歐洲近期一系列立法變革，尤其重要的是法國2026年文物返還法案，為被掠奪的文物歸還中國闢設新的渠道，但推行實施起來，料仍會面對複雜的挑戰，諸如政治阻力、程序和日漸高漲的文化民族主義。
2026年4月，法國國民議會通過法案，允許歸還1815至1972年間遭劫掠、流失海外的文物至來源國。這項重要立法，為部分重要的中國文物回歸祖國創造了條件。史料記載，晚清國力衰微，第二次鴉片戰爭（1856–1860）英法聯軍洗劫圓明園、以及1899至1901年義和團運動期間，逾千件中國珍寶被劫掠出境。
法國出台這項法案最初主要響應馬里、阿爾及利亞、塞內加爾、畿內亞、貝寧等前殖民地國家的訴求。法國總統馬克龍表態，法國不再干預前殖民地，並承諾5年內向相關國家歸還掠奪文物。不過，有分析指出，法案通過後仍須跨越巨大的程序門檻：主要是法國國家館藏的每一件文物，都必須經過學術委員會，以及一個由政府、議會、博物館代表組成的專門委員會逐一審議、投票批准。
法案立法辯論階段，意識形態分歧便已顯現。左翼議員主張擴大文物返還範圍；右翼國民聯盟則提出，文物返還對象應當僅限與法國維持「友好融洽關係」的國家。
法案審議期間，法國議員帕特里耶－萊蒂援引維克多・雨果1861年的論述。當年雨果在致巴特勒上尉的書信中談及圓明園遭洗劫一事，並留下名言：「總有一天，擺脫枷鎖、洗清罪責的法國，會將這批贓物歸還遭受劫掠的中國。」165年後，雨果的設想迎來一絲曙光。
法國文物返還的優先對象明顯是法國昔日殖民地。此外，法案條文明確將軍事物品、官方檔案、考古出土文物排除在外，相關定義留有極大解釋空間。
西方殖民帝國遺產 國際法先天局限
追索被劫掠文物本質上是政治議題，大量文物流失發生在西方全球殖民擴張的頂峰時期。不少國家至今不願承認殖民歷史中曾行「劫掠」舉措。
1970年《保護世界文化和自然遺產公約》（聯合國教科文組織公約）與1995年《關於被盜或非法進出口文化財產的公約《（羅馬國際統一私法協會公約），為文物返還提供法律依據。但這兩項公約僅適用於公約生效之後被盜、非法流轉的文物。這意味公約雖能夠遏制當代跨國文物犯罪，卻廻避了近代西方列強在清代劫掠中國這類「國家層面掠奪行為」。
放眼全球，在這重視文化遺產的時代，部分西方國家已經主動推進文物返還：德國向尼日利亞、坦桑尼亞歸還文物，荷蘭向印尼、斯里蘭卡返還藏品。某種意義上，這些西方國家借助成熟的文化外交，以此修復跟昔日殖民受害國的關係。全球範圍內尊重文化遺產的共識，持續推動流失文物回歸來源國。
（Wikimedia Commons）
文化民族主義與策略追索優先次序
在中國，文化民族主義興起、文化安全議題受重視，政府聯合民間商界力量持續推進追索流失文物。據統計，「十四五」規劃（2021–2025）期間，共有35批次、537件中國文物回歸祖國。
文物返還面臨巨大現實挑戰：
第一，中國開展文化外交，需要擬定一份追索遭劫盜流失文物的優先清單，作為中法等雙邊談判的基礎。實際而言，要歸還所有被劫盜的中國文物，幾乎沒有可能。
法國法案通過之後，有指9件頂級國寶仍散落海外，也是未來中方重點爭取歸還的標的：
藥師佛壁畫（藏於美國）
水月觀音像（藏於美國）
《女史箴圖》（大英博物館）
圓明園十二生肖獸頭（部分仍散落海外、下落不明）
昭陵六駿（部分藏於美國）
易縣三彩羅漢（收藏地點不明）
雙羊尊（大英博物館）
敦煌壁畫、敦煌手稿（藏於大英博物館、法國）
《五色鸚鵡圖》（藏於美國）
第二，文物歸還高度依賴昔日劫掠文物的西方國家釋放外交善意。中國政法大學霍政欣教授在《環球時報》撰文指出，日本同樣應當歸還劫掠自中國的文物。但受中日關係持續低迷、日本政壇右翼化等因素影響，推動日本歸還文物短期內難以實現。
建立雙邊合作與打擊跨國文物犯罪
部分國家已完成多批次文物返還。2024年11月，意大利依托雙邊防止文物非法進出境協定，向中方歸還56件流失文物。更早的一輪在2019年3月，意大利一次性歸還796件中國文物，創下20餘年規模最大的單次文物返還紀錄。
2022年10月至2024年4月，意大利憲兵查獲56件疑似中國非法流失文物，隨後中方國家文物局提供證據資料，經由外交磋商促成文物歸還。
2025年3月，依託美國曼哈頓地區檢察官辦公室的追繳行動，國家文物局收回41件非法流入美國的文物。中國駐紐約總領事陳麗對此給予正面評價，認為這體現雙方相互尊重、協同打擊跨國文物犯罪。同年3月，美方另歸還41件文物，其中包含藏傳佛教文物。
中國已與27個國家簽署協議，聯手打擊文物盜竊與非法販運。《中華人民共和國文物保護法》第81條，明確要求加強國際合作追索被盜文物。
博物館合作與軟實力爭議
2024年9月，尹梓涵、黃嘉琪在《中國日報》刊文，呼籲大英博物館歸還掠奪文物；文章援引2023年8月《環球時報》社論，並以天寧寺大鐘為例：這件文物第一次鴉片戰爭期間遭英軍劫掠、獻給維多利亞女王，1841年捐贈大英博物館。據估算，兩次鴉片戰爭、抗日戰爭期間，總計約1000萬件中國文物流失海外。
第三，海外博物館必須跟中方合作，認識到至少返還部分頂級文物至中國的重要性，單純依靠施壓很難促成歸還。2023年，德國七家博物館聯合中國文博專家，登記整理館藏疑似義和團運動期間劫掠所得文物。
第四，學界存在對立觀點：有人主張海外館藏中國文物可以向西方公眾推廣中國歷史文明，且藏品得到妥善保存；持這種看法的人士認為，從建設中國軟實力角度來看，可保留部分文物在海外博物館，協助全球公眾理解中華文明——這觀點跟文化民族主義者形成鮮明對比，後者堅持流失文物理應全部歸還。
流失海外中國文物返還已然成為大勢所趨，既體現多國調整文化外交策略，也見證中國文物追索工作持續取得進展。對內，中國需要持續嚴厲打擊文物犯罪網絡，遏制文物流失；對外，越來越多西方國家及其博物館主動開始返還流程，又或釋放積極訊號。文物返還不僅是法律或外交事項，始終仍是一個決定誰、何時、以及如何重獲這些文物的政治問題。
