. For an international case to be made a respondent must be found, and there was no Hellenic republic in 1802 or 1812.

First of all: where do I insult you? You are arguing from a position of dishonesty by trying to apply a problem which is specific to cases where there are several claimants to a case where there is only one claimant. You know this, and it has been explained to you in detail at least twice by now, yet you continue to insist on it. It's dishonesty, plain and simple.

Here's how your argumentation goes: I say that in general parts of an artwork taken from their context/the rest of the artwork should be returned, referring to the Parthenon marbles. You say: what about the Horses of St. Marks which have historically been a part of several artworks over time?, I say: That's not a relevant problem for our discussion since we're talking about the Parthenon marbles which have only been a part of one artwork, you say:Hurr durr but what about thee horsies!!!1!!, then proceed to pretend like you made a relevant point. Do you understand now?.

I could insult you by mocking your poor legal argumentation and inability to grasp relevant points but I do not choose to do so as its against the T&C.

No. Again, that is simply having something on display..

I encourage you to educate yourself in modern art theory.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying and you understand that - the fact is you've been getting crushed and are now resorting to trying to misunderstand what I'm saying on purpose.

I am saying the following: "Thus by returning the marbles we are not compromising any current artwork which the marbles have been incorporated into since they weren't incorporated into any other artwork, nor would incorporating them into a new artwork today or in the future change this because by now doing so is illegal.".

Was I crushed when I found the ICOM site that contradicted your assertions about law? You have yet to prove that incorporating the Elgin Marbles, property of the British Museum, into a new artwork is illegal.

I.e. I had stated that we shouldn't destroy works of art, which happen to be constituted of pieces of other works of art, in order to restore the first artwork. You responded by saying: so if the British Museum simply bolted the marbles to the building and made them a part of it, then they couldn't be repatriated, to which I responded that again this is not a relevant objection since bolting the marbles to the building today would be illegal. Had the British museum incorporated the marbles into a new work of art in the 19th century when that kind of thing was still an acceptable way of doing things, then maybe you'd have a case. They didn't though, so why play around with hypotheticals?.

Its a response to this curious "artistic justice" argument you've pulled from the air. New propositions should be tested to failure, this one didn't take long.

As close as can be, which is a hell of a lot better than where they are now.

"Better" according to what principle? I agree with you, on the basis of soppy sentiment not law.

A photo does not rival the ability to actually look at it with your own two eyes, let alone to actually walk up to the Acropolis itself. Just this summer I was in Athens - started with the Acropolis and then went to the Museum immediately after, although I have the barbarian British to "thank" for not getting to properly appreciate the Parthenon.

I sympathise.

It isn't though.

Lucky for you its not part of your law course.

That is exactly what he did, to the point of bribing people to barbarically saw up parts of the sculpture. He was a little piece of who took an opportunity to completely deface one of the most famous works of architecture in the history of the world.

Much anger.

The case hasn't been settled anywhere since Parliament is not a court of law, let alone an international court of law. And I have some good news: statutes of limitations do not apply in international law.

I have good news, Parliament began its existence as a court and to this day its acts and decisions have the force of law. ICOM says it does apply to restitution cases unless parties consent to mediation.

So why do you claim they did the marbles honour?.

They did the marbles honour to the best of their ability. Your lack of sympathy is impeding your ability to understand the matter.

1. I have not resorted to personal abuse nor fallacious argument.
2. My "putative identity as a law student" was mentioned once by me and 7 times by you by this point in your post.

It was very funny when you raised it, that's why I repeat it.

And showing a relative measure of respect =/= showing respect or doing honour..

Much unsympathetic. So cold.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Again I have not stated anything on whether the British Museum does or does not hold legitimate legal title to the marbles. What I am saying is that the way Elgin, and by extension the British museum acquired the marbles was dirty, underhanded and illegal at the time. You then started harping about a statute of limitations, which 1. does not bear relevance to the point I am making and 2. does not hinder litigation in international law..

Look here, the Hellenic republic want the Elgin marbles badly. If they had a legal leg to stand in in this case they would have gone to court years ago. The simple fact is there is no case, and the actions of all parties prove this.

I know what a statute of limitations is. I am asking you to show me where in international law there is a provision which mentions a statute of limitations in this case..

I linked you to website of the organisation that you wrongly cited and contradicted you.

The British museum bothered to attempt to convince people, in their own website, that Elgin acquired the marbles legally. I mean I thought it was an "open and shut case", why does that matter? Evidently they do want to prove on their website that they're the legal owners, but for some "unexplainable" (euphemism, to quote Diocle) reason they are not mentioning any statute of limitations anywhere. Do you want to take a guess as to why that is?.

Because they don't need to? Because they weren't stolen, so the statute of limitations does no0t apply in their argument, although it does in yours?

Personal abuse of whom? Elgin? He was an imbecile. I am not in violation of any rules here, Elgin isn't a member of the TWC boards..

I think Elgin's long and distinguished career in diplomacy belies you trite and unconvincing criticism. get back to me when you've been ambassador to Turkey and several other countries.

No, it isn't a case in a court because the "C" in "TWC" does not stand for "Court". .

Once again, you'd be in the cells for contempt if it was.

Wrong. Not proven the Museum has a legal title nor is there any relevant international statute of limitations here..

Both are proven or the marbles would be in Athens. Try again.

I never spoke of the moral argument, so this is a strawman. While it would be nice to see the Greeks have a part of their national heritage back, it isn't the primary reason.

2. The moral issue, i.e. who best deserves to have the marbles based on heritage, nationality etc. .

You just cited the moral issue as an argument and now you deny it?

The artistic/historical issue is to reunite the piece of art so we can get a better understanding of what it was intended for and a better appreciation of one of the most important works of art in our "common heritage of the glory of Hellenism". The rest of what you wrote is nonsense.

Once again, acquaint yourself with the current state of art theory before you cite "artistic issues" as an argument. To raise "cultural" or "artistic" arguments is to stray into areas compromised by shabby thinking, nationalism and all sorts of poor arguments.

[Hmmm]

I follow your argument. It goes like this. "There isn't a firman, and this is what it doesn't say".

No, the argument is: there wasn't a firman, because the "translations" of it do not contain the proper formal requirements and they're the only "proof" the British Museum has. I'm going to explain this one more time and after that, every time you mention this again I will refer you back to what I explained because it has been explained in detail now and you're clearly choosing to not understand:

Only a firman could authorize Elgin to take the marbles - other documents could not. If Elgin was basing himself on an Ottoman document which wasn't a firman, or on no document at all, he would be acting illegally when taking the marbles.

1. No original of the document has been found, Elgin only provided two translations of a purported Ottoman "firman". Ottoman archives tended to be quite extensive, which makes this very peculiar. This alone is reason to believe that Elgin simply did not have a firman, possibly no document of any kind, and that the translations were fabrications.
2. Let us assume that there was an original document (i.e. that the translations were based on something and not complete fabrications). The contents of that document we do not know directly, because it is conveniently gone. We therefore have to base ourselves on the translations of the document which Elgin provided. When doing so, you'll notice the following: A) That the English translation is completely unsigned, B) That the Italian translation isn't signed by the correct person, C) That there are discrepancies between the language in the English translation and the Italian translation, and D) That the language contained in either does not meet the formal requirements required of a firman, i.e. they could not have been translations of a firman even if we assume they're authentic and not simple fabrications.
3. Even ignoring the translations lack of formal requirements, the language does not authorise the taking of the marbles.

Let me make it simple so you can understand because apparently English, your native tongue, is too difficult for you to comprehend: Elgins "translations" would be like a 17-year old going to a bar where you have to be at least 21 and producing a fake license showing him as 18. Not only is the license fake in the first place (i.e. there is no firman) but even if we assumed that the license was real he still isn't getting in (i.e. the language in the fabricated translations does not allow him to do what he did). Did you understand it now? Elgin was an imbecile.

If you can not understand this then I can not help you. A kindergartner would be able to understand this. As already stated I will not repeat myself, you're wrong plain and simple and you're disrupting the thread by willfully ignoring what i'm saying.

They ruled on the legitimacy of his possession of the marbles under the common law. You know Parliament is first and foremost a court?

I know Parliament is a British institution and not an international court. Their ruling has no bearing on what an international court would find.

Absolute rubbish, if you wish to pass law don't repeat this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

This principle has applied in English law (eg in the trial of Thomas More) and in international law.

This is hilarious - you're just displaying your complete ignorance buddy. The silence procedure has nothing to do with this - it is a procedure used during voting on international treaties, i.e. on proposals, not on whether a country by some form of concludent action is bound by an individuals actions. But by all means continue to embarass yourself. This would be like comparing a rule in constitutional law on how a bill becomes a law to contract law on the rules of being bound by action, the comparison is utterly stupid.

You cited ICOM and I quoted the ICOM website contradicting you. Please provide a link as I have little faith in your assertion given your misunderstanding of the ICOM position and the principle of silence indicating consent.

I have provided you with all the information you need to read up on it, as well as general information on the statute of limitations in international law. ICOM isn't making a statement on statutes of limitations in international contexts - a statute of limitations can be an issue if the case was brought before a national court.

The mater has been accepted by a competent British authority, that is Parliament. The onus is on you to overturn that position. Legally this is very clear.

The thief accepted that his theft was legal = therefore it has to be legal? Who cares what the British parliament thinks? If this was taken to an international court do you think it they would give even the tiniest rats ass about it?

I raise it as an issue of relevance (the item taken "illegally" in 1798) and added complicating circumstances to illustrate the can of worms your arguments would open if taken seriously.

Except the complicating circumstances do not apply to the Parthenon marbles. Precedent can be as specific as it has to be, do you truly believe that just because one sets a general precedent that where the matter is uncomplicated (like with the Parthenon marbles) the artwork should be returned = artwork should always be returned no matter the circumstances? The case of the Parthenon marbles, whatever precedent it sets, simply wouldn't be applied where the Horses of St Marks are concerned because the courts would find that there are different circumstances and that the ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case isn't applicable on the Horses case. You didn't illustrate that the argument opens a can of worms, you illustrated your stunning ignorance of how a precedent works.

The items are held in Britain, British law applies there and it has been determined to be legal. For an international case to be made a respondent must be found, and there was no Hellenic republic in 1802 or 1812.

The Hellenic republic is a perfectly good respondent in an international case, because it exists today. It didn't have to exist in 1802-1812. And in your world: if a Greek was to sneak into the UK, deface the Big Ben by taking the clock somehow and get back to Greece where let's say the Greek parliament and Greek law says it's ok, then it's legal in your world? The Greeks have no accountability to the international community in your little fantasy bubble?

No, if the case would have been decided in a British court, it would only be because the UK would refuse to go to an international court, not because their action is in any way legal.

I could insult you by mocking your poor legal argumentation and inability to grasp relevant points but I do not choose to do so as its against the T&C.

You already have insulted me multiple times, usually on crap ground like not having a clue on the legal situation and believing yourself to have made an actual point like "hurr durr the silence procedure". And there is no inability to grasp relevant points on my part - everything you've said has been answered in detail and correctly, and here you are patting yourself on the back for citing something on the ICOM:s website taken out of context while ignoring actual precedent cases. Any competent lawyer would be laughing at you openly at this point.

What "relevant point" did I miss? The fact that the problem you presented with the Horses of St Marks is irrelevant to the Parthenon? The fact that you have so far failed to understand that the translations we have of Elgins alleged Ottoman document do not in fact contain the formal requirements to be firmans or even the language to authorize the taking of the marbles?

I encourage you to educate yourself in modern art theory.

