博物館現今辦展趨勢,多以向外借展俾利提供大眾更豐富多元的展覽內容為尚。這股風氣,姑不論係博物館自發尊重觀眾需求的民主觀念的提昇,抑或為招攬觀眾入場參觀的商業籌謀,其實於上個世紀60年代左右即見濫觴。美國國會洞察先機,率先全球於1965年訂立《豁免司法扣押法》(Immunity from Seizure Act),目的即為協助美國博物館等非營利文化機構於國際借展方面能更臻順利。美國《豁免司法扣押法》之訂立,讓國外藏家大大提昇借展美國的意願。然而,藏品一旦借出,美國該法律是否確能保障藏品於展覽結束後可以安返歸還藏家?實際發生數起的扣押案例,如本文以下將探究的席勒案,又該作何解?筆者不揣淺陋,謹從博物館國際借展實務立場。撰文探究:美國《豁免司法扣押法》之立法及內容;二、扣押案例席勒案;三、美國《豁免司法扣押法》與「主權豁免」及「國家行為」原則之適用;四、美國《豁免司法扣押法》之疏漏;五、申請案之審核及公告程序。希冀藉由美國《豁免司法扣押法》及席勒案探知些許可茲惕勵的經驗教訓。
A recent trend among museums is to borrow from the collections of other museums when organizing exhibitions. The purpose is to provide audiences with richer and more diverse content. To facilitate loans of objects internationally, the U.S. became the first country in the world to enact the Immunity from Seizure Act in 1965. Such an act was passed to assure foreign lenders of the safe return of loaned objects after their exhibition in the U.S. However, some recent judicial cases have shown that this act is not an all-encompassing guarantee of return of foreign loaned objects. The author explores this issue by investigating: 1) the content of the U.S. Immunity from Seizure Act of 1965; 2) the Schiele Case; 3) the application of the Act with some judicial principles; 4) ambiguities in the Act and inconsistencies in the U.S. administration’s delivery of judicial protection and 5) U.S. Federal Register's publication demands.