Belgium
Capital:
GPS Coordinates:
Official Language:
Population:
Field of Practice
PROvenance Research on the Ethnographic Collection
Objectives:
The AfricaMuseum Provenance Research Team operates through the PROCHE project (Provenance Research on the Ethnographic Collection), a federal science policy program implemented by the AfricaMuseum. The PROCHE project aims to provide transparent access to provenance information and works in partnership with Congolese institutions like the Institut des musées nationaux du Congo (IMNC).
Restitution Measures:
The team has achieved concrete results, as in June 2021, the ownership rights of almost 800 looted objects from the AfricaMuseum were transferred to the Congolese state. An inventory of 83,200 cultural objects managed by the AfricaMuseum from the DRC and more broadly Central Africa was transmitted to Congolese Prime Minister Jean-Michel Sama Lukonde in February 2022.
Framework Limitations:
The collections of the AfricaMuseum are the property of the federal state and therefore a decision on their ownership cannot be taken by the museum itself, but only by the Federal State, and they still haven’t been physically repatriated despite legal ownership.
Human Remains Origin(s) Multidisciplinary Evaluation. (HOME) project
Objectives:
The Working Group on Human Remains in Belgian Collections emerged from the HOME research project launched by the Royal Museum for Central Africa (AfricaMuseum).
Restitution Measures:
In 2018, the Minister of Federal Science Policy proposed the creation of a working group to study the legal framework for the restitution of human remains. However, this working group was proposed separately and efforts came to nothing because the government collapsed.The RMCA launched the HOME project to thoroughly evaluate the historical, scientific, and ethical background of human remains in Belgian collections . A concrete measure included addressing requests such as an initial request for the restitution of Lusinga’s skull was subsequently made in writing in 2019 , though the collection of human skeletal material was transferred to the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels in 1964 Colonial Collections.
Framework Limitations:
The HOME project was launched as a research collaboration between seven institutions, with the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences as project coordinator, not as a governmental working group. In Belgium, there are currently no guidelines for the conservation and management of human remains, nor a legal framework for the return of human remains to family members, institutions or countries of origin. Human remains require separate bilateral negotiations outside the legislative framework. The 2022 Belgian Restitution Bill explicitly excludes archives and human remains from its scope.
Law of 3 July 2022 Recognizing the Alienability of Goods Linked to the Belgian State’s Colonial Past and Determining a Legal Framework for Their Restitution and Return. (2022 Restitution Bill)
Objectives:
The Bill of 3 July 2022 recognises the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and determines a legal framework for their restitution and return, making Belgium the first country with legislative framework allowing large-scale restitutions of colonial collections.
Restitution Measures:
Parliamentary approval and democratically backed adoption provides legal mechanism for bilateral restitution agreements.
Framework Limitations:
Narrow scope (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, no archives or human remains), excludes local communities from restitution proceedings, and lacks procedural rules making the process less transparent and more political. The legislation excludes local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings.
Ethical Principles for the Management and Restitution of Colonial Collections in Belgium (June 2021)
Objectives:
These principles aim to establish a framework for identifying, managing, and returning colonial-era cultural heritage, shifting the focus from purely legalistic, ownership-based approaches to ethical, restorative justice.
Restitution Measures:
The principles outline initiative-taking measures for returning colonial-era collections. They suggest a high prioritisation of the repatriation of human ancestors. They encourage the communication of provenance research to the community or country of origin, particularly through dialogue. And they propose alternatives to physical return, including collaboration, sharing and exchanges, particularly between States.
Limitations:
These principles are non-binding and State-centric. Adherence to them is voluntary and driven by institutional or political will. This means they offer limited guidance in terms of negotiating repatriation, return and restitution once initiative has been taken by a Belgian institution or the State.
Special Parliamentary Commission on Belgium’s Colonial Past
Objectives:
The Parliamentary Commission on Colonial Past was established by the Belgian federal government in July 2020 to investigate Belgium’s colonial history, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. The commission shall investigate the role of ‘the Belgian State, the Belgian authorities and non-state actors in colonial activities.
Restitution Measures:
The commission implemented significant restitution measures, including the Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognise the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return, making Belgium the first country with comprehensive parliamentary legislation for colonial collection restitution. While the Commission’s work created momentum and context for restitution discussions, the Bill was developed by legal experts and adopted through a separate parliamentary process.
