A. TILLARD AND THE LEGAL QUESTIONS BEHIND THE GLOBAL ART MARKET

Cross-border art transactions carry two kinds of legal uncertainty that reform proposals typically treat as one: incomplete verification of who owned, sold, or previously possessed a work, and divergent national rules about what follows once ownership and possession are established beyond dispute. Drawing on a nineteen-year restitution dispute in which the underlying facts were settled well before the litigation ended, this article shows that only the first kind of uncertainty yields to better documentation, tracing, or verification infrastructure; the second persists because national legal systems assign the risk of a stolen object's resale differently, a distributive choice that additional evidence does not change. Recent computational and blockchain-based compliance proposals close real gaps in beneficial-ownership tracing and anti-money-laundering enforcement. Applied to restitution litigation, the same proposals leave the underlying divergence untouched. Reclassifying the deficits identified in existing legal-architecture scholarship along this line separates the problems computational investment can solve from the one that needs a binding choice-of-law rule instead.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23833014
Primary Topic
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A. TILLARD AND THE LEGAL QUESTIONS BEHIND THE GLOBAL ART MARKET

Whitmore E.R.
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
article

A. TILLARD AND THE LEGAL QUESTIONS BEHIND THE GLOBAL ART MARKET

Whitmore E.R.
article en

Abstract

Cross-border art transactions carry two kinds of legal uncertainty that reform proposals typically treat as one: incomplete verification of who owned, sold, or previously possessed a work, and divergent national rules about what follows once ownership and possession are established beyond dispute. Drawing on a nineteen-year restitution dispute in which the underlying facts were settled well before the litigation ended, this article shows that only the first kind of uncertainty yields to better documentation, tracing, or verification infrastructure; the second persists because national legal systems assign the risk of a stolen object's resale differently, a distributive choice that additional evidence does not change. Recent computational and blockchain-based compliance proposals close real gaps in beneficial-ownership tracing and anti-money-laundering enforcement. Applied to restitution litigation, the same proposals leave the underlying divergence untouched. Reclassifying the deficits identified in existing legal-architecture scholarship along this line separates the problems computational investment can solve from the one that needs a binding choice-of-law rule instead.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon