On May 9 (local time), French President Emmanuel Macron promulgated a law on the restitution of unlawfully acquired cultural property (hereinafter referred to as the “Cultural Property Restitution Law” or “the Law”).

The Law simplifies procedures for returning cultural objects looted by France during the colonial period. Its scope covers the period from 1815 to 1972, in principle encompassing artifacts taken during parts of France’s colonial activities in Africa, as well as those looted during the burning of the Yuanmingyuan and the invasion of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance.

Recently, Duan Yong, director of the Center for Research on Chinese Cultural Relics Abroad at Shanghai University, revealed in an exclusive interview with National Business Daily (hereinafter referred to as NBD) that approximately 1.5 million Chinese cultural relics have been illegally lost overseas.

Items such as imperial seals from Yuanmingyuan held by the Musée Guimet, the Forty Scenes of the Yuanmingyuan held by the National Library of France, and a gilt Buddhist pagoda in the Chinese Pavilion of the Palace of Fontainebleau all fall within the scope of China’s potential restitution efforts under this Law.

284 days from proposal to promulgation

From submission to enactment, the Cultural Property Restitution Law took a total of 284 days.

The French government and parliament repeatedly emphasized that the Law fulfills President Macron’s 2017 pledge in Africa: “African heritage cannot remain only in European museums.”

In the first reading at the National Assembly on April 13, the bill passed with 170 votes in favor and none against. A speech by MP Jérémie Patrier-Leitus drew attention in China.

In his remarks, he quoted Victor Hugo’s famous 1861 line: “I hope that one day France will return these spoils to the plundered China.” He then stated, “That day has now come.”

The French Ministry of Culture clarified that the Law applies to cultural property of any geographic origin, provided it was unlawfully acquired by France between November 20, 1815, and April 23, 1972.

However, the Law does not automatically return any specific object. Procedurally, all restitution requests must be reviewed by a bilateral scientific committee jointly established by France and the claimant country, and must also seek the opinion of the National Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property.

Under this framework, China can, in principle, pursue the return of artifacts looted by France during the burning of the Yuanmingyuan in 1860 and the invasion of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900.

Regarding the potential impact of the Law on recovering Chinese artifacts held in France, National Business Daily recently interviewed Duan Yong.

Duan has long been engaged in research on the restitution of overseas Chinese cultural relics. In January 2026, the compilation Collected Archival Documents on the Tang Honglujing Stele, edited by him, was officially published. It systematically reconstructs the complete chain of evidence from the looting to the current status of the stele and is regarded as a milestone in the field of Chinese cultural relic restitution.

Duan Yong Photo/provided to NBD

Chinese artifacts from six historical periods fall within the Law’s scope

NBD: How do you evaluate the Cultural Property Restitution Law? To what extent will it facilitate China’s restitution efforts?

Duan Yong: I believe the Law represents both an institutional breakthrough and a substantive benefit.

On the one hand, it breaks with France’s previous practice of enacting special legislation on a case-by-case basis for restitution, which was inefficient and unpredictable. The new Law simplifies procedures and increases the likelihood of successful returns.

On the other hand, it overcomes limitations of the 1970 and 1995 international conventions, which lack retroactive effect and are not binding on non-signatory states.

Most of China’s illegally lost cultural relics were previously constrained by these limitations, so this Law is indeed a major positive development.

NBD: The Law defines the period 1815–1972. Which Chinese artifacts does this cover?

Duan Yong: There are vast numbers of Chinese-related cultural objects—either made in China or once owned by China—held in public and private collections overseas, totaling about 15 million items. Most of these are legitimate trade goods, gifts, or souvenirs.

Among them, roughly 1.5 million are illegally lost artifacts—meaning that at least one stage in their acquisition, transaction, export, or collection involved illegality or unethical conduct, such as looting, smuggling, or fraud.

China’s overseas cultural losses mainly originate from the following historical periods:

1.The Second Opium War in 1860, when Anglo-French forces burned Yuanmingyuan and looted large numbers of treasures;

2.The 1900 invasion of Beijing and surrounding areas by the Eight-Nation Alliance;

3.The late Qing and early Republican period, when foreign “explorers” removed artifacts from northwest China;

4.Archaeological excavations by Japanese scholars in northeast and north China during the same period;

5.Looting by Japan during the First Sino-Japanese War and the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression;

6.The Republican era, when foreign and domestic dealers incited or hired criminals to steal sculptures, murals, and stone carvings from grottoes, historic buildings, and tombs;

7.Large-scale tomb robberies and smuggling in some provinces during the 1980s and 1990s.

Except for the last category, all fall within the time frame of the French Law.

Artifacts lost in 1860 and 1900 were mostly taken as so-called “war trophies.” However, even at the time, Victor Hugo strongly condemned such acts. The international community has since formed a consensus: cultural heritage cannot be treated as spoils of war, and its destruction constitutes a war crime.

The Law explicitly states that items categorized as “war trophies” that did not contribute to military activity should be subject to restitution.

Apart from weapons—which require further classification—most cultural objects and artworks clearly fall within the scope of restitution. These include imperial seals from Yuanmingyuan held by the Musée Guimet, the Forty Scenes of the Yuanmingyuan held by the National Library of France, and the gilt Buddhist pagoda in the Chinese Pavilion at Fontainebleau.

In addition, Dunhuang manuscripts held in countries such as the UK and France involve more complex cases due to purchase transactions. However, we argue that: first, Wang Yuanlu’s authority to dispose of the manuscripts is questionable; second, the transactions involved information asymmetry and potential ethical deception; third, some payments were explicitly framed as donations rather than purchases.

Therefore, these artifacts can also be contested on reasonable grounds.

How can lost artifacts “return home”?

NBD: From a practical perspective, what key evidence is required for China to pursue restitution?

Duan Yong: First, an official application must be submitted, along with provenance research, evidence of illegal loss, and guarantees for post-return preservation and display.

Next, experts must be appointed to join the Sino-French bilateral scientific committee to jointly review documentation. Once consensus is reached, the case is submitted to the French National Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property, and finally to the Council of State led by the Prime Minister, which approves restitution through an administrative order.

A complete evidence-chain report is crucial. However, mutual trust between experts and friendly relations between governments are equally important—especially when historical documentation is incomplete.

In the short term, I believe China should promptly submit applications and initiate procedures. Both sides can adopt a step-by-step approach, starting with uncontested Yuanmingyuan artifacts, completing their restitution first, and then gradually expanding to other objects through rational negotiation.

The Law applies only to artifacts held by public institutions. Therefore, it currently has no effect on similar items in private collections.

However, I believe the spirit of the Law will also exert moral pressure and influence on private collectors holding illegally acquired artifacts.

Note: This article is the translated version of the original Chinese manuscript. While we have strived to ensure translation accuracy, the translated text may still contain imperfections or deviations from the original content. The original document shall prevail and serve as the authoritative version at all times.