{"id":{"repo_id":"uic","oai_identifier":"oai:figshare.com:article/32994020"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uic/oai:figshare.com:article/32994020","repository":{"repo_id":"uic","name":"University of Illinois - Chicago","base_url":"https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai"},"display":{"title":"The Property and Sovereignty Problems of International Repatriation","abstract":"While many scholars and practitioners have critiqued the implementation of cultural property laws or highlighted the limitations of existing heritage protection agreements and suggested reforms, fewer have addressed the assumptions that have enabled these legal structures (Anderson 2016; Bauer 2007; Davis and Arose 2025; Gerstenblith 2017; Lalwani 2020; Rafanelli 1990). By focusing on property and sovereignty as categories that define how repatriation works, this thesis illustrates why current frameworks struggle to accommodate relational understandings of heritage or recognize Indigenous sovereignties that do not align with the State. For practitioners in the patrimonial, museum, and cultural heritage fields, this research offers a lens through which to understand the structural barriers that shape repatriation work and suggest pathways for centering an ethic of solidarity for the proliferation of global relationships within, across, under, and against institutional State practice. For scholars, it contributes to a growing interdisciplinary conversation about the colonial foundations of international law, the politics of heritage, the study of sovereignty and the State, and the possibilities of decolonial worldbuilding. In this work, repatriation is considered not only a legal process but on multiple scales of meaning as a cultural, spiritual, and political process.","abstract_html":"While many scholars and practitioners have critiqued the implementation of cultural property laws or highlighted the limitations of existing heritage protection agreements and suggested reforms, fewer have addressed the assumptions that have enabled these legal structures (Anderson 2016; Bauer 2007; Davis and Arose 2025; Gerstenblith 2017; Lalwani 2020; Rafanelli 1990). By focusing on property and sovereignty as categories that define how repatriation works, this thesis illustrates why current frameworks struggle to accommodate relational understandings of heritage or recognize Indigenous sovereignties that do not align with the State. For practitioners in the patrimonial, museum, and cultural heritage fields, this research offers a lens through which to understand the structural barriers that shape repatriation work and suggest pathways for centering an ethic of solidarity for the proliferation of global relationships within, across, under, and against institutional State practice. For scholars, it contributes to a growing interdisciplinary conversation about the colonial foundations of international law, the politics of heritage, the study of sovereignty and the State, and the possibilities of decolonial worldbuilding. In this work, repatriation is considered not only a legal process but on multiple scales of meaning as a cultural, spiritual, and political process.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Calen Geiser-Cseh (24399605)"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2026,"date_issued":"2026-05-01T00:00:00Z","date_published":"2026-05-01T00:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:33:42Z","subjects":["Museology","Anthropology, Cultural","Political Science, International Law and Relations"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.25417/uic.32994020.v1","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Calen Geiser-Cseh (24399605)"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2026-05-01T00:00:00Z"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/The_Property_and_Sovereignty_Problems_of_International_Repatriation/32994020"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Text","Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Museology","Anthropology, Cultural","Political Science, International Law and Relations"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["10.25417/uic.32994020.v1"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["While many scholars and practitioners have critiqued the implementation of cultural property laws or highlighted the limitations of existing heritage protection agreements and suggested reforms, fewer have addressed the assumptions that have enabled these legal structures (Anderson 2016; Bauer 2007; Davis and Arose 2025; Gerstenblith 2017; Lalwani 2020; Rafanelli 1990). By focusing on property and sovereignty as categories that define how repatriation works, this thesis illustrates why current frameworks struggle to accommodate relational understandings of heritage or recognize Indigenous sovereignties that do not align with the State. For practitioners in the patrimonial, museum, and cultural heritage fields, this research offers a lens through which to understand the structural barriers that shape repatriation work and suggest pathways for centering an ethic of solidarity for the proliferation of global relationships within, across, under, and against institutional State practice. For scholars, it contributes to a growing interdisciplinary conversation about the colonial foundations of international law, the politics of heritage, the study of sovereignty and the State, and the possibilities of decolonial worldbuilding. In this work, repatriation is considered not only a legal process but on multiple scales of meaning as a cultural, spiritual, and political process."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Property and Sovereignty Problems of International Repatriation"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Calen Geiser-Cseh (24399605)"],"dc:date":["2026-05-01T00:00:00Z"],"dc:description":["While many scholars and practitioners have critiqued the implementation of cultural property laws or highlighted the limitations of existing heritage protection agreements and suggested reforms, fewer have addressed the assumptions that have enabled these legal structures (Anderson 2016; Bauer 2007; Davis and Arose 2025; Gerstenblith 2017; Lalwani 2020; Rafanelli 1990). By focusing on property and sovereignty as categories that define how repatriation works, this thesis illustrates why current frameworks struggle to accommodate relational understandings of heritage or recognize Indigenous sovereignties that do not align with the State. For practitioners in the patrimonial, museum, and cultural heritage fields, this research offers a lens through which to understand the structural barriers that shape repatriation work and suggest pathways for centering an ethic of solidarity for the proliferation of global relationships within, across, under, and against institutional State practice. For scholars, it contributes to a growing interdisciplinary conversation about the colonial foundations of international law, the politics of heritage, the study of sovereignty and the State, and the possibilities of decolonial worldbuilding. In this work, repatriation is considered not only a legal process but on multiple scales of meaning as a cultural, spiritual, and political process."],"dc:identifier":["10.25417/uic.32994020.v1"],"dc:relation":["https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/The_Property_and_Sovereignty_Problems_of_International_Repatriation/32994020"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:subject":["Museology","Anthropology, Cultural","Political Science, International Law and Relations"],"dc:title":["The Property and Sovereignty Problems of International Repatriation"],"dc:type":["Text","Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T21:33:42Z"}