CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ BRINGING “TARA” HOME: SRI LANKA’S DISCONTENT WITH CULTURAL RESTITUTION… rejuvenated in the case law, when Italian State Council ( Consilglio di Stato ) interpreted self determination as a principle that includes the identity and historical and cultural heritage associated with the territory of each sovereign state or in case, belonging to a population subject to a foreign government ; it follows the protection of this cultural territorial identity entails , at the expense of those who violate it, even with a previous use of force that can be colonial domination or warlike events dating back in time , an obligation to return the cultural assets in which the violated ideals content materializes. 29 By invoking the principle of cultural self-determination, Italian judges summed up that Republic of Italy should restitute the a statue of Venus to Libya removed during the colonial period. 30 The UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples in 2007 was a corner stone, which referred to the rights of the indigenous peoples to preserve their cultural heritage and it further highlights the imperative of the return of removed cultural properties under the cultural self-determination. Notwithstanding the supportive arguments arising from the academia, the notion of cultural self-determination lacks the wider acceptance from the international community as a customary norm. Thus, the principle of cultural self-determination is not the ideal type of an approach that Sri Lanka can rely on in claiming the custodianship of Tara Devi. Conclusion Seventy-five years have passed since Sri Lanka gained independence from British rule. Despite numerous appeals from successive Sri Lankan governments, Britain has not returned Tara Devi statue. The current legal framework in Britain has hindered the return of cultural properties displayed in domestic museums, citing the British Museum Act of 1963, which prohibits the removal of cultural objects from the British Museum. 31 This stance stands in contrast to the actions of other former colonial powers, who have shown willingness to return cultural objects to their respective colonies. The reconciliation agreement signed between Namibia and Germany in 2021 was a strong illustration of a former colonial power’s commitment to addressing past wrongs. It’s important for there to be a genuine consensus among nations, as international law doesn’t offer clear guidance. Additionally, the concept of universality in international law suggests that cultural heritage is a common interest of all humanity. Therefore, the argument that cultural objects can be preserved away from their rightful location is another strong defense against the Global South’s ongoing push for the return of cultural objects. As Martti Koskenniemi suggests “One should be careful with those who speak in the name of humanity”. 32 The narrative of universality of cultural heritage is a convoluted idea which priorities the old aged whims and fancies of Eurocentrism in international law. In closing, it must be admitted, that the return of Tara Devi’s statue to its rightful place in Sri Lanka contains no salient answer from the existing international legal norms unless both 29 GREENLAND, F., Cultural Internationalism and Italian Model of Reparation, The Brown Journal of World Af fairs , Vol. 23, No. 1, 2016. 30 CHECHI, A., The Return of Cultural Objects removed in Times of Colonial Domination and International Law: The Case of the Venus, The Italian Yearbook of International Law , Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, p. 23. 31 ROONEY, P., British Museum, Imperialism and Empire , Immanuel Ness, Zak Cope, The Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism, London: Palgrave, 2021. 32 KOSKENNIEMI, M., The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 234.

75