No, this is a matter of whether the marbles could be considered a part of the building or not, it's a legal matter which has to do with immovable property and fixtures.

Was I crushed when I found the ICOM site that contradicted your assertions about law? You have yet to prove that incorporating the Elgin Marbles, property of the British Museum, into a new artwork is illegal.

The ICOM site didn't contradict anything I said. The typical litigation hurdles they're referring to are for cases before a national court, not before an international one, and regardless a website isn't a source of international law. Precedent cases are. It is clear from the ICOMs own precedents that in an international context, statutes of limitations are not an issue.

As for putting the artwork into a new building, I'm not even going to get started. Or better yet: why dont the British do it? Let them prove to the world how barbaric they really are. See if that helps their argument.

Its a response to this curious "artistic justice" argument you've pulled from the air. New propositions should be tested to failure, this one didn't take long.

It's a bad argument - adding existing art to a new artwork was an acceptable way of doing things back in the day, it isn't acceptable to vandalize cultural heritage today. All it would do is show what a bunch of barbarians the British are. But you already knew that, you already knew that your "argument" doesn't help your case.

"Better" according to what principle? I agree with you, on the basis of soppy sentiment not law.

It's not a soppy sentiment, it's the relevant cultural and historical context. Of course I wouldn't expect a supporter of the British case to understand that, I mean your entire position is based on zero respect for other cultures or their heritage - to you they're curiosities to be displayed in British museums.

I sympathise.

I'm not asking for your sympathy, and you don't given how your entire argument so far has been "hurr it's just as good for them to stay in the British museum".

Lucky for you its not part of your law course.

No, luckily for you this isn't a law course because so far you have displayed your complete and utter ignorance on law: inability to understand what a legal source is, citation of irrelevant principles like the one on silence, misunderstanding of the ratio decidendi in precedent cases - you are making every mistake one could possibly make.

Much anger.

At Elgin? Yes, I'm angry at Elgin. I believe he was a piece of garbage and a barbaric little imbecile who was even too stupid to properly fabricate a firman.

I have good news, Parliament began its existence as a court and to this day its acts and decisions have the force of law. ICOM says it does apply to restitution cases unless parties consent to mediation.

British Parliament is not an international court of law and their verdicts are therefore irrelevant here. And ICOM does not say it applies to restitution cases in an international context, in fact in the legal sources they say the exact opposite.

They did the marbles honour to the best of their ability. Your lack of sympathy is impeding your ability to understand the matter.

Doing the marbles honour to the best of their ability would be to return them, or not taking them in the first place. I'm not going to sympathise with ignorant, barbaric who travelled the world looting it of its finest cultural heritage wherever they could and putting it on display like a curiosity in their little temple to British imperialism, and now have their descendants refuse to even own up to it.

It was very funny when you raised it, that's why I repeat it.

The funny part has been to watch you flail about my "future as a lawyer" and thinking you're scoring points, in particular when you try to bring up the law as opposed to simply comment on my language. It has been hilarious so far.

Much unsympathetic. So cold.

The cold people here are those who believe the marbles should stay.

Look here, the Hellenic republic want the Elgin marbles badly. If they had a legal leg to stand in in this case they would have gone to court years ago. The simple fact is there is no case, and the actions of all parties prove this.

Lol, no. The simple fact is that the Hellenic republic is a small country with a small economy and the UK is a big, influential country which has ed over Greece over other issues before, such as their involvement in the Istanbul pogroms over Cyprus. Diplomatic and political concerns have been prioritized, does not mean the British have a legal case.

I linked you to website of the organisation that you wrongly cited and contradicted you.

That website does not contradict me, they're stating that "typical litigation hurdles, such as statutes of limitation, may be overcome in mediation", that is no comment on whether a statute of limitations exist in international law. They could just as well be referring to national law. Furthermore, the ICOM:s website isn't a legal source, you want to know what is? Their precedent cases, which I told you about. Perhaps read it?

Because they don't need to? Because they weren't stolen, so the statute of limitations does no0t apply in their argument, although it does in yours?

No, they absolutely need to since they were as good as stolen. They're not referencing a statute of limitations because they know it doesn't apply.

I think Elgin's long and distinguished career in diplomacy belies you trite and unconvincing criticism. get back to me when you've been ambassador to Turkey and several other countries.

And yet Elgin is remembered as a little vandal who took his opportunity to deface the Parthenon, and was so incompetent he couldn't even look into the relevant Ottoman law to be sure he made a fabrication of the relevant form of document.

Once again, you'd be in the cells for contempt if it was.

But it's not, so it's irrelevant. If it was a court in some countries you'd have lost given how your argumentation only displayed your ignorance of actual law. In some countries only lawyers are allowed to argue in front of a court, but I'm not bringing that up because - and get this - we are not arguing in front of a court. Do you understand why it isn't relevant?

Both are proven or the marbles would be in Athens. Try again.

Right, because nothing that ever happened in the world has ever been illegal.

You just cited the moral issue as an argument and now you deny it?

I didn't "cite" the moral issue, I distinguished between the three types of arguments that are usually put forth in the debate over the marbles, that doesn't mean I actually used it for anything other than to distinguish it from the artistic one, i.e. a person claiming that the marbles should be returned based on their historical context is not making a moral argument. I.e. "these are the three types of arguments I tend to identify", not "I agree with these three types of arguments".

Once again, acquaint yourself with the current state of art theory before you cite "artistic issues" as an argument. To raise "cultural" or "artistic" arguments is to stray into areas compromised by shabby thinking, nationalism and all sorts of poor arguments.

The only nationalism I see here is on the part of the British who to this day refuse to own up to the fact that Elgin basically stole the marbles.

[Cyclops]

No, the argument is: there wasn't a firman, because the "translations" of it do not contain the proper formal requirements and they're the only "proof" the British Museum has. I'm going to explain this one more time and after that, every time you mention this again I will refer you back to what I explained because it has been explained in detail now and you're clearly choosing to not understand:

Only a firman could authorize Elgin to take the marbles - other documents could not. If Elgin was basing himself on an Ottoman document which wasn't a firman, or on no document at all, he would be acting illegally when taking the marbles.

1. No original of the document has been found, Elgin only provided two translations of a purported Ottoman "firman". Ottoman archives tended to be quite extensive, which makes this very peculiar. This alone is reason to believe that Elgin simply did not have a firman, possibly no document of any kind, and that the translations were fabrications.
2. Let us assume that there was an original document (i.e. that the translations were based on something and not complete fabrications). The contents of that document we do not know directly, because it is conveniently gone. We therefore have to base ourselves on the translations of the document which Elgin provided. When doing so, you'll notice the following: A) That the English translation is completely unsigned, B) That the Italian translation isn't signed by the correct person, C) That there are discrepancies between the language in the English translation and the Italian translation, and D) That the language contained in either does not meet the formal requirements required of a firman, i.e. they could not have been translations of a firman even if we assume they're authentic and not simple fabrications.
3. Even ignoring the translations lack of formal requirements, the language does not authorise the taking of the marbles.

Let me make it simple so you can understand because apparently English, your native tongue, is too difficult for you to comprehend: Elgins "translations" would be like a 17-year old going to a bar where you have to be at least 21 and producing a fake license showing him as 18. Not only is the license fake in the first place (i.e. there is no firman) but even if we assumed that the license was real he still isn't getting in (i.e. the language in the fabricated translations does not allow him to do what he did). Did you understand it now? Elgin was an imbecile.

So we're arguing about a document we don't have from a poor translation? We agree we don't know what the Sultan allowed from the poor copy of the firman that exists. All we have is Elgin's testimony that permission was granted.

The text of the firman is an unknown. Arguing from an unknown document is untenable. All we can say is the Parliament accepted Elgin's testimony and the Ottomans did not contest it. I hope you understand the importance of this point. The Ottomans were the prior custodians. It was up to them (and is up to their heirs, possibly the Turkish republic) to dispute this at the time.

I think your argument here doesn't really serve your case at all.

If you can not understand this then I can not help you. A kindergartner would be able to understand this. As already stated I will not repeat myself, you're wrong plain and simple and you're disrupting the thread by willfully ignoring what i'm saying.

I'm paying attention, and I'm hoping you'll see the folly of raising the firman again.

I know Parliament is a British institution and not an international court. Their ruling has no bearing on what an international court would find.

Strictly speaking the British Parliament serves England (a nation that competes as such in international sports) Scotland (a nation that competes as such against England in international sports) and Northern Ireland (you're getting the gist?) so to the extent that it does act as a court in determining legality, it actually is international. It is competent to make law, and decide matters, and certainly began as a court. I think Parliament can be loosely described as a court, although I'm sure you'd insist on a narrower definition and I wouldn't call that silly.

Secondly given domestic legal points such as the stature of limitations are mentioned as salient by ICOM on their website its clear domestic decisions whether by national (or United kingdom) bodies are relevant in these cases.

This is hilarious - you're just displaying your complete ignorance buddy. The silence procedure has nothing to do with this - it is a procedure used during voting on international treaties, i.e. on proposals, not on whether a country by some form of concludent action is bound by an individuals actions. But by all means continue to embarass yourself. This would be like comparing a rule in constitutional law on how a bill becomes a law to contract law on the rules of being bound by action, the comparison is utterly stupid.

The argument of consent by silence includes voting on treaties precisely because it is a precept of international law going back at least as far as Grotius.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/553


I urge you to read a little more, blunders like this take time in an interesting argument to set straight.

I have provided you with all the information you need to read up on it, as well as general information on the statute of limitations in international law. ICOM isn't making a statement on statutes of limitations in international contexts - a statute of limitations can be an issue if the case was brought before a national court.

ICOM states it is relevant in cases of international restitution.

The thief accepted that his theft was legal = therefore it has to be legal? Who cares what the British parliament thinks? If this was taken to an international court do you think it they would give even the tiniest rats ass about it?

Well apparently you think they do as later you argue everyone is afraid of the "thieves". Incidentally its a very poor argument to insult the Parliament of Great Britain because they don't agree with your position. The parliament of Great Britain makes the laws for that state.

Except the complicating circumstances do not apply to the Parthenon marbles. Precedent can be as specific as it has to be, do you truly believe that just because one sets a general precedent that where the matter is uncomplicated (like with the Parthenon marbles) the artwork should be returned = artwork should always be returned no matter the circumstances? The case of the Parthenon marbles, whatever precedent it sets, simply wouldn't be applied where the Horses of St Marks are concerned because the courts would find that there are different circumstances and that the ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case isn't applicable on the Horses case. You didn't illustrate that the argument opens a can of worms, you illustrated your stunning ignorance of how a precedent works.

The ratio decendi of the Elgin Marbles return you propose (that is, an artwork removed from a broader artistic context) definitely could be applied by France an extant entity whose artistic property was removed from the Arc de Triomphe within the time period you propose for the Elgin marbles and by the Turkish Government which possess another locale from which the artwork was removed and like the Hellenic Republic did not exist at the time of the removal. Can of worms old chap, can of worms.

The Hellenic republic is a perfectly good respondent in an international case, because it exists today. It didn't have to exist in 1802-1812. ...

You propose that a theft can occur from an entity that does not yet exist? Astounding.

...And in your world: if a Greek was to sneak into the UK, deface the Big Ben by taking the clock somehow and get back to Greece where let's say the Greek parliament and Greek law says it's ok, then it's legal in your world? The Greeks have no accountability to the international community in your little fantasy bubble?

Well if we're talking fantasy then Great Britain would get Dumbledore to cast a spell and bring it back.

