Moving the Louvre to the Middle East?

Well, not actually moving it, so much as opening a branch in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. Following in the tradition of the Guggenheim, which now has five locations worldwide, with a sixth planned for Abu Dhabi, the French Government has concluded an international agreement with the UAE Government for the opening of a museum with the right to use the Louvre name and parts of its collection for a period of 30 years and 6 months. The French Government is creating a new agency—the International Agency for French Museums—that will oversee the agreement’s implementation. The price tag for the UAE? 700 million euros, in return for which the French promise, among other things, not to open a competing branch in any of the UAE’s neighboring states (so those of you hoping for a Louvre Doha will just have to wait).



Politically (and culturally) the deal has been quite controversial. Is this an appropriate way to export French culture? How exactly will each side respect the culture of the other in implementing the project? For lawyers, Gilles Cuniberti has a very interesting post over at Conflict of Laws on the multiple choice of law clauses in the agreement. It suggests in articles 17-18 that disputes between the two governments should be resolved amicably, disputes over the Louvre name will fall under French law and French courts, while English law (plus a good faith gloss) will apply to disputes between the UAE government and the new French ministry. The French Parliament ratified the deal earlier this month.



It’s a fascinating arrangement, but one that leaves me wondering about how both French and international treaty law apply here. For starters, why did the French Parliament have to approve the agreement? Article 53 of the French Constitution requires legislative authorization pre-ratification for “peace treaties, commercial treaties, treaties or agreements relating to international organization, those that commit the finances of the State, those that modify provisions which are matters for statute, those relating to the status of persons, and those that involve the cession, exchange or addition of territory.” Was this treated as an agreement that committed the finances of the State, even though most of the money will be inbound? Are there some pre-existing statutes that get modified by this accord? Or, was this simply a discretionary request by the Government for a bill authorizing the ratification of the agreement given the underlying political controversy?



For that matter, I’d be curious to know why the French Government treated this as a treaty at all. After all, Article 2 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, defines a treaty as an “international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” Although the text certainly otherwise has all the markings of a treaty (or, more precisely, accord international since the French reserve the label treaty (traités) for agreements ratified by the President), I’m not clear on how it’s “governed by international law.” Normally when an agreement is between two governments you presume it’s intended to be governed by international law. But how well does that presumption hold up here, given the three separate choice of law provisions? Indeed, I’ve been trying to figure out when and how the agreement would be governed by international law, as opposed to English and French law? Perhaps this is not a treaty at all, but merely a contract, albeit between the governments of two states? My French is admittedly rusty though, so I’d welcome thoughts from readers on whether I’ve missed something here?



In any event, assuming this might be the start of a new class of international agreements, I’m looking forward to hearing about negotiations for the Musée d’Orsay de Philadelphia in the near future.