Between ethics, morality and law. The position of the Dutch government when the impending disappearance of national, cultural heritage caused a commotion.

Abstract

As the most powerful authority, the Dutch government creates laws and regulations regarding the selection, management and disposal of national, cultural heritage. However, the state itself takes a half-active / half-aloof attitude in the output of the heritage act. The government points to the law, but this does not always seem to prevent a sale to a private foreign collector. When heritage becomes contested, people mainly point to the ethical objections for the sale and the lack of ownership and associated responsibilities of the government. In this thesis, I have attempted to answer the following research question: What position did the Dutch government take when the impending disappearance of heritage caused commotion between 2011 - 2019, and what does this say about the power, ownership and responsibility of the state? This thesis research aimed for a better alignment of the use of the Heritage Act and -policy from 2019 onwards in order to prevent further scandals. In doing so, three case studies were analysed in order to unravel the position of the government in relation to the societal debate about the contested heritage. In the first case study, the public debate focussed on the denial of the Ethical Code of Museums, when the painting of the Schoolboys was sold. In the second case study, obliged the status of protected property the government to act after the loan-agreement of the Rintel Chanoekia was cancelled in 2015. The new Heritage Law obliged all parties involved to pay for the object, but none wanted to take full responsibility. In the third case study, the artwork of Rubens was the private property of an ex-princess and not protected by the WBC-list. The auction was legal but the process was criticized on ethical grounds.