In the real world Hellenes are allowed to alter historic buildings in Great Britain.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...use-of-secrets

If they wish to remove objects of cultural value there are laws around that, such as did not exist in Elgin's time. What's next, cases against Alexander the Great for owning slaves, to be made in favour of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Even more cans or even more worms.

No, if the case would have been decided in a British court, it would only be because the UK would refuse to go to an international court, not because their action is in any way legal.

...which is their legal right? Great Britain has refuse mediation, the Hellenic Republic could (and indeed did in a very preliminary way) commence an action in British and international courts.

You already have insulted me multiple times, usually on crap ground like not having a clue on the legal situation and believing yourself to have made an actual point like "hurr durr the silence procedure". And there is no inability to grasp relevant points on my part - everything you've said has been answered in detail and correctly, and here you are patting yourself on the back for citing something on the ICOM:s website taken out of context while ignoring actual precedent cases. Any competent lawyer would be laughing at you openly at this point.

Its a shame you're not in a position to laugh at me then .

Incidentally, this "hurr durr" thing, is it an insult based on contempt for people with a disability? If so, I'd like you to stop stooping so low.

What "relevant point" did I miss? The fact that the problem you presented with the Horses of St Marks is irrelevant to the Parthenon? The fact that you have so far failed to understand that the translations we have of Elgins alleged Ottoman document do not in fact contain the formal requirements to be firmans or even the language to authorize the taking of the marbles?

The Horses of St mark are relevant to the woolly and emotional case you've proffered on the Elgin Marbles "they belong". The absence of a clear translation of the firman negates citing it as an argument against legality. If we don't know what it said its irrelevant to the argument.

No, this is a matter of whether the marbles could be considered a part of the building or not, it's a legal matter which has to do with immovable property and fixtures.

Art and the law intersect at times, usually to the detriment of both.

The ICOM site didn't contradict anything I said. The typical litigation hurdles they're referring to are for cases before a national court, not before an international one, and regardless a website isn't a source of international law. Precedent cases are. It is clear from the ICOMs own precedents that in an international context, statutes of limitations are not an issue.

The ICOM site mentions statutes of limitations as a valid concern specifically in these restitution cases.

As for putting the artwork into a new building, I'm not even going to get started. Or better yet: why dont the British do it? Let them prove to the world how barbaric they really are. See if that helps their argument.

According to some definitions of art ( yes I know "art" as a concept is such crap) placing items in a random jumble on the floor counts as recontextualising them, in an artistically significant way. I've seen it, its not, but you know, "art".

It's a bad argument - adding existing art to a new artwork was an acceptable way of doing things back in the day, it isn't acceptable to vandalize cultural heritage today. All it would do is show what a bunch of barbarians the British are. But you already knew that, you already knew that your "argument" doesn't help your case.

I know citing "artistic justice" is a novel but ultimately fruitless avenue to go down. The least acquaintance with the world or art and its definitions will make you wish you hadn't.

It's not a soppy sentiment, it's the relevant cultural and historical context. Of course I wouldn't expect a supporter of the British case to understand that, I mean your entire position is based on zero respect for other cultures or their heritage - to you they're curiosities to be displayed in British museums.

I am in agreement with you that Athens is the place for the Elgin Marbles as I have repeatedly reminded you. I have great respect for the culture of Hellenism and I have great respect for the notion of cladding the Acropolis in double glazing and reconstituting the Acropolis from every available fragment. That's not what's on offer.

I'm not a supporter of insults and sloppy reasoning.

I'm not asking for your sympathy, and you don't given how your entire argument so far has been "hurr it's just as good for them to stay in the British museum".

You still have my sympathy.

No, luckily for you this isn't a law course because so far you have displayed your complete and utter ignorance on law: inability to understand what a legal source is, citation of irrelevant principles like the one on silence, misunderstanding of the ratio decidendi in precedent cases - you are making every mistake one could possibly make.

I think not. I don't think you've landed a single blow on my case and your own is proved by the Hellenic Republics to be fallacious, your allegations the Hellenes are cowardly to the contrary.

At Elgin? Yes, I'm angry at Elgin. I believe he was a piece of garbage and a barbaric little imbecile who was even too stupid to properly fabricate a firman.

Elgin served his sovereign well. He was not afool, and to dismiss him in this way betokens a poor grasp of the man.

British Parliament is not an international court of law and their verdicts are therefore irrelevant here. And ICOM does not say it applies to restitution cases in an international context, in fact in the legal sources they say the exact opposite.

We've already discussed this point. Technically (and its a slim technicality, but there it is) you're wrong, Parliament makes legally binding rulings and is effectively the highest legal body of more than one nation.

As for the legal sources saying the opposite, I have cited the ICOM website which flatly contradicts unsourced claims on your part. If you are unsure of the importance of the opinions of Grotius ion international law I suggest further reading so we can continue on amore equal footing.

Doing the marbles honour to the best of their ability would be to return them, or not taking them in the first place. I'm not going to sympathise with ignorant, barbaric who travelled the world looting it of its finest cultural heritage wherever they could and putting it on display like a curiosity in their little temple to British imperialism, and now have their descendants refuse to even own up to it.

Abuse makes a poor argument and talkig about honour when you can't maintain a civil demeanour is not consistent with legally sound argument.

The funny part has been to watch you flail about my "future as a lawyer" and thinking you're scoring points, in particular when you try to bring up the law as opposed to simply comment on my language. It has been hilarious so far.

I find your expostulations about the argument from silence and the validity of the statute of limitations to be wrong. there's humour here, but I hope you'd take advantage of the learning opportunities ITT befor eyou sit ny exams about ther Elgin marbles.

The cold people here are those who believe the marbles should stay.

The rational people are those who think the marbles will stay. Emotionally I wan them to "go home" but as I say, its sloppy and sentimental, and against reason.

Who knows, maybe there will be a miracle and we'll both be happy.

Lol, no. The simple fact is that the Hellenic republic is a small country with a small economy and the UK is a big, influential country which has ed over Greece over other issues before, such as their involvement in the Istanbul pogroms over Cyprus. Diplomatic and political concerns have been prioritized, does not mean the British have a legal case.

The Hellenic Republic has fearlessly contested cases against the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland before:

http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/...-icgj-189icj52

In fact they retained counsel with a view to prosecute a case for the return of the Elgin marbles within the last five years: the legal advice was they didn't have a case. So glad they did not consult someone who would foolishly advise them to pursue a fruitless action.

That website does not contradict me, they're stating that "typical litigation hurdles, such as statutes of limitation, may be overcome in mediation", that is no comment on whether a statute of limitations exist in international law. They could just as well be referring to national law. Furthermore, the ICOM:s website isn't a legal source, you want to know what is? Their precedent cases, which I told you about. Perhaps read it?

Clearly you haven't read the link I posted, it flatly contradicted you.

No, they absolutely need to since they were as good as stolen. They're not referencing a statute of limitations because they know it doesn't apply.

Perhaps they are not referencing it because there's no case to answer? Just a possibility, given there has been no case brought by the Ottomans (the previous owners) or the Hellenic republic (who have fearlessly pursued Great Britain before in international courts, and dropped the matter before it began in this instance).

And yet Elgin is remembered as a little vandal who took his opportunity to deface the Parthenon, and was so incompetent he couldn't even look into the relevant Ottoman law to be sure he made a fabrication of the relevant form of document.

More than one Elgin is disliked by those who feel disposed by them, and I'd agree there's a reason to dislike him. The question at hand is "is there a case".

But it's not, so it's irrelevant. If it was a court in some countries you'd have lost given how your argumentation only displayed your ignorance of actual law. In some countries only lawyers are allowed to argue in front of a court, but I'm not bringing that up because - and get this - we are not arguing in front of a court. Do you understand why it isn't relevant?

I'm satisfied there's no legal case, and so are the Hellenes. Organisations you've appealed to turn out to support my argument; legal terms you've disputed or proffered have turned against you like disloyal serpents.

Right, because nothing that ever happened in the world has ever been illegal.

The rule of law requires adherence to pre-existing rules, not changes made after the fact. Why didn't he Hellenic Republic protest the alleged theft at the time? It didn't exist. Why weren't UN decision about cultural heritage invoked? They hadn't been written. There's a legal principle here, lets see if you can extrapolate it.

I didn't "cite" the moral issue, I distinguished between the three types of arguments that are usually put forth in the debate over the marbles, that doesn't mean I actually used it for anything other than to distinguish it from the artistic one, i.e. a person claiming that the marbles should be returned based on their historical context is not making a moral argument. I.e. "these are the three types of arguments I tend to identify", not "I agree with these three types of arguments".

Excellent as they are pretty much all a bust.

The only nationalism I see here is on the part of the British who to this day refuse to own up to the fact that Elgin basically stole the marbles.

You don't see nationalism in the claims of a polity born in the 19th century to object created before the time of Christ? We have much to discuss, and I am here for you.

[Diocle]

The British museum legally owns the Marbles. Glad we got there in the end. It was bit shaky there for a while with your wistful nostalgia for a long-defeated ancient empire (a bloated corrupt and effete Empire crushed by the inferior people you seem to still harbor a grudge for) but I'm glad you recognize legality finally. Maybe it was this failure to look facts in the face that actually caused the long-overdue collapse of Rome?Enjoy your time on this English-speaking forum and indeed the modern world, which is neither Roman nor Greek.Urrrgh... what is that *thing* on the left in the background? Oh yeah the Victor Emmanuel II Monument. Can't Italians be trusted with their precious cities? At least London's Millennium Dome wasn't put next to Parliament or Tower Bridge.Rome used to have fires all the time. Maybe you guys should organize a strategically placed one around it's columns.

UK doesn't owns legally the marbles, UK looted the marbles, if you're not a Viking and you don't live in the IX century (with the mind I mean) I'm sure you can feel the difference.

Sorry but for you I show nostalgia about what? .. the Empire of Constantine? Please!
I understand that my English is not good but, if you read even the smallest part of my 9.551 posts, you should understand where my national "nostalgia" (what a distorted use of a beautiful Italian word!) is buried, anyway now I tell you where you can find it: they are two or three places, one is a mountain called "Matajur" or in Italian "Monte del Re" close to the Italian Eastern border, there the first kingdom was born, the other is a mountain pass on the Maritime Alps, it's called "Chiuse di Susa" and there it perished the kingdom, the other one, it's a small nice town near Parma, it's called Fornovo, and there, instead, perished the hope.

Actually there are many other places, of course, containing important fragments of my national feeling: Marengo, Custoza, Magenta, San Martino, Solferino, Brescia, Milan, Rome,Tchernaïa, Milazzo, Calatafimi, Caporetto, Adua, Tripoli, Piave, Vittorio Veneto, Gorizia, Tobruk, El Alamein, river Don, Nikolajewka, Chephalonia, Cassino, and many other forgotten names about which this is not the place to write anything, because they are part of another story.


About the pic I posted, actually my hope was that you noticed the awesome spiral screwed against the sky of Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza by Borromini, but, probably I was asking too much to your artistic knowledege ...
Anyway let me say that you are wrong, as architect I can state that the monument it's not so bad, the point is that to build it, they demolished some important medieval and Roman ancient buildings, but the "Altare delle Patria" is a decent building, today restored and containing a very interesting Museum. You can evaluate the real impact of the building looking at any aerial view of the portion of the Eternal City invlving the "Altare della Patria", it's not devastating as you may think:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't enjoy my time on this English speaking Forum because I consider English one of the worst languages of the world, for sure the less interesting and absolutely with the most disgusting sounds and pronunciation, I prefer my beautiful Romance language, its vowels and its nice and sweet sounds, I prefer French and it's absolute musical elegance and I prefer Spanish with its bloody strength, I also love the sounds of German Language and its monumenntal culural history, as I love the Ancient Greek I studied with a great and glorious pain when I was young, I would like to learn Russian just to be able to read Tolstoj and Dostoevskij in their owesome language but I fear I'm too old to for this adventure, so, we could say I love all the European languages but English! I'm here just because I'm playing TW games and for nothing else, apart just few small things as ... harassing the Greek-Brit-Ascari, the last colonial troops of a now vanished empire! (joking, actually I love the colonial militias, frequently they fight better than the metropolitan troops!)

