Home > Journals > WMLR > Vol. 67 (2025-2026) > Iss. 3 (2026)
William & Mary Law Review
Abstract
The American judicial system sanctions the theft of objects of immense cultural value from source nations—countries whose modern borders encompass territory previously inhabited by culturally rich civilizations—by allowing the allegedly equitable doctrine of laches to serve as an affirmative defense to actions brought by foreign sovereigns in replevin.
Courts have treated laches as a valid affirmative defense in foreign-sovereign-plaintiff replevin actions, treating the foreign sovereigns no differently than they would a private citizen bringing suit for a piece of artwork. While the value of the artwork may be the same in the two instances—both in terms of cultural and monetary value—the identity of the plaintiff changes from that of an individual to a quasi-class action brought under the banner of a single foreign sovereign. While in the former instance, balancing the equities between similarly situated parties and judicial interests in quieting title are acceptable grounds on which to justify a laches defense, the latter invokes compelling public interest arguments that justify taking laches off the table.
This Note argues that laches should not apply in suits of replevin brought by foreign sovereigns seeking to recover objects of cultural heritage. Part I provides background on cultural heritage and laches and summarizes this Note’s illustrative case, Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s Inc. Part II argues for the conceptualization of the true plaintiffs in these suits as the individual citizens of the plaintiff nation—both living and yet to be born—who all have a vested interest in protecting and preserving the cultural heritage found within their nation’s borders. Part III explores American legislative intent with regard to cultural heritage by examining the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO Convention), finding that the United States has a clearly articulated interest in the protection of cultural heritage and the return of that heritage to its descendants. Part IV examines the equitable defense of laches and finds that its three-pronged test cannot be satisfied under the proper conceptualization of the plaintiffs’ identity. This Note concludes with the hope that courts will begin to view cultural heritage as a strong public interest that renders laches inapplicable in lawsuits brought by foreign sovereigns for objects of cultural heritage.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.
.