The politics of returning cultural artefacts to China
Recent legislative changes in Europe, notably France’s landmark 2026 restitution bill, have opened new avenues for returning looted cultural treasures to China.
Despite growing international cooperation, repatriation efforts face complex challenges, including domestic political resistance abroad, procedural hurdles, and heightened cultural nationalism.
In recent years, the emergence of cultural nationalism in the quest for repatriating cultural artefacts to China has become prominent, while some countries have increasingly shown their willingness to return cultural treasures to China because of legal changes and diplomatic goodwill. Still, there are challenges to the return of cultural artefacts to China and it remains to be seen how they can be tackled in the coming years.
In France, the National Assembly passed a bill in April 2026 to allow artworks looted from 1815 to 1972 to be returned to their countries of origin (China Daily, 17 April 2026). This was an important legislative move that paved the way for the return of perhaps at least some crucial Chinese artefacts back to China. It was reported that over 1,000 Chinese cultural treasures were looted when French and British soldiers ransacked the Old Summer Palace at Yuanmingyuan Park during the decadent and weak Qing dynasty in the Second Opium War from 1856 to 1860 and in the Boxer Rebellion from 1899 to 1901.
Procedural hurdles and political debates in France
The French legislation was reportedly unique in response to requests from Mali, Algeria, Senegal, Guinea, and Benin. President Emmanuel Macron said that France would never again interfere with its former colonies, and he promised the return of cultural artefacts to them within five years (RFI, 15 April 2026). However, some observers said that the French move will still face a procedural hurdle, as each item in the national collection would have to be voted on individually by a scientific committee and a commission comprising representatives from the government, parliament, and museums. Before the bill became law, ideology played a role in response to its content. Left-wing politicians argued that the scope of returning cultural artefacts should be expanded, but the right-wing National Rally party argued that the restitution of artworks should only be allowed to countries that maintain “cordial” relations with France (RFI, 15 April 2026).