Give back the marbles, Ascari!

[Hmmm]

So we're arguing about a document we don't have from a poor translation? We agree we don't know what the Sultan allowed from the poor copy of the firman that exists. All we have is Elgin's testimony that permission was granted.

The text of the firman is an unknown. Arguing from an unknown document is untenable. All we can say is the Parliament accepted Elgin's testimony and the Ottomans did not contest it. I hope you understand the importance of this point. The Ottomans were the prior custodians. It was up to them (and is up to their heirs, possibly the Turkish republic) to dispute this at the time.

I think your argument here doesn't really serve your case at all.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time - so your argument boils down to: the firman which Elgin stakes his entire legitimacy on is nowhere to be found, nor has it ever been, therefore we should just swallow everything he claims hook, line and sinker? That's not how it works, by that logic you are actually allowing Elgin to benefit from the fact that he at best destroyed the evidence and at worst didn't have any evidence to begin with. Obviously Elgins failure to produce the firman counts against him - this is how courts actually make their decisions.

Furthermore, there is no "poor copy of the firman that exists", there is no copy of the firman at all, there are alleged translations of a document which as I have shown you could not have been a firman even if it existed - and as already stated Elgins testimony is not proof of authorisation in any way, shape or form. He is literally as biased a source as can be, and on top of that does not have authority to grant the authorisation in the first place. To argue that Elgins testimony would somehow prove that he had proper authorisation is to claim that Elgins statement proves itself, which of course it doesn't.

The text of the original document, assuming it existed, is unknown. What we do know is that Elgin staked his claim on two translations, i.e. by his claim these two translated documents granted him authority. As has been presented to you in detail several times prior, Elgins claim is wrong as the documents A) are likely fabrications, B) lack the formal requirements to be firmans or translations of a firman, and only a firman can grant the necessary authorisation to remove the marbles, C) even ignoring the above the language contained in his translations did not grant him permission to saw off the marbles. That is to say, even by the evidence provided by Elgin himself, he did not have authorisation.

Parliament at no point heard the Ottomans during their hearing in the first place, so how could their lack of contest in this case count against them? The answer is simple; it can't. This wasn't a trial or a case in front of a court, it was a farce.

But why do I bother trying to convince someone who clearly has no interest in actually looking at the case? You've made up your mind a long time ago, no amount of facts is going to change that. By all means continue going on with your life inside that little fantasy of yours.

I'm paying attention, and I'm hoping you'll see the folly of raising the firman again.

As has been explained to you in detail, ignorant of legal matters though you are, the issue of the firman is important and clearly shows that Elgin never had the right to take the marbles, nor that there was a proper hearing and that the Ottoman government at no point tacitly or expressedly agreed with the taking. For all we know the removal of the marbles was never even brought to the attention of the Ottoman government in the first place. Again, you are grasping at straws, you're wrong plain and simple.

Strictly speaking the British Parliament serves England (a nation that competes as such in international sports) Scotland (a nation that competes as such against England in international sports) and Northern Ireland (you're getting the gist?) so to the extent that it does act as a court in determining legality, it actually is international. It is competent to make law, and decide matters, and certainly began as a court. I think Parliament can be loosely described as a court, although I'm sure you'd insist on a narrower definition and I wouldn't call that silly.

Hardly - the international matter is determined by the statehood it represents, and in this case England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not states. They are all part of the state known as the UK. So no, it isn't "actually international" in any sense of the word, you must be absolutely desperate to scrape what is truly the bottom of an already barrel. An actual example of an international court would be the ICJ.

Secondly given domestic legal points such as the stature of limitations are mentioned as salient by ICOM on their website its clear domestic decisions whether by national (or United kingdom) bodies are relevant in these cases.

No, it isn't. What is clear is that a statute of limitations is relevant should Greece for instance choose to take the matter to a national British court, which is an option. Another option would be to take it to an international court, the problem being that the UK does not have any obligation to accept because it's a sovereign country.

The argument of consent by silence includes voting on treaties precisely because it is a precept of international law going back at least as far as Grotius.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/553

I urge you to read a little more, blunders like this take time in an interesting argument to set straight.

And I urge you to stop embarrassing yourself. Grotius work while influential is not a current source of international law. Second of all even his argument on tacit acceptance by silence is exactly in line with what I said about accept by concludent action:

V. Even omissions, taking all proper circumstances into consideration, come under the cognizance of the law. Thus the person, who knowing of an act, and being present at the commission of it, passes it over in silence, seems to give his consent to it: this was admitted by the Mosaic Law. Unless indeed it can be shewn that the [112] same person was hindered from speaking either by fear or some other pressing circumstance. Thus a thing is accounted as lost when all hope of recovering it is given up; as for instance, if a tame animal, which was in our possession, be seized and carried off by a wild beast. Goods too lost by shipwreck, Ulpian says, cease to be considered as our own, not immediately, but when they are lost beyond all possibility of being reclaimed, and when no proofs of the owner’s intention to reclaim them can be discovered.

Now the case is altered, if persons were sent to inquire after the lost goods, or property, and a reward was promised to the finder. But if a person knows his property to be in the possession of another, and allows it to remain so for a length of time, without asserting his claim, unless there appear sufficient reasons for his silence, he is construed to have entirely abandoned all pretentions to the same. And to the same purpose he has said elsewhere, that a house is looked upon to be abandoned on account of the long silence of the proprietor."

I.e. the Ottomans must have given the British reason to believe that by not objecting they were tacitly accepting, which is usually done through concludent action. The Ottoman government, represented by the Sultan, was not present at the commission of nor knew about Elgins act to take the marbles. Grotius statement would have been applicable if the Sultan had been looking on as Elgin was taking the marbles. Additionally, pressing circumstances could very well have prevented the Ottoman government from later taking a stance even assuming it somehow was brought to their attention.

The second paragraph is a typical argument used for statutes of limitations, which as I have already explained to you do not exist in international law, even if Grotius may have believed they should.

But of course, why would I expect you to know anything about this, given how you don't know the first thing about law?

ICOM states it is relevant in cases of international restitution.

International restitution does not mean that the case is brought according to international law. Cases of international restitution can be brought before a national court as well, if Greece were to sue the British museum for the return of the marbles in a national British court, this would be a case of international restitution but would be determined by national British law, not by international law. Do you understand? Again, the precedent cases of ICOM are clear when it comes to repatriation of stolen goods in an international law context: there are no statutes of limitation, which is why even books stolen from a library in 1622 can be subject to a court case irrespective of the time which has passed. I thought this would have been clear by now, but apparently you are truly hellbent on embarrassing yourself by showing your complete and total ignorance of how the law works. It becomes all the more funny given how you continue to base your claims on the statements of a website which is not a legal source.

Well apparently you think they do as later you argue everyone is afraid of the "thieves". Incidentally its a very poor argument to insult the Parliament of Great Britain because they don't agree with your position. The parliament of Great Britain makes the laws for that state.

I'm not insulting the British parliament, I'm saying their opinion does not carry any weight in an international court (as an authority or legal source) because they'd be the defendants. And where do I claim everyone is afraid of the thieves? And on top of that, how does being afraid of them = they are legally correct?

The ratio decendi of the Elgin Marbles return you propose (that is, an artwork removed from a broader artistic context) definitely could be applied by France an extant entity whose artistic property was removed from the Arc de Triomphe within the time period you propose for the Elgin marbles and by the Turkish Government which possess another locale from which the artwork was removed and like the Hellenic Republic did not exist at the time of the removal. Can of worms old chap, can of worms.

Stop using terms you do not have any comprehension of. The ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case can not be applied in the case of the Horses precisely because both France and Turkey would be able to make equal claims (as can Venice), which means the case is too fundamentally different from the case of the Parthenon for the ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case to be applicable on the Horses case.

You propose that a theft can occur from an entity that does not yet exist? Astounding.

No, the theft occured from the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottoman Empires claim was succeeded by the Hellenic Republic when they became an independent country in control of Athens. It's called a succession of parties.

Well if we're talking fantasy then Great Britain would get Dumbledore to cast a spell and bring it back.

In the real world Hellenes are allowed to alter historic buildings in Great Britain.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...use-of-secrets

If they wish to remove objects of cultural value there are laws around that, such as did not exist in Elgin's time. What's next, cases against Alexander the Great for owning slaves, to be made in favour of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Even more cans or even more worms.

There were laws against the removal of the Parthenon marbles at the time of Elgins taking, which is why he needed authorisation, which he never got.

...which is their legal right? Great Britain has refuse mediation, the Hellenic Republic could (and indeed did in a very preliminary way) commence an action in British and international courts.

Being able to refuse to go to court does not make your case legal.

Its a shame you're not in a position to laugh at me then .

Incidentally, this "hurr durr" thing, is it an insult based on contempt for people with a disability? If so, I'd like you to stop stooping so low.

It's not an insult of anyone. It is intended to show that what you are saying is silly.

The Horses of St mark are relevant to the woolly and emotional case you've proffered on the Elgin Marbles "they belong". The absence of a clear translation of the firman negates citing it as an argument against legality. If we don't know what it said its irrelevant to the argument.

No, the absense of a "clear translation of a firman" counts against Elgin in this case, as is the case everywhere in legal courts since the burden of proof for authorisation rested on Elgin. Failure to produce that proof will be held against him. It's completely relevant to the argument, I am genuinely stunned at the kind of total and complete stupidity your posts are displaying right now.

Art and the law intersect at times, usually to the detriment of both.

Irrelevant nonsense as most of what you said.

The ICOM site mentions statutes of limitations as a valid concern specifically in these restitution cases.

No, ICOM in the website you provided states that statues of limitation can be a valid concern, not that they are a valid concern where international law is concerned. Given their actual precedent cases, and more than that given general international law which you completely and utterly ignored, we know that statutes of limitation are not relevant at all in matters of international law.

According to some definitions of art ( yes I know "art" as a concept is such crap) placing items in a random jumble on the floor counts as recontextualising them, in an artistically significant way. I've seen it, its not, but you know, "art".

That wasn't the intent with putting them in display even if we were to accept the definition, which I don't.

I know citing "artistic justice" is a novel but ultimately fruitless avenue to go down. The least acquaintance with the world or art and its definitions will make you wish you hadn't.

Nonsense as before, you're simply out of stupid things to say so now you're throwing around meaningless garbage instead. And for the record I have studied ancient art history.

I am in agreement with you that Athens is the place for the Elgin Marbles as I have repeatedly reminded you. I have great respect for the culture of Hellenism and I have great respect for the notion of cladding the Acropolis in double glazing and reconstituting the Acropolis from every available fragment. That's not what's on offer.

You clearly have zero respect for the culture of Hellenism given how you are going to absolutely ridicilous lengths and using the dumbest arguments in existence to attempt to protect the claim of a man who literally defaced the most iconic building in Greek civilization.

I'm not a supporter of insults and sloppy reasoning.

I have at no point insulted you, Elgin deserved nothing but to be insulted and the only one who applies sloppy reasoning (seasoned with a stunning ignorance of how the law works) is you, as has been demonstrated in detail by now.