Framework Limitations:
The Commission on the Belgian Colonial Past does not have investigative powers to access closed archival documents and an official apology to the victims of colonialism had not been approved. The legislation keeps its scope quite narrow, only covering cultural objects from former Belgian colonies and excluding archives, human remains, and local communities within the State of origin from being involved in restitution proceedings. The law excludes claims from communities within countries of origin and excludes claims from countries that were not previously Belgian colonies.
AfricaMuseum Provenance Research Team
About:
The AfricaMuseum Provenance Research Team operates through the PROCHE project (Provenance Research on the Ethnographic Collection), a federal science policy program implemented by the AfricaMuseum Presentation of the report Shared heritage: universality, restitution and circulation of works of art by Jean-Luc Martinez.
The team has achieved concrete results, as in June 2021, the ownership rights of almost 800 looted objects from the AfricaMuseum were transferred to the Congolese state. However, significant limitations persist since the collections of the AfricaMuseum are the property of the federal state and therefore a decision on their ownership cannot be taken by the museum itself, but only by the Federal State, and they still haven’t been physically repatriated despite legal ownership.
Working Group on Human Remains in Belgian Collections
About:
The Working Group on Human Remains in Belgian Collections emerged from the HOME research project launched by the Royal Museum for Central Africa (AfricaMuseum). In 2018, the Minister of Federal Science Policy proposed the creation of a working group to study the legal framework for the restitution of human remains Homepage – Inha. The RMCA launched the HOME project to thoroughly evaluate the historical, scientific, and ethical background of human remains in Belgian collections The Special Collections of the INHA Library – Inha across seven institutions. A concrete measure included addressing requests such as an initial request for the restitution of Lusinga’s skull was subsequently made in writing in 2019 Homepage – Inha, though the collection of human skeletal material was transferred to the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels in 1964 Colonial Collections | » Provenance research, indicating institutional complexity in restitution processes.
2022 Restitution Bill (“Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognize the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return”)
First in the world.
Objectives:
The Bill of 3 July 2022 recognizes the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and determines a legal framework for their restitution and return, making Belgium the first country with legislative framework allowing large-scale restitutions of colonial collections.
Measures:
Parliamentary approval and democratically backed adoption provides legal mechanism for bilateral restitution agreements.
Limitations:
Narrow scope (only cultural objects from former Belgian colonies, no archives or human remains), excludes local communities from restitution proceedings, and lacks procedural rules making the process less transparent and more political.
Parliamentary Commission on Colonial Past
About:
The Parliamentary Commission on Colonial Past was established by the Belgian federal government in July 2020 to investigate Belgium’s colonial history, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. The commission shall investigate the role of ‘the Belgian State, the Belgian authorities and non-state actors Provenances of the collections – musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac in colonial activities.
The commission implemented significant restitution measures, including the Bill of 3 July 2022 to recognise the alienability of goods linked to the Belgian State’s colonial past and to determine a legal framework for their restitution and return, making Belgium the first country with comprehensive parliamentary legislation for colonial collection restitution.
However, limitations include the Commission on the Belgian Colonial Past did not have investigative powers to access closed archival documents and an official apology to the victims of colonialism had not been approved.
Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (the Faro Convention) (2005) (Has not Ratified)
Objectives:
Framework for cooperation on cultural heritage emphasizing community participation and dialogue. Recognizes everyone’s right to engage with cultural heritage and promotes shared European heritage values.
Restitution Measures:
Limited provisions for conciliation processes when communities have contradictory values over same heritage. Monitoring mechanism and information sharing system. Requires recognition of heritage value regardless of origin.
Limitations:
Explicitly states it creates no enforceable rights. Framework nature provides principles rather than binding obligations. No specific mechanisms for colonial heritage or wartime acquisitions. Relies entirely on voluntary cooperation and dialogue rather than concrete restitution procedures.
European Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage
Measures in place:
European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 created momentum for integrated approach
Regional development fund support for cultural heritage protection and promotion
Framework Limitations:
Primarily focused on preservation and promotion rather than restitution
No specific binding mechanisms for returning cultural objects
Limited to EU territory and does not address colonial heritage
Emphasis on shared European heritage rather than addressing origins of contested objects
Overall Regional Limitations:
Most frameworks focus on recent unlawful removals rather than historical colonial acquisitions
Limited geographic scope (EU/Council of Europe members only)
Primarily preservation-focused rather than restitution-oriented
No comprehensive framework addressing colonial heritage or wartime acquisitions before 1993
Relies heavily on bilateral negotiations and individual country initiatives for broader restitution efforts
EU Directive 2014/60/EU (Recast of Directive 93/7/EEC) – “Restitution Directive”
Measures in place:
Provides for the physical return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from EU countries’ territory since 1 January 1993.
