This is an English translation of the interview published in the Greek daily newspaper Ta Nea (www.tanea.gr) on 7 February 2026
Βy Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for the Greek daily newspaper Ta Nea (iandritsopoulos@gmail.com)
Catharine Titi has accused the British Museum of using “a ploy to avoid the repatriation of the Parthenon Sculptures,” saying it is trying to persuade Greece to “accept loans or the exchange of objects instead” in place of a permanent return.
In an interview with the Greek newspaper Ta Nea, the legal scholar sharply questions the Museum’s push for a “Parthenon Partnership,” arguing that such proposals risk weakening Greece’s legal and moral claim.
“We must stop pandering to the British Museum. We are not asking for charity” she says, calling for a firmer, rights-based approach from Athens.
Titi is a tenured Research Associate Professor of Law at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)–CERSA at University Paris-Panthéon-Assas and teaches International Cultural Heritage Law at the University of Verona.
She also serves on the Scientific Committee of the UNESCO Chair on Threats to Cultural Heritage and Cultural Heritage-related Activities, and is part of a growing body of experts scrutinising high-profile restitution disputes.
Below is the full interview:
You are extremely cautious about the British Museum, which says it wants to enter into a ‘Parthenon Partnership’ with Greece. Do you believe its intentions are insincere?
This is a ploy to avoid the repatriation of the Parthenon Sculptures. The British Museum is trying to persuade countries that request the return of cultural heritage to accept loans or the exchange of objects instead. It hopes that this will put a stop to repatriation requests. From the outset, the chair of the British Museum, George Osborne, let it be implied that he was open to an agreement with Greece, which to the Museum trustees he described as a ‘loan’. The director of the Museum, Nicholas Cullinan, is more straightforward: a loan and only a loan. In December, he loaned objects, including Greek antiquities, to India, stating that this model of lending would be used for those requesting the repatriation of their cultural treasures.
You describe the British Museum’s proposals as a ‘Trojan horse’. What dangers might arise if Greece accepts a loan or enters into an ‘exchange’ agreement instead of a clean return of the Parthenon Sculptures?
A loan, even a long-term loan, means that we accept that the British Museum has ownership. This will prevent repatriation in the future. The same applies to an exchange. I disagree with the Greek government’s proposal to offer other antiquities in exchange for the Parthenon Sculptures. The Sculptures must be returned because they were removed unlawfully. If we agree to an exchange, it is as if we are legitimizing the possession of the Sculptures by the British Museum. We risk losing whatever antiquities we give in exchange, and we set a bad precedent. From a curatorial perspective, organising exhibitions with a perpetual rotation of exhibits that Greece would send to the British Museum in exchange for the Sculptures is also problematic. Any travel of antiquities carries risks. The exchange may also lead to a loss of cultural heritage for many Greeks for whom other antiquities may be more important than a Parthenon metope.
Instead of the term ‘reunification’, you prefer the concepts of ‘repatriation’ or ‘return’. What is the significance of this distinction?
When we talk about ‘reunification’ of the Parthenon Sculptures, we emphasize the uniqueness of the case. Essentially, we are saying to the British Museum: give them to us, and there will be no further demands, because this is simply a matter of reuniting a divided monument. It is as if we are asking the Museum for a favour. In contrast, the terms ‘repatriation’ and ‘return’ are legally significant. With these, we are claiming what rightfully belongs to Greece, because it belongs to Greece. We must stop pandering to the British Museum. We are not asking for charity!
You argue that the Parthenon Sculptures should not be treated as a special case. Why should Greece align its request with those of other countries seeking the return of cultural heritage?
We are trying to convince the British Museum that if it returns the Parthenon Sculptures, its galleries will not empty, because this is an ‘exceptional case’. If we refute this argument, the Museum will do what it has always done: it will come up with a new argument against their return. In the meantime, we will have lost the opportunity to strengthen the international effort in favour of repatriation. Many countries are asking for the repatriation of their cultural heritage, which is why they support Greece’s just claim for the Parthenon Sculptures. Let’s start listening to their demands too. It seems that this is not a fight we are going to win on our own.
The British government argues that the issue is a matter for the British Museum, which in turn claims that—regarding a permanent return rather than a loan—its hands are tied by the British Museum Act 1963. How do you assess this institutional ‘ping-pong’?
This happens because neither the Museum nor the government intend to return the Parthenon Sculptures yet. The responsibility lies with the British government, which must either amend the British Museum Act 1963 or, preferably, pass a new act of parliament to return the Sculptures. Recently, the government amended—without parliamentary approval—the Charities Act 2022, to prevent national museums from returning artefacts on ‘moral grounds’. This law would have amended the 1963 legislation.
Should Greece take legal action to secure the return of the Parthenon Sculptures?
Greece should not be afraid to rely on the law, but the time has not yet come to take legal action. The risk is too great. The law on the repatriation of cultural heritage is changing. We have been very patient. Only a little longer now.
-ends-
Catharine Titi 