I think not. I don't think you've landed a single blow on my case and your own is proved by the Hellenic Republics to be fallacious, your allegations the Hellenes are cowardly to the contrary.

Au contraire your case has been completely destroyed: you are now resorting to attempting to benefit Elgin from the fact that he failed to produce the evidence he needed. That is truly, truly desperate on your part. You have been completely and comprehensively disproven in your ludicrous assertion that a statute of limiations would be a problem before an international court and ignored 3 cases, a book and a convention cited to you previously in favour of a (purposefully) misinterpreted part of an internet website (which isn't a legal source). You have attempted to use a problem which is relevant to cases with more than one claimant as somehow an objection to a solution in a case with only one claimant, as if the cases were comparable, which is nothing short of stupid, came damn close to advocating bolting the marbles to the British museums building with the sole intention of denying their return to Greece (i.e. out of spite, not out of some genuine concern) and the list goes on.

Elgin served his sovereign well. He was not afool, and to dismiss him in this way betokens a poor grasp of the man.

A person who can't even be bothered to look up what a firman looks like before trying to forge an alleged translation of one is an imbecile, period point blank.

We've already discussed this point. Technically (and its a slim technicality, but there it is) you're wrong, Parliament makes legally binding rulings and is effectively the highest legal body of more than one nation.

No it isn't. The UK is one state as far as international law is concerned - this is why the UK is a member of the EU and not Northern Ireland, Scotland and England separately. Germany is a federation, so is the US, that doesn't mean each and every single US state is a state in the meaning of international law, nor is the SCOTUS an international court.

As for the legal sources saying the opposite, I have cited the ICOM website which flatly contradicts unsourced claims on your part. If you are unsure of the importance of the opinions of Grotius ion international law I suggest further reading so we can continue on amore equal footing.

Sigh. First, the ICOM website is not a source of law, so the statements there dont count for anything, in particular not in the face of actual sources of law. Second, the statement in the ICOM website does no contradict what I said, statutes of limitations can be a problem in cases of international repatriation, that doesn't mean they're a problem in cases of international repatriation where international law is concerned, i.e. before an international court. Third, I did source my statements, you're just trying to attempt to ignore them because you know that you've been thoroughly crushed here. Fourth, Grotius is not a relevant source of law anymore and on top of that does not contradict my statement as was made clear earlier in this post, in fact his statement validates mine: i.e. that you need concludent action to be bound by your silence.

Abuse makes a poor argument and talkig about honour when you can't maintain a civil demeanour is not consistent with legally sound argument.

Who am I abusing? The British government? Cry me a river.

I find your expostulations about the argument from silence and the validity of the statute of limitations to be wrong. there's humour here, but I hope you'd take advantage of the learning opportunities ITT befor eyou sit ny exams about ther Elgin marbles.

Except you've been thoroughly disproven. Passivity alone can not bind someone, you need some form of concludent action which gives the other party good reason to assume you do not object - Grotius makes this clear when he claims you need to have known about AND (observe, not OR, so it's cumulative, i.e. both requirements need to have been met) been present at the commission of the act.

Statutes of limitations are not relevant in international law. There is no relevant international treaty anywhere which stipulates any form of statute of limitations. The fact that a statute of limitations can be a hindrance to litigation in cases of international repatriation before a national court in no way contradicts that fact, since a case before a national court will be determined by the applicable national law.

The rational people are those who think the marbles will stay. Emotionally I wan them to "go home" but as I say, its sloppy and sentimental, and against reason.

It may be rational to think the marbles will stay, but it isn't rational to think they should stay.

Who knows, maybe there will be a miracle and we'll both be happy.

You seem pretty happy with them being where they are.

The Hellenic Republic has fearlessly contested cases against the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland before:

http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/...-icgj-189icj52

In fact they retained counsel with a view to prosecute a case for the return of the Elgin marbles within the last five years: the legal advice was they didn't have a case. So glad they did not consult someone who would foolishly advise them to pursue a fruitless action.

Really? Please source that counsel.

As for the Ambatielos case, it wasn't anywhere near as high profile as the Parthenon marbles. Just because Greece is willing to take the UK to court over a shipowners claim for arbitration doesn't mean they'd be willing to go for a high-profile case where the prestige of both countries is at stake.

Clearly you haven't read the link I posted, it flatly contradicted you.

I literally posted an exact quote of the websites claim about statues of limitations. Nowhere do they claim that a statute of limitation is a hindrance to litigation before an international court.

Perhaps they are not referencing it because there's no case to answer? Just a possibility, given there has been no case brought by the Ottomans (the previous owners) or the Hellenic republic (who have fearlessly pursued Great Britain before in international courts, and dropped the matter before it began in this instance).

Wrong. Given how the museum are arguing in the legal matter by bringing up Elgins acquisition, one would think they'd simply make life easier for themselves by immediately quoting the relevant statute of limitations. Instead they choose the much more dubious way of trying to argue that Elgin had made a legitimate purchase, which is much riskier in a legal context (especially given how they're wrong). The answer? There is no relevant statute of limitations here, and even if there was the British Museum are clearly aware that using it as an argument would completely undermine their position.

More than one Elgin is disliked by those who feel disposed by them, and I'd agree there's a reason to dislike him. The question at hand is "is there a case".

The question at hand is "Did Elgin make a legitimate purchase/have authorisation to take the marbles", to which the answer is a clear and resounding "no".

I'm satisfied there's no legal case, and so are the Hellenes. Organisations you've appealed to turn out to support my argument; legal terms you've disputed or proffered have turned against you like disloyal serpents.

Organisations I've appealed to do not support your argument, although you can continue to fallaciously insist that they do even though I've explained to you in detail that they dont. Legal terms I've disputed or proffered haven't been turned against me in any other way than a hilariously ignorant and frankly desperate attempt to save a bad argument. "The ratio decidendi in the Parthenon marbles would case problems if applied in the case of the Horses of St Marks" - that's an argument against using the ratio decidendi in the case of the Horses, not against using it in the case of the Parthenon marbles. But by all means, keep going, I am greatly amused here.

The rule of law requires adherence to pre-existing rules, not changes made after the fact. Why didn't he Hellenic Republic protest the alleged theft at the time? It didn't exist. Why weren't UN decision about cultural heritage invoked? They hadn't been written. There's a legal principle here, lets see if you can extrapolate it.

The rules are not made after the fact - we are talking about Ottoman law which was entirely in force at the time of Elgins removal of the marbles, which is why the British parliament looked into whether he had authorisation, although they half-assed it instead of holding a proper hearing.

You don't see nationalism in the claims of a polity born in the 19th century to object created before the time of Christ? We have much to discuss, and I am here for you.

Not if that claim is to simply return the marbles to their original building. Being proud of your cultural heritage =/= nationalism. Being proud of and insisting that you continue with a practice of looting the cultural heritage of other countries on the other hand, that is clear nationalism.

[Cyclops]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time - so your argument boils down to: the firman which Elgin stakes his entire legitimacy on is nowhere to be found, nor has it ever been, therefore we should just swallow everything he claims hook, line and sinker? That's not how it works, by that logic you are actually allowing Elgin to benefit from the fact that he at best destroyed the evidence and at worst didn't have any evidence to begin with. Obviously Elgins failure to produce the firman counts against him - this is how courts actually make their decisions.

Furthermore, there is no "poor copy of the firman that exists", there is no copy of the firman at all, there are alleged translations of a document which as I have shown you could not have been a firman even if it existed - and as already stated Elgins testimony is not proof of authorisation in any way, shape or form. He is literally as biased a source as can be, and on top of that does not have authority to grant the authorisation in the first place. To argue that Elgins testimony would somehow prove that he had proper authorisation is to claim that Elgins statement proves itself, which of course it doesn't.

The text of the original document, assuming it existed, is unknown. What we do know is that Elgin staked his claim on two translations, i.e. by his claim these two translated documents granted him authority. As has been presented to you in detail several times prior, Elgins claim is wrong as the documents A) are likely fabrications, B) lack the formal requirements to be firmans or translations of a firman, and only a firman can grant the necessary authorisation to remove the marbles, C) even ignoring the above the language contained in his translations did not grant him permission to saw off the marbles. That is to say, even by the evidence provided by Elgin himself, he did not have authorisation.

Parliament at no point heard the Ottomans during their hearing in the first place, so how could their lack of contest in this case count against them? The answer is simple; it can't. This wasn't a trial or a case in front of a court, it was a farce.

But why do I bother trying to convince someone who clearly has no interest in actually looking at the case? You've made up your mind a long time ago, no amount of facts is going to change that. By all means continue going on with your life inside that little fantasy of yours.

I thought you weren't going to go over the firman again?

If you can not understand this then I can not help you. A kindergartner would be able to understand this. As already stated I will not repeat myself,

Yep you did. Oh well.

As has been explained to you in detail, ignorant of legal matters though you are, the issue of the firman is important and clearly shows that Elgin never had the right to take the marbles, nor that there was a proper hearing and that the Ottoman government at no point tacitly or expressedly agreed with the taking. For all we know the removal of the marbles was never even brought to the attention of the Ottoman government in the first place. Again, you are grasping at straws, you're wrong plain and simple.

So its a slam dunk, according to you. Which is why the Hellenes have won already. Excerpt they haven't.

Hardly - the international matter is determined by the statehood it represents, and in this case England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not states. They are all part of the state known as the UK. So no, it isn't "actually international" in any sense of the word, you must be absolutely desperate to scrape what is truly the bottom of an already barrel. An actual example of an international court would be the ICJ.

You see law and justice are not as simple as you seem to describe them, and its worthwhile discussing the ins and outs. I'm very sorry if these excurses have enraged you. I'm quite enjoying exploring the issues as well as debating them.

No, it isn't. What is clear is that a statute of limitations is relevant should Greece for instance choose to take the matter to a national British court, which is an option. Another option would be to take it to an international court, the problem being that the UK does not have any obligation to accept because it's a sovereign country.

Hence the relevance of the statute of limitations.

And I urge you to stop embarrassing yourself. Grotius work while influential is not a current source of international law. Second of all even his argument on tacit acceptance by silence is exactly in line with what I said about accept by concludent action:

You seemed to ignore or not know of the centrality of the doctrine of silence indicating consent as a principle of international law from at least the time of Grotius, insisting it was only relevant to a small slice of treaty voting procedure. I hope I've opened your eyes a little: Grotius is not the sum of the argument, merely a point to break your argument. one that point, when someone schools me in debate I thank them for teaching me something. Its common courtesy you know.

I.e. the Ottomans must have given the British reason to believe that by not objecting they were tacitly accepting, which is usually done through concludent action. The Ottoman government, represented by the Sultan, was not present at the commission of nor knew about Elgins act to take the marbles. Grotius statement would have been applicable if the Sultan had been looking on as Elgin was taking the marbles. Additionally, pressing circumstances could very well have prevented the Ottoman government from later taking a stance even assuming it somehow was brought to their attention.

I'll repeat my point to clarify it. The Porte did not challenge (through their ambassador in London, present from 1793 onwards) the proceedings of parliament to investigate the propriety of Elgin's acquisition of the marbles. To assume the Porte's ignorance of this cause celebre beggars belief.

The second paragraph is a typical argument used for statutes of limitations, which as I have already explained to you do not exist in international law, even if Grotius may have believed they should.

But of course, why would I expect you to know anything about this, given how you don't know the first thing about law?

Well I'm happy to be schooled in law by someone who doesn't insist the argument silence indicates consent is confined to a narrow portion of treaty voting procedure. Do you know anyone like that?