Updated in 2014 to strengthen provisions and procedures.
Legal framework for member states to recover cultural objects through court proceedings.
Aims to reconcile free movement of goods with protection of national treasures towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe.
Framework Limitations:
Only applies to objects unlawfully removed after 1993.
Limited to intra-EU movement of cultural objects.
Does not address colonial heritage or pre-1993 acquisitions.
Focuses on “unlawful removal” rather than broader restitution claims.
No provisions for objects taken during colonial periods or wartime prior to 1993.
2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
About:
The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is an international agreement to protect and promote non-material cultural heritage; The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention deals with practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills that communities recognise as their cultural heritage; communities and bearers are key actors for safeguarding and transmission; experts are associated.
Restitution Measures: None.
Framework Limitations: The element must be nominated following widest possible participation of community, group or individuals concerned with their free, prior consent
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Objectives:
It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to Indigenous peoples. Article 34 of the framework endorses the freedom of Indigenous Peoples to determine their institutional structures and their distinctive customs.
Restitution Measures:
Article 11(2) states that States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. The UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007.
Framework Limitations:
Implementation has been challenging, due to discrimination, incompatibility with national laws, lack of involvement in decision-making. The primary limitation is that It is not legally enforceable through international courts.
UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) (1978)
Objectives:
This committee operates complementary to the 1970 UNESCO Convention framework, facilitating bilateral negotiations between countries for cultural property return and restitution. With 147 state ratifications as of March 2025, it encourages nations to conclude formal agreements for cultural heritage recovery.
Restitution Measures:
The Committee provides mediation services, technical expertise, and diplomatic channels for negotiating returns. It offers neutral ground for discussions, helping establish protocols for identifying, documenting, and transferring cultural objects. The framework enables systematic approaches to restitution claims while respecting both origin and holding countries’ legal frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
Despite broad ratification, the Committee lacks enforcement powers and relies entirely on voluntary cooperation. Its recommendations are non-binding, limiting effectiveness when countries refuse participation. The framework cannot compel returns or override domestic laws protecting current holders. Additionally, the Committee’s mandate focuses primarily on post-1970 illicit transfers, potentially excluding many colonial-era claims. Success depends heavily on political will, diplomatic relationships, and mutual agreement rather than legal obligation, creating inconsistent outcomes across different bilateral negotiations.
The UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
Objectives:
The UNESCO 1970 Convention establishes a framework for State Parties to prohibit and prevent illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property.
Restitution Measures:
Article 7 outlines specific restitution procedures: upon diplomatic request from the origin State, another State Party must seize and return stolen cultural property from museums, religious institutions or public monuments within its territory. Key requirements include proper documentation proving the object’s institutional inventory status, and the requesting State must provide supporting evidence for its claim. Importantly, good faith purchasers or legal title holders are entitled to just compensation from the requesting State.
Framework Limitations:
However, international conventions lack binding legal authority unless ratified by individual member states. This means sovereign nations are not mandated to implement these restitution approaches, significantly limiting the Convention’s practical enforcement power. The framework’s effectiveness ultimately depends on voluntary state compliance and domestic legislative implementation rather than international legal obligation.
UNESCO Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict
Objectives:
The 1954 Hague Convention represents the first universal international agreement exclusively dedicated to protecting cultural property during armed conflict. It safeguards diverse cultural assets including architectural monuments, historical sites, archaeological locations, artworks, manuscripts, books, scientific collections, and objects of artistic, historical, or archaeological significance, regardless of origin or ownership.
Restitution Measures:
The Convention establishes frameworks for returning displaced cultural property to countries of origin following conflicts, creating legal precedents for post-war cultural recovery and mandating occupying powers to prevent cultural property removal.
Framework Limitations:
However, significant constraints exist. The Convention’s effectiveness depends heavily on state ratification and voluntary compliance during active conflicts. Enforcement mechanisms are limited, particularly when dealing with non-state actors or in situations where international legal authority is disputed. Additionally, the framework primarily addresses wartime scenarios rather than broader colonial-era restitution claims, limiting its applicability to contemporary cultural property disputes between nations seeking redress for historical injustices.
