There has been recent cultural property disputes where countries bring actions against museums (i.e. the Getty Museum, the Met, etc.) claiming the museums should return particular items to the country of origin. How courts decide these issues has a lingering effect on loan agreements between countries and museums.

One current example is seen Russia and the Met Museum (see the news article here). After a court judgment against Russia in a cultural property action, the country is now unwilling to make loans to the Met Museum. The news article mentions a 2010 court decision, which I could not find online outside paid legal research services. For those students/practitioners who have access to legal research or library resources, the 2010 citation is Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Fed'n, 729 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. D.C. 2010).   

I was able to find the 2008 court opinion (which was affirmed by the 2010 decision) online, and it provides some facts and procedural steps in the case. In short, a non-profit religious corporation sued Russia claiming it took books and manuscripts belonging to the non-profit. Some of the books were confiscated by Nazis in the Soviet Union in the earlier 20th century. The Court ruled for the non-profit, determining the non-profit had established a prima facie case that gave it a right to relief. The ramifications of this ruling resulted in a hesitancy, for both Russia and American museums, to make future loans of cultural property. 

Such cases are unfortunate. Art is a source of knowledge, understanding, and entertainment; furthermore, art is arguably created to be seen and to communicate a message to viewers regardless of its "ownership" or location. In my opinion, creating an environment where countries and museums feel they must restrict access to cultural property is a sad precedent. It seems to speak of a lack of trust, and a reluctancy to employ mediation/negotiation in forming private agreements. Getting a court judgment is the "comfortable" result in disputes, but in cases where that judgment reverberates past the parties involved, it just seems there might be a better way.