International restitution does not mean that the case is brought according to international law. Cases of international restitution can be brought before a national court as well, if Greece were to sue the British museum for the return of the marbles in a national British court, this would be a case of international restitution but would be determined by national British law, not by international law. Do you understand? Again, the precedent cases of ICOM are clear when it comes to repatriation of stolen goods in an international law context: there are no statutes of limitation, which is why even books stolen from a library in 1622 can be subject to a court case irrespective of the time which has passed. I thought this would have been clear by now, but apparently you are truly hellbent on embarrassing yourself by showing your complete and total ignorance of how the law works. It becomes all the more funny given how you continue to base your claims on the statements of a website which is not a legal source.

Once again I'd be more comfortable getting legal advice from someone who cites ICOM without being contradicted by their website.

I'm not insulting the British parliament, I'm saying their opinion does not carry any weight in an international court (as an authority or legal source) because they'd be the defendants. And where do I claim everyone is afraid of the thieves? And on top of that, how does being afraid of them = they are legally correct?

Why would Parliament be a defendant in a case contending Elgin was a thief? Their ruling could be challenged in a superior court perhaps, although there wasn't one in the early 19th century. I think you're confused about what crime you allege and who committed it.

Stop using terms you do not have any comprehension of. The ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case can not be applied in the case of the Horses precisely because both France and Turkey would be able to make equal claims (as can Venice), which means the case is too fundamentally different from the case of the Parthenon for the ratio decidendi of the Parthenon case to be applicable on the Horses case.

I'm comfortable you're not using the terms correctly. The argument for restoring art to context can be applied to statues as well as friezes.

No, the theft occured from the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottoman Empires claim was succeeded by the Hellenic Republic when they became an independent country in control of Athens. It's called a succession of parties.

Indeed, and in discussion of cultural artifacts this is relevant if theft can be proved. We're getting there.

There were laws against the removal of the Parthenon marbles at the time of Elgins taking, which is why he needed authorisation, which he never got.

Prove it.

Being able to refuse to go to court does not make your case legal.

This is a confused statement. How is Elgin's "case" not legal? Are you trying to say "the argument of Elgin is not legitimate even though he can evade going to court"? That's more of a moral judgement.

Or are you trying to say "just because a case has no legs doesn't mean it has no legs"? which is nonsense, or are you saying "by arguing his legitimate ownership of the marbles Elgin is committing a crime"? which is pretty way out as an argument.

I have to say clarity of argument is critical in legal presentation, or even in historical debate.

It's not an insult of anyone. It is intended to show that what you are saying is silly.

An insult as an argument is a very weak argument.

No, the absense of a "clear translation of a firman" counts against Elgin in this case, as is the case everywhere in legal courts since the burden of proof for authorisation rested on Elgin. Failure to produce that proof will be held against him. It's completely relevant to the argument, I am genuinely stunned at the kind of total and complete stupidity your posts are displaying right now.

Your argument for evidence from a non-existent document and a poor translation won't sway many courts.

Irrelevant nonsense as most of what you said.

Once again, look into art before you cite it as part of your argument, you will be unpleasantly surprised by the genie you've let out of the bottle.

No, ICOM in the website you provided states that statues of limitation can be a valid concern, not that they are a valid concern where international law is concerned. Given their actual precedent cases, and more than that given general international law which you completely and utterly ignored, we know that statutes of limitation are not relevant at all in matters of international law.

It remains relevant in this case in part because of the decision of Parliament, and forgive me if I don't concede your expertise on international law given the statements you've made previously about the argument that silence indicates consent.

That wasn't the intent with putting them in display even if we were to accept the definition, which I don't.

Wait you were the one bringing art to the table, not me. You live with the consequences.

Nonsense as before, you're simply out of stupid things to say so now you're throwing around meaningless garbage instead. And for the record I have studied ancient art history.

Excellent, as have I. I commend your admiration of the marbles, which we share with Elgin.

You clearly have zero respect for the culture of Hellenism given how you are going to absolutely ridicilous lengths and using the dumbest arguments in existence to attempt to protect the claim of a man who literally defaced the most iconic building in Greek civilization.

Well you misunderstand me very badly. I argue law, not the man. I recommend it.

I have at no point insulted you, Elgin deserved nothing but to be insulted and the only one who applies sloppy reasoning (seasoned with a stunning ignorance of how the law works) is you, as has been demonstrated in detail by now.

Your demonstrations are unconvincing to me. I hope your teachers find more to convince them.

Au contraire your case has been completely destroyed: you are now resorting to attempting to benefit Elgin from the fact that he failed to produce the evidence he needed. That is truly, truly desperate on your part. You have been completely and comprehensively disproven in your ludicrous assertion that a statute of limiations would be a problem before an international court and ignored 3 cases, a book and a convention cited to you previously in favour of a (purposefully) misinterpreted part of an internet website (which isn't a legal source). You have attempted to use a problem which is relevant to cases with more than one claimant as somehow an objection to a solution in a case with only one claimant, as if the cases were comparable, which is nothing short of stupid, came damn close to advocating bolting the marbles to the British museums building with the sole intention of denying their return to Greece (i.e. out of spite, not out of some genuine concern) and the list goes on.

Now you are insulting me by attributing my arguments to spite and not respect for the law. Poor show. Are there jurisdictions where insults count for more than reasoned argument?

A person who can't even be bothered to look up what a firman looks like before trying to forge an alleged translation of one is an imbecile, period point blank.

Great Britain was wildly successful and internationally renowned for its diplomatic cunning in the early 19th century 9as you'd know from your study of history90 and Elgin was an important player in their game attending Potsdam as well as the Porte. To revile such a diplomat as an imbecile does not make me respect your historical knowledge.

No it isn't. The UK is one state as far as international law is concerned - this is why the UK is a member of the EU and not Northern Ireland, Scotland and England separately. Germany is a federation, so is the US, that doesn't mean each and every single US state is a state in the meaning of international law, nor is the SCOTUS an international court.

Oh I quite agree, I was teasing out possibilities and pursuing interesting by ways. No need to get angry, its a friendly discussion and one you could benefit from.

Sigh. First, the ICOM website is not a source of law, so the statements there dont count for anything, in particular not in the face of actual sources of law. Second, the statement in the ICOM website does no contradict what I said, statutes of limitations can be a problem in cases of international repatriation, that doesn't mean they're a problem in cases of international repatriation where international law is concerned, i.e. before an international court. Third, I did source my statements, you're just trying to attempt to ignore them because you know that you've been thoroughly crushed here. Fourth, Grotius is not a relevant source of law anymore and on top of that does not contradict my statement as was made clear earlier in this post, in fact his statement validates mine: i.e. that you need concludent action to be bound by your silence.

I feel strangely uncrushed.

Who am I abusing? The British government? Cry me a river.

Yet you insist you did not earlier in your post. I respect consistency in argument, not this flip flopping.

Except you've been thoroughly disproven. Passivity alone can not bind someone, you need some form of concludent action which gives the other party good reason to assume you do not object - Grotius makes this clear when he claims you need to have known about AND (observe, not OR, so it's cumulative, i.e. both requirements need to have been met) been present at the commission of the act.

The representative of the Porte and its successor states the Turkish Republic (and arguably the Hellenic republic) were present in London during the parliamentary investigation of Elgin's acquisition of the marbles. It was 9as it remains) a cause celebre. I mean, even you and I have heard of it.

Statutes of limitations are not relevant in international law. There is no relevant international treaty anywhere which stipulates any form of statute of limitations. The fact that a statute of limitations can be a hindrance to litigation in cases of international repatriation before a national court in no way contradicts that fact, since a case before a national court will be determined by the applicable national law.

So it remains relevant in this case?

It may be rational to think the marbles will stay, but it isn't rational to think they should stay.

You seem pretty happy with them being where they are.

You seem to be claiming telepathic powers.

Really? Please source that counsel.

You think I have access to advice given by Amal Clooney to the Syriza party representative Xydakis? That's an absurd thought. I know what has been reported by the Hellenic republic officials that they had sought advice and immediately dropped any thought of court action. Surely anyone with the least knowledge of this case was aware of this?

As for the Ambatielos case, it wasn't anywhere near as high profile as the Parthenon marbles. Just because Greece is willing to take the UK to court over a shipowners claim for arbitration doesn't mean they'd be willing to go for a high-profile case where the prestige of both countries is at stake.

So they're afraid, but not all the time?

I literally posted an exact quote of the websites claim about statues of limitations. Nowhere do they claim that a statute of limitation is a hindrance to litigation before an international court.

Once again, your intepretation isn't really something I'm relying on at this point.

Wrong. Given how the museum are arguing in the legal matter by bringing up Elgins acquisition, one would think they'd simply make life easier for themselves by immediately quoting the relevant statute of limitations. Instead they choose the much more dubious way of trying to argue that Elgin had made a legitimate purchase, which is much riskier in a legal context (especially given how they're wrong). The answer? There is no relevant statute of limitations here, and even if there was the British Museum are clearly aware that using it as an argument would completely undermine their position.

...or they are not conscious of wrongdoing and behaving lie a honest entity?

The question at hand is "Did Elgin make a legitimate purchase/have authorisation to take the marbles", to which the answer is a clear and resounding "no".

Well you should march in and take them nback then, given you have court approval and right on your side.

Except the answer is yes at this point, and no successful counter argument has been made.

Organisations I've appealed to do not support your argument, although you can continue to fallaciously insist that they do even though I've explained to you in detail that they dont. Legal terms I've disputed or proffered haven't been turned against me in any other way than a hilariously ignorant and frankly desperate attempt to save a bad argument. "The ratio decidendi in the Parthenon marbles would case problems if applied in the case of the Horses of St Marks" - that's an argument against using the ratio decidendi in the case of the Horses, not against using it in the case of the Parthenon marbles. But by all means, keep going, I am greatly amused here.

Keep smiling!

The rules are not made after the fact - we are talking about Ottoman law which was entirely in force at the time of Elgins removal of the marbles, which is why the British parliament looked into whether he had authorisation, although they half-assed it instead of holding a proper hearing.

There is an appeals process available, start your case and collect your fee from Athens.

Not if that claim is to simply return the marbles to their original building. Being proud of your cultural heritage =/= nationalism. Being proud of and insisting that you continue with a practice of looting the cultural heritage of other countries on the other hand, that is clear nationalism.

I agree, that's a decent definition.

OED says Nationalism: Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.

Syriza is a left wing party known for its nationalist agenda, eg showing great courage (if not great sense) facing down its international creditors to the point of making their financial crisis worse. So not known for fearing more powerful nations and known for charging them like a bull at a gate in the interests of a nationalist agenda.

This is the party that has backed away from legal action to return the Elgin Marbles. Another lesson here: angry rhetoric does not achieve legal success in a sound legal system.

Clinging to claims to the Elgin marbles in a mean spirited way is a mark of the nationalist agenda in Britain and the Hellenic Republic. Partisan abuse aside, there's very little to choose between the sides.

Once again I share your unbalanced wishy washy favouritism for the Hellenes in this case. I don't agree with poorly argued rhetoric insisting 'this is right! that is wrong!" and making arguments that in the real world have fallen flat, or resorting to bogey men to explain that failure.

Pots and kettles. Proof and puddings. Oh and manners please.

[Copperknickers II]

In fact Elgin like many Englishmen was a worshipper at the alter of Hellenism and didn't stumble on anything: he went out of his way to loot Hellas.

*Scotsmen.