In the debate over the bill, French lawmaker Jérémie Patrier-Leitus cited the remarks of Victor Hugo in 1861. Hugo wrote to Captain Butler about the ransacking of the Old Summer Palace, adding: “A day will come when France, once freed and cleansed, will return this plunder to looted China” (Global Times, 21 April 2026). Hugo’s vision became a possibility 165 years later, but the process will take a long time even if France repatriates some crucial cultural artefacts from the Summer Palace back to China. The priorities for repatriating cultural artefacts are obviously former French colonies. Furthermore, the bill appears to exclude military goods, public archives, and archaeological products — terms open to interpretation.
Western imperialism and the limits of international law
The return of looted cultural artefacts is a political issue, as the looting occurred at the height of Western imperialism across the globe. Some countries may not admit that they committed “looting” during their history of colonialism. Although the UNESCO Convention of 1970 and UNIDROIT Convention of 1995 provided legal bases for the return of cultural artefacts to countries of origin (China Daily, 17 April 2026), these stipulations were restricted to artefacts stolen or illegally acquired after the conventions became effective. As such, while the conventions can deter cross-border art crime, they bypass the issue of “state crime” in which many Western countries looted Chinese treasures during the Qing dynasty.
Still, in an era of respecting cultural treasures, some Western countries have willingly taken measures to address the return of artefacts to their countries of origin. Germany returned cultural artefacts to Nigeria and Tanzania, and the Netherlands did likewise with Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In a sense, these Western countries have conducted cultural diplomacy with political finesse to win the friendship of countries formerly exploited under imperialism. The global movement towards respecting cultural heritage has aided the process of returning cultural artefacts to their origins.
Cultural nationalism and strategic prioritization
In China, the recent emergence of cultural nationalism and cultural national security has prompted Chinese authorities, with the support of Chinese businesspeople, to reclaim cultural artworks. It was reported that thirty-five batches comprising 537 pieces of Chinese cultural relics were returned home during the 14th Five-Year Plan from 2021 to 2025.
The challenges of returning cultural artefacts to China are tremendous. First, the cultural diplomacy adopted and conducted by the Chinese Mainland will need to work out a priority list of looted treasures that deserve to be returned. Such a list will prepare the groundwork for Sino-French discussions and negotiations. It is practically impossible for all looted Chinese cultural treasures to be returned home.
Immediately after the passage of the French bill, it was reported that nine priceless Chinese artefacts are still held overseas – perhaps an indication that the Chinese side may strive to get these items to be returned to the Chinese Mainland in the coming years. These items include(1) Buddha of Medicine Bhaishajyaguru (Yoshi Fo) Mural (located in the US), (2) Water-Moon Guanyin (located in the US), (3) Admonitions Scroll (located in the British Museum), (4) Yuanmingyuan Zodiac Heads (a few remain abroad but in unknown places), (5) Six Steeds of Zhao Mausoleum (located in the US), (6) Yixian Glazed Pottery Luohans (place unknown), (7) Double-Ram Zun (located in the British Museum), (8) Dunhuang Murals and Manuscripts (located in the British Museum and France), and (9) Five-Colored Parakeet (located in the US) (Mia Fan, “9 Priceless Chinese Artefacts Still Held Overseas,” RADII, June 1, 2026, 9 Priceless Chinese Artifacts Still Held Overseas – RADII).
Second, the return of cultural artefacts depends on the diplomatic goodwill of the Western countries that looted Chinese treasures, mostly during the Qing dynasty. Professor Huo Zhengxin from the China University of Political Science and Law wrote in the Global Times, naming Japan as one of the countries that should return looted cultural relics to China (Global Times, 21 April 2026). However, partly due to worsening Sino-Japanese relations and partly because of the right-wing shift in Japan’s current political climate, calls for returning cultural artefacts from Japan to China remain a bridge too far.
