Cultural Heritage Disputes involving state actors are by their nature international. However, since the restitution of artefacts removed during times of Colonial occupation is outside the scope of the UNESCO Convention, the question of ‘international accountability’ does not arise in such disputes. So, axiomatically – by accepting Mediation a state actor does not thereby acknowledge that the dispute is a legitimate matter of international concern. Consequently a ‘no compromise’ situation does not arise. In other words, there is no bar to Mediation.

Mediation in any dispute involving state actors is likely to be particularly relevant when it has compelled them to revaluate their policies. e.g. where the dispute is in a state of limbo i.e. stalemate.

Because Mediation is a voluntary i.e. consensual process, the willingness by the Participants (‘P’s’) to participate indicates a willingness to engage with each other’s perspectives in exploring potential resolutions, thereby validating each other’s interests in the Artefact. So, Mediation implies ‘Recognition.’

However, in a claim for the restitution of artefacts removed during times of Colonial occupation, this does not amount to an acknowledgement that the dispute is a legitimate matter of international concern, i.e. because under International Law the issue is not capable of arising.

So, if the legal advisors to a state which has received the request/claim advise their political masters that their state cannot engage in Mediation because of the risk of potential ‘international accountability’, that advice is legally wrong.