I'll tell you what, I solemnly promise that I will return the Elgin marbles to Greece should I ever become prime minister of Britain, so long as Greece passes a law that punishes everyone who confuses Scots with the English to be publicly force fed three large haggises. Quite frankly, anyone who accuses a Scotsman of being English is guilty of far greater a cultural affront than the removal of the Elgin Marbles, the reason being there are still Scotsmen around to be offended, whereas there hasn't been an ancient Greek for two thousand years.

Elgin removed priceless treasures from an explosive rebellious province that was shortly awash with revolt and nation building: sort of like Iraq in 2001. He did his best to keep them together in his own home, not an immoral act according to the mores of the day and was exonerated by Parliament nor pursued by the Ottomans ( the responsible Government at the time) for his actions. The time may have come for the British Museum to surrender his objects but they didn't steal anything.

I don't know why anyone is bothering to make that argument. Even if we did steal the Elgin marbles (besides it was Lord Elgin who 'stole' them, it's not like it was a government sanctioned theft), we did steal most of the contents of the British museum, and we are not giving any of it back, any more than we are giving back the Falklands. In my mind the British museum is the greatest cultural legacy of the British empire, it's a piece of history in its own right, if anything more important than the Parthenon because it's still a functioning museum. I'm sorry if the methods used to create it were not acceptable by today's standards, but let's note forget that the Parthenon was built by slaves and financed from the brutal oppression of the Aegean islanders after all. I really don't see why the Elgin marbles are fetishised so much, as if Greece is hard done by and poorly treated because it's being deprived of 1% of a monument.

You don't know the meaning of being treated poorly by the British empire compared to most countries it ruled: my ancestors in Bengal were subject to genocide, my ancestors in Ireland were subject to centuries of brutal religious persecution and scorched-earth proxy wars, not to mention the quasi-genocide of the potato famine. But even India and Ireland don't moan so much about the British empire for such a stupid reason as creating a nice display for your holidaying pleasure in a museum that doesn't have a direct line of sight to a monument you can see every day? Isn't it better that you can actually go and see not just Ancient Greece, but Assyria, Egypt, Rome, Persia, China, and all the other great civilisations of the world, in one building? Is it not a price worth paying to sacrifice a couple of stone slabs, to be able to benefit from condensing what might have been trips to Iraq, Peru, Iran and Mali, into one weekend in London? To see the British museum as a hoard of nationalistic British jingoism is a ridiculously parochial viewpoint. London steals a lot of things (it's stolen jobs from people like me in the North of the UK) but I accept this because it is a global city and, along with New York and Paris, does not represent only its native country but humanity as a whole.

[Cyclops]

*Scotsmen.

Thank you for the correction, a foolish error on my part. I could argue I was saying Elgin was like the many Englishmen...but that would be sophistry.

I'll tell you what, I solemnly promise that I will return the Elgin marbles to Greece should I ever become prime minister of Britain, so long as Greece passes a law that punishes everyone who confuses Scots with the English to be publicly force fed three large haggises. Quite frankly, anyone who accuses a Scotsman of being English is guilty of far greater a cultural affront than the removal of the Elgin Marbles, the reason being there are still Scotsmen around to be offended, whereas there hasn't been an ancient Greek for two thousand years.

My mate's mum is fairly ancient, and she's definitely Greek. Whenever I go to her place she puts a full pate of food in front of me 9sometimes three plates) then tells me I'm fat. Pontians: the Calabrians of Greece.

I don't know why anyone is bothering to make that argument. Even if we did steal the Elgin marbles (besides it was Lord Elgin who 'stole' them, it's not like it was a government sanctioned theft), we did steal most of the contents of the British museum, and we are not giving any of it back, any more than we are giving back the Falklands. In my mind the British museum is the greatest cultural legacy of the British empire, it's a piece of history in its own right, if anything more important than the Parthenon because it's still a functioning museum. I'm sorry if the methods used to create it were not acceptable by today's standards, but let's note forget that the Parthenon was built by slaves and financed from the brutal oppression of the Aegean islanders after all. I really don't see why the Elgin marbles are fetishised so much, as if Greece is hard done by and poorly treated because it's being deprived of 1% of a monument.

There's a romance to the idea of "bring them home". No justice, but a soppy sentimentality. I'm with Hmm on that one.

You don't know the meaning of being treated poorly by the British empire compared to most countries it ruled: my ancestors in Bengal were subject to genocide, my ancestors in Ireland were subject to centuries of brutal religious persecution and scorched-earth proxy wars, not to mention the quasi-genocide of the potato famine. But even India and Ireland don't moan so much about the British empire for such a stupid reason as creating a nice display for your holidaying pleasure in a museum that doesn't have a direct line of sight to a monument you can see every day? Isn't it better that you can actually go and see not just Ancient Greece, but Assyria, Egypt, Rome, Persia, China, and all the other great civilisations of the world, in one building? Is it not a price worth paying to sacrifice a couple of stone slabs, to be able to benefit from condensing what might have been trips to Iraq, Peru, Iran and Mali, into one weekend in London? To see the British museum as a hoard of nationalistic British jingoism is a ridiculously parochial viewpoint. London steals a lot of things (it's stolen jobs from people like me in the North of the UK) but I accept this because it is a global city and, along with New York and Paris, does not represent only its native country but humanity as a whole.

In Australia we have a chip on our shoulder about Gallipoli and other matters (Bodyline for example), people think far more about the infamous cricket debacle in the 1930's than they do about the Irish Famine which killed a lot of people in the country my ancestors came from.

That said there is a case for putting rocks back to their resting place. We return skulls to graves fro whence they were taken (eg the Murray black collection of aboriginal crania) and while burials are more sacrosanct than non functioning temples there's a strong sense of belonging. Illogically I would back the return of the Elgin marbles harder than the return of the Horses of St marks even though they are quite close in principle, because I'd like to see London taken down a notch and Athens upgrade a trifle as much as anything.

[Hmmm]

I thought you weren't going to go over the firman again?

Yep you did. Oh well.

So its a slam dunk, according to you. Which is why the Hellenes have won already. Excerpt they haven't.

Given how you gave a different response than your previous "but how can we know what it doesnt say if we dont know what it does say" and instead responded with the equally desperate "if Elgin failed to produce the necessary evidence that should count in his favour", yes I went over it again. If you dont have anything of substance to add, I suggest you dont type at all - your entire schtick so far has been to quote sentence by sentece and respond with irrelevant sentences like this one which do not add anything to the discussion.

Also, they (the Hellenes) haven't taken it to court. That's why they "haven't won already". Diplomacy and politics have a tendency to get in the way - big fish eats smaller fish and in this case large countries get away with stuff that smaller countries couldn't even dream of.

You see law and justice are not as simple as you seem to describe them, and its worthwhile discussing the ins and outs. I'm very sorry if these excurses have enraged you. I'm quite enjoying exploring the issues as well as debating them.

I am perfectly aware that law and justice are not typically simple; in this case however it is exactly as simple as I am presenting it.

Hence the relevance of the statute of limitations.

Before a national court - my statement which you contested was with regards to international courts.

You seemed to ignore or not know of the centrality of the doctrine of silence indicating consent as a principle of international law from at least the time of Grotius, insisting it was only relevant to a small slice of treaty voting procedure. I hope I've opened your eyes a little: Grotius is not the sum of the argument, merely a point to break your argument. one that point, when someone schools me in debate I thank them for teaching me something. Its common courtesy you know.

No, I didn't. My first response to your "doctrine of silence" was that consent in the sense of agreeing to be bound by an action requires concludent action on your part. You then attempted to disprove my statement by quoting the silence procedure (which has exactly nothing to do with what we're talking about), embarrassing yourself quite greatly and have so far failed to admit you simply didn't know what the hell you were talking about, which I pointed out. You then quoted Grotius only to have it explained to you that his statement is in agreement with mine:

You do not consent by silence in this case. Consent by silence, where it is possible, is applied with extreme restriction and requires some form of action on the "consenting" party which would give the other party reason to believe they consented. In this case the British had every reason to believe the Ottomans had not consented since the valid documents did not exist.

And what does Grotius state? That the "consenting by silence" part has to have A) Been present at the commission of the act they're "consenting" to, and B) known about it, and C) not protested or in any other way attempted to hinder it - that is called concludent action.

So I will ask you again: do you want to admit that you were wrong, or would you like to continue to display your ignorance?

I'll repeat my point to clarify it. The Porte did not challenge (through their ambassador in London, present from 1793 onwards) the proceedings of parliament to investigate the propriety of Elgin's acquisition of the marbles. To assume the Porte's ignorance of this cause celebre beggars belief.

Ludicrous of course - did the Parliament summon the ambassador to the hearing? No? Then the Ottomans silence is irrelevant since they were never heard nor given the chance to speak at the hearing. Similarily the Sultan wasn't present at the commission of the act, nor was anyone with the authority to represent him in the matter since no firman had been issued.

Well I'm happy to be schooled in law by someone who doesn't insist the argument silence indicates consent is confined to a narrow portion of treaty voting procedure. Do you know anyone like that?

You do not consent by silence in this case. Consent by silence, where it is possible, is applied with extreme restriction and requires some form of action on the "consenting" party which would give the other party reason to believe they consented. In this case the British had every reason to believe the Ottomans had not consented since the valid documents did not exist.

V. Even omissions, taking all proper circumstances into consideration, come under the cognizance of the law. Thus the person, who knowing of an act, and being present at the commission of it, passes it over in silence, seems to give his consent to it: this was admitted by the Mosaic Law. Unless indeed it can be shewn that the [112] same person was hindered from speaking either by fear or some other pressing circumstance. Thus a thing is accounted as lost when all hope of recovering it is given up; as for instance, if a tame animal, which was in our possession, be seized and carried off by a wild beast. Goods too lost by shipwreck, Ulpian says, cease to be considered as our own, not immediately, but when they are lost beyond all possibility of being reclaimed, and when no proofs of the owner’s intention to reclaim them can be discovered.

What Grotius is describing is called concludent action. As you can see I clearly explained to you that consent by silence, where it is possible, requires you to give the other party reason to believe you are consenting - Grotius explains that reason to believe by stating that you need to have been present at the commission of an act, know of the act, and do not protest or attempt ot hinder it. To this you responded with the silence procedure, a completely different thing which is related to how international treaties are voted upon. The fact that you mixed the two up, and continue to do so, shows how unbelievably and mindnumbingly ignorant you are of how the law works. Do you want to admit you've been bested here or do you want to continue to embarrass yourself?

Once again I'd be more comfortable getting legal advice from someone who cites ICOM without being contradicted by their website.

For the last time: ICOM:s site does not contradict me. An international restitution case can be brought before a national court as well, this is in fact usually the case - in such a case national statutes of limitation can be a hindrance to litigation. That's what their website refers to. But again, by all means, stick to your fallacious belief, I'm done with this since you've clearly been reduced to repeating the same nonsense over and over without actually responding at all to what I'm saying.

Why would Parliament be a defendant in a case contending Elgin was a thief? Their ruling could be challenged in a superior court perhaps, although there wasn't one in the early 19th century. I think you're confused about what crime you allege and who committed it.

The British, or in this case the British museum, would be a defendant in the case of whether they have rights to the marbles or not. Whether the British parliament thought the act was legal or not does not carry legal weight since they didn't have the authority to grant Elgin permission in the first place.

I'm comfortable you're not using the terms correctly. The argument for restoring art to context can be applied to statues as well as friezes.

Sigh. At no point have I claimed that the argument for restoring the Parthenon marbles can not be used to restore the Horses on the grounds that the Parthenon marbles are friezes and the Horses are statues, you know this since I'm assuming you can speak and understand English and there is literally not a single place where I claimed such - incidentally I do take it as more sign of your desperation that you've been reduced to attributing statements to me which I never made.

