Soru

The two passages below discuss international frameworks for the repatriation of cultural artifacts.

Passage A
The international framework governing the repatriation of cultural artifacts relies heavily on the 1970 UNESCO Convention. This landmark treaty established a cooperative mechanism for nations to prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural property. A defining characteristic of the Convention is its prospective nature; it provides a legal avenue for the return of artifacts stolen or illegally exported only after the treaty entered into force for the nations involved. Consequently, it does not mandate the restitution of cultural heritage removed during periods of colonization or armed conflict prior to 1970. To operationalize the Convention, signatory states frequently rely on bilateral agreements that outline specific customs procedures and import restrictions. For example, the United States has entered into numerous such bilateral treaties, which empower border authorities to seize undocumented artifacts originating from the partner nation. While imperfect, this state-centric approach has significantly curtailed the modern black market for antiquities by establishing clear, enforceable property rules between sovereign governments.

Passage B
Proponents of cultural repatriation often express frustration with the limitations of existing international law, particularly the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Because the Convention is strictly non-retroactive, it offers no legal recourse for communities seeking the return of sacred objects or cultural patrimony looted during the zenith of European imperialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By focusing almost exclusively on post-1970 property rights and state sovereignty, the current legal regime ignores the historical context of how major encyclopedic museums initially acquired their collections. Furthermore, the reliance on bilateral agreements to enforce the Convention inherently disadvantages weaker nations. These agreements require extensive diplomatic negotiation, meaning that developing nations—often those most depleted of their cultural heritage—must expend significant political capital to secure basic protections against ongoing smuggling. A more equitable approach would shift the paradigm away from property law and toward international human rights law. Recognizing cultural heritage as fundamental to a community's identity would create a moral imperative for the unconditional return of historical artifacts, regardless of when they were removed or whether a specific bilateral treaty exists.

Which one of the following details is explicitly mentioned in both Passage A and Passage B?