France passes law on the restitution of works stolen in colonial times

France is taking a significant step in the long and complex journey of restitution of cultural property stolen during the colonial era. On the night of April 12-13, the Assemblée nationale unanimously approved a bill concerning the restitution of cultural property from states that have been deprived of it due to illicit appropriations. The vote comes after the Senate adopted the text last January and paves the way for a final enactment expected by the summer.

The measure represents the concretization of a promise made nearly a decade ago by President Emmanuel Macron, who pledged to return part of the African heritage preserved in French museums. The approval came at the end of a heated debate, which lasted late into the night and highlighted as much a cross-party consensus on the need for action as deep political and cultural divisions on how to do it. The law came about after a long process that can be traced back to the famous report produced in 2018 by French art historian Bénédicte Savoy and Senegalese academic Felwine Sarr. That paper, commissioned by Macron himself, estimated that between 90 and 95 percent of Africa’s art heritage is located outside the continent, and it has been frequently cited during the debate as a theoretical basis for reform. The Savoy-Sarr relationship has in recent years helped speed up some restitutions, such as those made to Benin, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire, but so far each operation has required specific laws. The complexity of these procedures has therefore prompted the creation of framework laws to simplify the process. The first two, relating to Nazi looted property and human remains, were passed in 2023 without any particular obstacles. This third law, however, proved more controversial precisely because of the political and symbolic weight of the colonial theme.

However, parliamentarians recognized in the law an advance in a painful, decades-long process of confrontation with France’s colonial past and the ways in which, between the 19th and 20th centuries, numerous assets were violently or unjustly taken away. In any case, exponents on both sides of the debate have called the text “imperfect,” pointing out critical issues that reflect the still high sensitivity of the issue.

At the heart of the reform is the introduction of a new section in the Heritage Code governing the return of illegally removed cultural property. The provision establishes an exception to the principle of inalienability of public property, allowing it to leave the public domain exclusively for the purpose of restitution to a requesting state. The stated objective is to encourage the reappropriation by the peoples concerned of key elements of their cultural heritage, within a framework of enhanced cultural, scientific and museographic cooperation.

The law defines precise criteria for the eligibility of requests. The goods must come from the territory of the requesting state and be the subject, between November 20, 1815, and April 23, 1972, of illicit appropriation, which may take the form of theft, pillage, or cession obtained under duress or violence. Excluded are goods already regulated by previous international agreements, those resulting from the partitioning of archaeological excavations, and those that, while seized in military contexts, have contributed to war activities. The scope also includes processed human remains or goods containing elements of the human body, with some exceptions. In the case of competing claims by several states, the preliminary decision rests with diplomacy, which is called upon to identify which claim should be examined.

The restitution process has several stages. A peer scientific committee, established in cooperation with the requesting state, analyzes the claim on the basis of the prescribed criteria and prepares a detailed report. A cultural property restitution commission, established within the Haut Conseil des musées de France, then intervenes and issues a public and reasoned opinion. The final decision is entrusted to the government, which must adopt a decree in the Council of State. In case of refusal, a written and publicly disclosed reasoning is mandatory.

A relevant element concerns the guarantees required of beneficiary states. The restitution decree must be accompanied by formal commitments regarding the preservation of the property in accordance with international standards, its accessibility to the public, and its legal protection against illicit alienation or export. Compliance with these conditions will be monitored through an annual report to Parliament.

The law also introduces a mechanism for parliamentary oversight. The government is required to inform the relevant committees of any request received within one month, while they can cast a binding vote within six months. A qualified majority against can block the return. In addition, there is provision for an annual report documenting the progress of requests, decisions made and returns made, as well as the publication of an updated list of assets with uncertain or potentially illicit provenance.

As mentioned, the law has been much debated on all sides. One of the most controversial points of debate concerns the absence of the term “colonialism” in the legislative text. In fact, the law merely defines a time frame, between 1815 and 1972, within which illicit appropriations make property eligible for a simplified restitution procedure. This choice has been interpreted by some as a political compromise aimed at avoiding a clash with the most critical positions, particularly in the right-wing area, which is opposed to any reference to a “logic of guilt” or “repentance” for the colonial past.

During the debate, right-wing MP Florence Joubert (Rassemblement National), denounced the risk of opening a “Pandora’s box” of restitution requests, fearing a significant loss for French collections. In a climate also marked by protests, MP Frédéric-Pierre Vos (RN) provocatively evoked the possibility of national symbols being claimed, while leftist MP Rodrigo Arenas (La France Insoumise) dismissed such fears, stressing the absence of such claims and recalling the case of the Statue of Liberty, which France does not claim from the United States.

The law, while avoiding explicit apologies for the colonial past, aims to represent a gesture of reparation and openness toward former colonized territories, with which relations often remain marked by distrust. Restitution is presented as an instrument capable of fostering dialogue and cooperation, as emphasized by Culture Minister Catherine Pégard, who spoke of a means of bringing peoples closer together in a spirit of appeasement.

Criticism, however, was not limited to the conservative front. MP Sophie Taillé-Polian (Écologiste et Social group) argued that the absence of the term “colonialism” weakens the scope of the measure and risks perpetuating the same logics that had underpinned the colonial system. For the parliamentarian, naming the phenomenon explicitly would not mean giving in to a rhetoric of guilt, but ensuring historical rigor. To reject such a definition would, in her words, be tantamount to sugarcoating reality and obstructing a full understanding of the past.

Despite the divisions, the unanimous vote was interpreted by some observers as a sign of change. And even within the left there was no shortage of those who argued for keeping the text on a technical level, avoiding explicit references to colonialism. Senator Pierre Ouzoulias (French Communist Party) explained that it is not up to Parliament to write history or define an official thought on such a complex issue, also pointing out that an explicit reference could have limited the scope of the law. A position shared in part by Savoy herself, who said that the absence of the term allows for the inclusion of countries that are not formally colonized.

The new framework requires two bodies, one scientific and one institutional, to conduct a thorough analysis of cases, assessing whether a work should be returned based on the available evidence and the formal requests of the states concerned. This is an approach that prioritizes the timely review of individual cases over a general statement of principle. Ultimately, the law does not exhaust the debate on the issue or resolve all open questions, but it does introduce a stable mechanism intended to have an impact over time. As Savoy noted, the measure is far from perfect, but it nonetheless represents a concrete step toward a more effective system capable of producing real progress in the return of cultural property. It now remains to be seen how this instrument will be applied and what impact it will have on relations between France and countries claiming the restitution of their heritage.

France passes law on the restitution of works stolen in colonial times

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.