Here's how the argument goes: you claim that restitution on the grounds of returning pieces of art to their original setting would be complicated in the case of the Horses because of the plurality of claimants for an "original" setting in that case. This isn't something I have disputed. However you also extrapolate from this that we therefore should never return pieces of art to their original setting, clearly regardless of whether there's a plurality of "original settings" or not. I explained to you that because the problem which the Horses case illustrates is one of a plurality of original settings, your argument only goes that far - i.e. it only applies to other cases where there are multiple claimants on the basis of an "original setting". The Parthenon case is not a case where there are multiple claimants on the basis of original setting. To put it bluntly: your argument is plain stupid, you're comparing apples and oranges. The simple solution would be to return the marbles to the Parthenon and apply a different reasoning on the Horses since they present additional complications not present in the Parthenon case. There is no reason to allow complications which do not present themselves in the Parthenon case to have any influence over the resolution of that (the Parthenon) case.

Prove it.

I have. He needed a firman. He didn't have one. And no, his testimony and the shabby, and clearly fabricated translations will not cut it I'm afraid.

This is a confused statement. How is Elgin's "case" not legal? Are you trying to say "the argument of Elgin is not legitimate even though he can evade going to court"? That's more of a moral judgement.

Yes that's what I'm saying, except by "legitimate" I mean "legally legitimate". I.e. being able to refuse to go to court doesn't mean that your action was legally allowed.

I have to say clarity of argument is critical in legal presentation, or even in historical debate.

Indeed, but given how English isn't my native tongue one would expect an honest debater to read my texts with understanding instead of nitpicking. But I suppose given how you're getting utterly embarrassed you'll take anything you can get, huh? In fact "legal" can mean both "allowed/legitimate", which is how I used it, and "legal" as in a matter of law. It's not my fault that English doesn't make a proper distinction between the two, Swedish certainly does.

An insult as an argument is a very weak argument.

It isn't an argument at all. "Hurr durr" isn't an argument and wasn't intended as such, the explanation of what claims you made and what claims I made is the argument.

Your argument for evidence from a non-existent document and a poor translation won't sway many courts.

No, it would sway everyone in basically any court. This is how proof works, I have explained it in detail and I suppose you learn basic reading comprehension, go back and read it. Sound good? Great.

It remains relevant in this case in part because of the decision of Parliament, and forgive me if I don't concede your expertise on international law given the statements you've made previously about the argument that silence indicates consent.

You mean the statements I made which were proven by Grotius, as in you need concludent action to be bound by silence? This statement, right here:

You do not consent by silence in this case. Consent by silence, where it is possible, is applied with extreme restriction and requires some form of action on the "consenting" party which would give the other party reason to believe they consented. In this case the British had every reason to believe the Ottomans had not consented since the valid documents did not exist.

? Is that the statement you're referring to, where I explicitly explained to you what is required for a consent by silence in this case to be applicable? And what did Grotius say? Oh wait here it is:

V. Even omissions, taking all proper circumstances into consideration, come under the cognizance of the law. Thus the person, who knowing of an act, and being present at the commission of it, passes it over in silence, seems to give his consent to it: this was admitted by the Mosaic Law. Unless indeed it can be shewn that the [112] same person was hindered from speaking either by fear or some other pressing circumstance. Thus a thing is accounted as lost when all hope of recovering it is given up; as for instance, if a tame animal, which was in our possession, be seized and carried off by a wild beast. Goods too lost by shipwreck, Ulpian says, cease to be considered as our own, not immediately, but when they are lost beyond all possibility of being reclaimed, and when no proofs of the owner’s intention to reclaim them can be discovered.

Is that what you're referring to? Huh? The fact that you clearly have zero, zilch, nada, clue what you're talking about? Or the fact that your entire argumentation so far has been to selectively quote and purposefully misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore parts which you can't respond to and pretend they never happened, and attribute statements to me which I never made?

Wait you were the one bringing art to the table, not me. You live with the consequences.

What are you talking about? My statement was a comment on whether the gallery can be considered a new artwork or not - by putting the marbles on display the British museum did not intend to create artwork, they intended to put them on display. Oh wait, you're doing that thing again where you purposefully misinterpret what I'm saying, got it.

Keep going, makes you look like a classy debater who really has a substantive argument /sarcasm.

Well you misunderstand me very badly. I argue law, not the man. I recommend it.

No, in this case you weren't arguing the law, you were claiming that you have great admiration for the culture of Hellenism. That's not a legal matter.

Your demonstrations are unconvincing to me. I hope your teachers find more to convince them.

Well of course not, the man who doesn't want to be convinced wont be convinced no matter how reasonable the argument.

Now you are insulting me by attributing my arguments to spite and not respect for the law. Poor show. Are there jurisdictions where insults count for more than reasoned argument?

No, I attributed the British museums hypothetical act of bolting the marbles to the museum building for the sole purpose of preventing their return as an act of spite. But again: keep deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Great Britain was wildly successful and internationally renowned for its diplomatic cunning in the early 19th century 9as you'd know from your study of history90 and Elgin was an important player in their game attending Potsdam as well as the Porte. To revile such a diplomat as an imbecile does not make me respect your historical knowledge.

And again, he is best remembered by the world as the imbecile who defaced the Parthenon.

Oh I quite agree, I was teasing out possibilities and pursuing interesting by ways. No need to get angry, its a friendly discussion and one you could benefit from.

No, it isn't a friendly discussion nor are you pursuing interesting by-ways. You are derailing the thread with non-arguments. Everybody, including you, knew that what you claimed there about the British parliament being an international court was wrong - yet you mentioned it anyway precisely because you're not interested in a friendly and honest discussion. Instead you resort to petty tactics like purposefully misunderstanding parts or most of what your opponent says, attributing things to him which he never claimed or straight up ignoring parts which disprove your statements, and generally bombaring the thread with nonsense such as "the British Parliament is an international court". There is quite literally no benefit in taking part of this discussion for anybody.

I feel strangely uncrushed.

No, of course not, I just completely demolished the nonsense you've been spouting for one and a half page now but why would you care, you're free to selectively ignore any part you want to ignore because you're not trying to have an honest discussion.

Yet you insist you did not earlier in your post. I respect consistency in argument, not this flip flopping.

Yeah, don't focus on the substance of the discussion, nitpick. That's going to make your argument look credible.

The representative of the Porte and its successor states the Turkish Republic (and arguably the Hellenic republic) were present in London during the parliamentary investigation of Elgin's acquisition of the marbles. It was 9as it remains) a cause celebre. I mean, even you and I have heard of it.

And yet they weren't heard. They weren't given legal remedy.

So it remains relevant in this case?

It is relevant should the Hellenic republic sue in a British or other national court which has jurisdiction, that's not something I disputed. I disputed that statutes of limitation are relevant in international law.

You think I have access to advice given by Amal Clooney to the Syriza party representative Xydakis? That's an absurd thought. I know what has been reported by the Hellenic republic officials that they had sought advice and immediately dropped any thought of court action. Surely anyone with the least knowledge of this case was aware of this?

Amal Clooney recommended they take the case to the ICJ, the Hellenic republic chose to not take that advice, so you were lying through your teeth when you said their legal counsel told them they didn't have a case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/el...-10245657.html

So they're afraid, but not all the time?

What part of this is tripping you up?

Once again, your intepretation isn't really something I'm relying on at this point.

Of course you dont, that would be admitting that you are wrong and why do that when you can belligerently stick to your guns and insist on a fallacious interpretation. Incidentally, this statute of limitations which would be a hindrance to taking the case before an international court, where is it? Can you point me to it?

...or they are not conscious of wrongdoing and behaving lie a honest entity?

Right, because every honest entity feels the need to have entire webpages addressing arguments put against their possession of a particular piece of property.

Well you should march in and take them nback then, given you have court approval and right on your side.

Hasn't been taken to court - that doesn't mean Britain is right. It just means it hasn't been taken to court.

I agree, that's a decent definition.

OED says Nationalism: Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.

Syriza is a left wing party known for its nationalist agenda, eg showing great courage (if not great sense) facing down its international creditors to the point of making their financial crisis worse. So not known for fearing more powerful nations and known for charging them like a bull at a gate in the interests of a nationalist agenda.

This is the party that has backed away from legal action to return the Elgin Marbles. Another lesson here: angry rhetoric does not achieve legal success in a sound legal system.

The party which backed away from legal action didn't do so because they could not win, it's because it isn't politically worth it to sue the UK. That's why they're insisting on a diplomatic solution.



Also, given how you've been demolished and have now resorted to the following things:
Purposefully misinterpreting what I'm saying on multiple occassions
Ignoring what I've stated on multiple occassions, including when I sourced that statutes of limitation are not a hindrance in international law and that consent by silence requires concludent action
Attributing statements to me which I never made.
Lying, including about what advice Amal Clooney gave the Greek government on the matter of litigation.

I will not respond anymore. This thread has been derailed enough, in particular given your tendency to respond to my posts sentence-by-sentence and by adding nothing more than satirical little comments, often referencing my ability as a law student (which you know exactly nothing about), and you're clearly unable to have an honest discussion, let alone make a substantive argument.

To sum up:

- Elgin failed to produce the necessary firman to prove that he had authorisation. The burden of proof rested on him given how he's the one making the positive claim that he did in fact have permission. The evidence which he provided makes it clear that he didn't have a firman, and that even if he did, it did not grant him permission to saw off the marbles.
- Statutes of limitation are not a hindrance in international law/before an international court, as is clear from among other sources: Shaw, M, "International Law", commonly considered one of the definitive modern books on international law, as well as from "The UNESCO Committee of Experts to Study the Question of Restitution of Works of Art". The fact that a statute of limitations can be a hindrance to litigation before a national court does not change this.
- Consent by silence requires concludent action as I stated and which Cyclops ignored, Grotius requiring the person "giving" consent to have been present at the commission of the act, AND known about the act, AND been silent on it (i.e. not protested/attempted to hinder it) - otherwise known as concludent action. The Ottoman Sultan was not present when Elgin took the marbles, nor did he know about their taking. Furthermore the Ottoman government was not given any opportunity to speak and in fact was not even present during the Parliamentary hearing of Elgin. No silent consent was therefore given.
- The problem presented by multiple claimants is not applicable to the Parthenon marbles case, because there's only one claimant, and therefore irrelevant to the resolution of the Parthenon marbles case.
- The problem presented by a taken piece of art being incorporated into a new piece of art is not applicable to the Parthenon marbles case, because the Parthenon marbles have not been incorporated into a new piece of art, and is therefore irrelevant to the resolution of the Parthenon marbles case.
- The marbles would be best appreciated and give us the best understanding of their historical context and meaning in the Acropolis museum.
- The legal counsel given to Greece was to take it to the ICJ - that is the International Court of Justice. Clearly the team of experts the Greeks hired thought Greece did have a chance. The fact that the Greek government rejected the offer is irrelevant: an expert lawyer will have looked into the case and will only recommend litigation if it is a realistic option (which it wouldn't have been if for instance a statute of limitations was applicable), a client on the other hand can choose to reject litigation based on any reason, including politics and diplomacy.

Or in other words Cyclops, you're wrong plain and simple. Have a good day.

[Cyclops]

...
Indeed, but given how English isn't my native tongue one would expect an honest debater to read my texts with understanding instead of nitpicking. ....

I was not aware of this an apologise unreservedly for any insult I may have inadvertently given in discussing your posts.

I find the discussion worthwhile, and while I agree the marbles should be returned, I can't see the case being made. I'm certainly happy to agree to disagree.