I am currently researching this for my forthcoming book the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ – see ww.carlislam.co./uk.

Equity acts as a bridge between rigid legal entitlements (such as formal ownership or statutory prescription) and the deeper, often non-quantifiable moral, historical, and emotional interests of the parties/participants (‘P’s’)].

Formal international or domestic property law often creates an ‘all-or-nothing’ winner-loser dynamic (e.g., who holds legal title to a disputed artifact or restitution claim). Equity allows the Mediator (‘M’) and P’s to look beyond strict black-letter law to achieve a fair, just, and context-sensitive outcome.

Equity helps shift the dialogue from hard ownership (‘We legally own this object’) to shared or underlying interests (‘What does this artifact represent to our cultural identity or community?’).

Rather than simple physical return or complete retention, equity underpins flexible solutions including:

(i) Joint or collaborative exhibitions.

(ii) Long-term loans or reciprocal cultural exchanges.

(iii) Shared custodianship or creation of exact scientific replicas/copies.

International Cultural Heritage Disputes frequently involve ancestral dignity, spiritual resonance, or wartime looting rather than mere economic value.

Equity provides the normative space to validate these non-material stakes, encouraging voluntary compliance and long-term reconciliation between states, museums, and Indigenous communities.