Page 70 - AC-3-1

Arts & Communication Legal risks and art exhibition contracts

be exempted from judicial seizure, a concept known as it is noteworthy that on September 1, 2023, the National
immunity from judicial seizure. In 1965, the U.S. enacted People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China enacted
the “Immunity from Seizure Act,” which does not limit the first law related to foreign state immunity in China. This
16
immunity to cultural relics but extends it to any works law marked a shift from China’s long-standing principle of
of art or objects of cultural significance. Both state- absolute immunity. Although it aligns with international
owned and privately owned items (belonging to cultural, standards by outlining exceptions y to state immunity,
educational, or religious institutions) can qualify for this countries that own cultural relics or other artworks may
protection. However, the works must be authorized by still be immune from judicial seizure.
the President or a designee and publicly announced in In contrast, the Taiwan Province of China has issued
the Federal Register in advance to be considered immune the Regulations on Art and Culture Awards and Assistance
from seizure. In addition, the exhibition must be “without (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”). Although the
profit,” although determining what constitutes “without content of these Regulations is relatively simple and leaves
profit” can be challenging. many issues unresolved, it signals a clear stance. Article 11

Germany has a similar approach to the U.S. Chapter 7 of stipulates that works of art from foreign countries or Mainland
the Act on the Protection of Cultural Property specifies that China approved for exhibition by “the central competent
objects eligible for immunity must be “cultural property,” authority” are not subject to judicial prosecution or seizure.
which, according to the act, refers to movable items with Immunity from judicial seizure is generally considered a
artistic, historical, or archeological value. Applications procedural issue. In the absence of applicable international
17
for immunity must be made to official agencies in advance, treaties or customs, the specific jurisdiction is determined
and the protection is not limited to state-owned items nor by lex fori (the law of the forum). The parties to the contract
does not require the exhibition to be non-profit in nature. cannot choose the governing law through a lex causae
The UK’s Articles 134 and 135 of the Tribunals, Courts clause. However, a court selection clause allows the parties
and Enforcement Act regulate immunity from seizure. The to indirectly influence the applicable procedural law by
objects of immunity from seizure are referred to as “cultural choosing the court for dispute resolution.
objects,” and they must be used for temporary exhibitions It is important to note that if a dispute involves third
in galleries and museums. It also does not limit the nature parties outside the contract, and a third party petitions
of the immunity subject. Unlike the mandatory public a local court to seize the artwork involved, the court
18
information disclosure required by the U.S. and Germany selection clause of the contract does not bind that third
before granting a seizure immunity, potential challengers party. Instead, the third party has the right to seek relief
in the UK can apply for public information disclosure. 19 from the competent court based on domestic law. Given
France does not appear to limit the object of the the variations in national legislation on immunity from
immunity; however, Article 61 of its No.94-679 Regulation judicial seizure, these differences should be considered to
provides that only cultural assets of foreign governments, avoid triggering a “chain of reaction” that could disrupt
local authorities, or cultural institutions are immune subsequent exhibition plans.
from judicial seizure, which means private entities cannot
benefit from it. France also requires public disclosure of 5. Conclusion
information about exhibited works, allowing challengers In summary, for international art exhibitions, it is crucial for
to file objections during the publicity period. 31 both the owner (or lender) of the works and the exhibition
Currently, Mainland China lacks specific legislation organizer to sign a written contract. Not only does this
on immunity from the seizure of cultural relics, and provide a basis for resolving disputes, but it also serves as
ordinary artworks not protected by the Law of the People’s a vital safeguard for the safety of the exhibited works. To
Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics are further reduce risks, specific contractual provisions should
even more unlikely to be immune from seizure. However, be tailored accordingly.
First, unlike domestic art exhibitions, international
16 22 U.S.C. § 2459(a).
17 See Act on the Protection of Cultural Property of Germany, art exhibitions involve the application of different laws.
Chapter 1, Section2 and Chapter 7. The parties can proactively include choice clauses in the
18 See Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Part 6, 134 contract to select the applicable law that best serves their
and 135. interests. Second, the method for dispute resolution should
19 See the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan (Publication be clearly specified based on practical considerations. For
and Provision of Information) Regulations 2008, section 7. instance, commercial arbitration often offers more flexible

Volume 3 Issue 1 (2025) 10 doi: 10.36922/ac.2881