Bilateral cooperation and combating art crime
Some countries have indeed returned cultural artefacts to China. In November 2024, Italy returned fifty-six lost Chinese cultural relics to China within the framework of a bilateral agreement aimed at preventing the illegal import and export of cultural artefacts (Xinhua, 9 November 2024). Italy had previously repatriated 796 Chinese cultural relics to China in March 2019 — regarded as the largest single repatriation of cultural artefacts to China in over 20 years (The Straits Times, 14 April 2024). From October 2022 to April 2024, the Italian Carabinieri military police informed China of its seizure of fifty-six suspected Chinese cultural relics. The National Cultural Heritage Administration of China provided the necessary information to the Italian authorities, followed by diplomatic discussions and the return of the artefacts. This demonstrates that art crime remains serious in the Chinese Mainland, where gangs and thieves have sought to profit by stealing cultural artefacts and exporting them to Western countries. As such, citizens in the Chinese Mainland must be educated on preserving cultural heritage, and those committing art crime must face severe penalties.
In March 2025, the National Cultural Heritage Administration brought home forty-one cultural relics and artworks that had been illegally exported to the United States, following efforts by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to return them (China Daily, 5 March 2026). This action by the US side stemmed from the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two countries in 2009 to prevent illegal imports of Chinese artefacts into the US. The Chinese Consul General in New York, Chen Li, praised the US move as evidence of mutual respect, mutual assistance, and cross-border cooperation in fighting art crime. In March 2025, the US also returned forty-one cultural artefacts, including Tibetan Buddhist relics, back to China (RFA, 13 March 2025).
Global agreements and popular cultural narratives
China has signed agreements with twenty-seven countries to combat the theft and illicit trade of cultural property. Article 81 of China’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics calls for improved international cooperation on the repatriation of stolen cultural relics. In October 2023, Australia returned smuggled historical artefacts to China, including a dinosaur fossil over one hundred million years old and two Tang dynasty figurines (BBC News, 26 October 2023). In June 2024, Argentina also returned fourteen cultural relics to China in a joint effort to combat cross-border illegal trafficking of cultural treasures (South China Morning Post, 28 June 2024).
Cultural nationalists in China have consistently called for foreign museums to return Chinese cultural artefacts to the Chinese Mainland. A short video series featuring Chinese artefacts in the British Museum went viral on Chinese social media and attracted three million viewers in September 2023, depicting the story of a jade teapot trying to return to China (ThinkChina, 18 September 2023). In the video, the teapot says it “will come home one day gloriously with head held high”. Many netizens were emotionally touched, praising this sentiment as “the bearing of a great nation”.
Museum collaboration versus soft power arguments
In September 2024, Yin Zihan and Kacee Ting Wong argued that the British Museum should “return stolen artefacts” to China (China Daily, 20 September 2024). They referred to an editorial in the Global Times in August 2023 that called on the British Museum to return Chinese cultural relics. They also cited the example of the Great Bell of Tianning Temple, which was looted by British soldiers during the First Opium War from 1839 to 1842 and presented to Queen Victoria, who donated it to the British Museum in 1841. It was estimated that ten million artefacts were stolen from China during the Opium Wars and the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (China Daily, 20 September 2024).
Third, foreign museums must cooperate with China to appreciate the importance of returning at least some crucial Chinese cultural artefacts to the Chinese Mainland. Otherwise, it will be difficult to compel foreign museums to do so. In 2023, seven museums in Germany collaborated with Chinese museum experts to catalogue relics in German collections that were seemingly looted during the Boxer Rebellion from 1899 to 1901.
Fourth, some argue that Chinese cultural artefacts can educate broader audiences in the West about China’s historical treasures and development, and that they are well preserved abroad. In other words, if China wishes to maintain its soft power, it can be argued that at least some cultural artefacts should remain in foreign museums so that international publics can better understand China and appreciate its heritage. This perspective differs from that of cultural nationalists, who insist that the return of all cultural artefacts is necessary.
In conclusion, the return of Chinese cultural artefacts from foreign countries to China has become a defining trend, reflecting new cultural diplomacy adopted by foreign states and the success of China’s quest for repatriation. Domestically, China must curb violators of cultural heritage, as art crime networks continue to export Chinese cultural treasures abroad. On the other hand, it is a positive sign that more Western countries, including their museums, have actively initiated steps to return looted cultural artefacts to China. Still, the return of looted cultural treasures is not merely a legalistic or diplomatic issue; it remains ultimately a political issue of deciding who gets what, when, and how.
原刊於澳門新聞通訊社（MNA）網站，本社獲作者授權轉載。（原文按此）
