In a Claim for the return of ancient Cultural Heritage, when making an ethical decision about return, a Museum should consider whether there is any risk of destruction of the artefact or of it ending up in the illicit art market, i.e. because of high level corruption.

There are also human rights issues to address.

I have argued all of this myself behind closed doors, and will of course discuss these issues in my forthcoming book – the ‘Mediation of Visual Art & Cultural Heritage Disputes’, see the page of the same name at www.carlislam.co.uk.

Reality-testing the merits of such concerns in Mediation raises a challenge in Mediating a Cultural Heritage Dispute.

That is because a Mediator is never possessed of all of the facts in any dispute.

So, such reality-testing can only be based upon information avalable in the public domain.

Where the dispute involves state actors, then e.g. in the UK, the Foreign Office may possess information that it cannot disclose without risking its sources e.g. about high level corruption.

Therefore, unless the Mediator possesses a security clearance, and although I have signed the Official Secrets Act I do not, then I think a solution is for the Mediator to put diplomats together on their own to discuss sensitive issues without actually himself/herself being in the room for that discussion.

However, this is normally regarded as bad practice, because the participants can then relegate the Mediator to a peripheral role in the conduct of the process, i.e. the Mediator can lose control of the entire Mediation process.

Any ideas thoughts or suggestions?