By Gabriela Landolfo
The legacy of imperialism thrives in the modern European museum. From Alutiiq masks in Berlin to a Pawnee Chief’s remains in Stockholm, museum displays resign tribal emblems to the same fate as the people who produced them: forcibly separated from their culture and assimilated into a foreign one. Although U.S. courts recognize a cause of action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)’s expropriation exception for Nazi-era stolen art claims, these same courts refuse to recognize jurisdiction over repatriation claims for stolen Native American art.
The Art Museum Amendment, a 2016 reform to the FSIA, stands to resolve these jurisdictional challenges by providing a viable repatriation avenue for stolen Native American art. This legislation, this Note argues, establishes an avenue for “targeted and vulnerable groups” to seek retribution against foreign governments who stole work “as part of a systematic campaign of coercive confiscation or misappropriation.” This exception, when read in accordance with the Indian ambiguity canon of statutory interpretation, provides a path toward the return of Native American art and artifacts from foreign museums.
Part I of this Note surveys how the FSIA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the Indian ambiguity canon are used to further indigenous repatriation efforts. Part II demonstrates how these statutes and interpretive methodologies, alone, are insufficient to repatriate Native American stolen art. Part III advocates for interpreting the FSIA through the Indian ambiguity canon, leveraging NAGPRA’s acknowledgement that Native Americans constitute a “targeted and vulnerable group” to establish a repatriation avenue for stolen Native American art under the FSIA.