Tanzania
Officially the United Republic of Tanzania,[d] is a country in East Africa within the African Great Lakes region.
Capital:
Dodoma
GPS Coordinates:
-6.1791181, 35.7468174
Official Language:
Swahili
Population:
67.4m (2024)
Field of Practice
National Museums of Tanzania – Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation – Humboldt Forum Co-operation Agreement (organised under the joint project ‘Histories of Tanzania’)
Objectives:
This co-operation agreement formalises an ongoing Tanzanian-German collaboration around the 10000+ collection of belongings and human ancestors at the Humboldt Forum that were violently appropriated during Germany’s colonial rule in Tanzania.
Restitution Measures:
Memoranda of understanding signed with the National Museum of Tanzania and the University of Dar es Salaam as part of the projects created a basis for long-term, sustainable cooperation. A joint pilot project entitled “Tanzania-Germany: Shared Object Histories?” has developed a framework concept for researching the provenance of problematic collections. A Community Consent Conference was held in December 2023 at the National Museum of Tanzania in connection with the exhibition production.
Framework Limitations:
While there are plans to reach an agreement on the return of objects from Tanzania that have been identified as having been looted during the Maji Maji War, the actual restitution has not yet been completed – it’s planned for after the exhibition concludes. The curatorial team of white academics and staff of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and the Stiftung Humboldt Forum consulted two critical experts from Berlin and Dar es Salaam, suggesting potential imbalances in decision-making authority.
National Museums of Tanzania – Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation – Humboldt Forum Co-operation Agreement (Independent/Collaborative Framework)
This co-operation agreement formalises an ongoing Tanzanian-German collaboration around the 10000+ collection of belongings and human ancestors at the Humboldt Forum that were violently appropriated during Germany’s colonial rule in Tanzania.
The East African Community Customs Management (Amendment) Act 3 of 2019
Objectives:
This Amendment Act modifies the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, governing customs procedures across EAC Partner States. It establishes updated protocols for cross-border trade and customs administration within the regional economic community.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Section 248A introduces advance binding rulings mechanisms, allowing persons to apply to the Commissioner for pre-import determinations on tariff classification, rules of origin, and customs valuation. The Act makes no explicit mention of cultural property or restitution.
Framework Limitations:
The Act focuses primarily on commercial customs procedures rather than cultural heritage restitution. The Commissioner retains discretionary authority over advance rulings and may refuse applications without specific provisions for cultural property. Section 248A’s scope is limited to standard customs determinations, lacking specialised mechanisms for cultural heritage returns. The framework applies only within EAC Partner States, excluding broader international restitution efforts, and cultural property returns must navigate general trade regulations rather than heritage-specific protocols.
Eastern and Southern African Regional Branch of the International Council on Archives Resolution on Migrated Archives (2011)
Objectives:
The ESARBICA Resolution on Migrated Archives (2011) addressed longstanding difficulties Africans faced retrieving archival records removed during colonial periods to Western capitals. ESARBICA brings together fourteen national archival institutions in Eastern and Southern Africa on archives and records management matters, with efforts underway to include Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan. Nine countries (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Swaziland) were covered in various studies and activities.
Restitution Measures:
The resolution provided frameworks for identifying and repatriating scattered liberation struggle archives and colonial records. Between 2006-2009, ESARBICA undertook regional assessments of liberation struggle heritage, noting much heritage had been identified and repatriated with requisite documentation. It established protocols for systematic identification, documentation, and return of displaced archives to origin countries.
Framework Limitations:
The problem has been approached primarily as a legal issue, producing relatively few resolutions to archival claims. The resolution lacked enforcement mechanisms and depended on voluntary cooperation from holding institutions. Most organizations failed to implement comprehensive archival management practices despite identification efforts. Success remained contingent on diplomatic negotiations and goodwill rather than binding legal obligations.
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
The Common African Position (CAP) on Restitution of Heritage Resources (2024)
Objectives:
This common position paper builds on the AU Charter for African Cultural Renaissance and AU Model Law on Cultural Property Protection, outlining nine priority areas with recommendations for national, continental, pan-African, and international action levels.
Restitution Measures:
The framework establishes comprehensive priorities including heritage resource restitution, identification and inventories, management systems, education and awareness programs, engagement with regional parliaments and national assemblies, youth and diaspora involvement, media and civil society participation, cooperation and partnership development, and arts/culture/creative industries support. The 9 areas outlined for restitution are as follows: – Priority 1: Restitution of Heritage Resources – Priority 2: Identification and Inventories – Priority 3: Management of Heritage Resources – Priority 4: Education and Awareness – Priority 5: African Regional Parliaments and National Assemblies – Priority 6: Youth and Diaspora – Priority 7: Media and Civil Society – Priority 8: Cooperation and Partnership – Priority 9: Arts, Culture and Creative Industries. These priorities create systematic approaches for addressing restitution across multiple sectors and stakeholder groups.
Framework Limitations:
The document explicitly lacks binding authority and legal power, functioning purely as policy guidance. It cannot compel state action or enforce compliance with its recommendations. Implementation depends entirely on voluntary adoption by individual African states and regional bodies. Without legal mechanisms or enforcement powers, the framework’s effectiveness relies solely on political commitment and available resources. The broad scope across nine priority areas may also create implementation challenges for countries with limited capacity or competing development priorities.
African Union Model Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage (2022)
Objectives:
This framework supports protection and restitution of Africa’s illicitly acquired and stolen heritage resources by providing guidance for developing or strengthening national legislation on cultural property protection. It serves as a reference document for African states seeking to establish comprehensive heritage protection frameworks.
Restitution Measures:
Article 27 specifically addresses restitution provisions within cultural property protection instruments. The Model Law provides standardized approaches for incorporating restitution mechanisms into national legislation, establishing legal foundations for recovery claims. It was referenced in ECOWAS’s 2019-2023 Regional Action Plan for Cultural Property Return, demonstrating practical application across regional frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
As a model law, it lacks binding legal authority and requires individual state adoption through domestic legislation. Countries and regional communities must independently source all resources needed for implementation, creating significant capacity and funding challenges. The framework cannot enforce compliance or guarantee implementation consistency across different African states. Its effectiveness depends entirely on political will, available resources, and each nation’s legal system capacity to transform model provisions into enforceable domestic laws with practical restitution mechanisms.
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.
