The Ruby Sipar belongs to the Clan Kin and therefore the removal of it from the Canyon Complex does not violate any international laws. There are two common philosophies when dealing with ownership, the first being Cultural Nationalism, and the other being Cultural Internationalism. The idea of Cultural Nationalism emphasizes national interests, values, and pride. It is their argument that certain artifacts have more importance to certain cultures when compared to others. This philosophy is embodied in the 1970 UNESCO convention, a convention, which Atania is a party to, and Rahad and signed but has ratification still pending. The Cultural Internationalism viewpoint has the support of James Cuno, the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, who is a leading proponent in this field, …show more content…
This Court should hold that Cultural Nationalism is the philosophy, that should be applied the Ruby Sipar. Under Cultural Nationalism the belief is that a nation’s cultural property belongs within the borders of the nation where it was created. The first mention of the Ruby Sipar dates back to 500 CE, at this time the borders were the not the current borders. The Clan Kin was the only clan living within the complex, with the other clans having migrated to the coastal regions. At the time that the Ruby Sipar is first mentioned it was created within the borders of the Clan Kin’s autonomous region. The other clans that existed at this time have no border claim as they freely moved out of the complex, since the rivers dried up. The Clan Kin has historically been isolated from the other clans. Only after the formation of the new states did the Kin decide that it was their time to move out of the complex. This shows that the Kin did not have any input when the