Abstract

The archival principle of the inalienability of public documents arose in the 1970s in response to the retreat of colonial powers after World War II. An international jurist initially advanced the concept as an argument to reclaim the archival patrimony of former countries that had been despoiled of their public records during colonial rule. Public records, he argued, are the inseparable and indivisible heritage of the country of origin, which has a perpetual right of return. In 1995, the International Council of Archives (ICA) defined the “inalienability principle” further by claiming that public records without exception can only be divested through a legislative act of the state that created them. This concept was again expanded in 2008 when the Society of American Archivists and the Association of Canadian Archivists cited the principle in jointly calling for the immediate restitution of captured Saddam-era records that had been removed from Iraq in the two Gulf Wars and the upheavals in Iraqi Kurdistan. In so doing, the associations adapted the inalienability principle in opposition to the laws of armed conflict, which permit the wartime seizure of public records and consider captured documents spoils of war. This article proposes an initial framework to reconcile the inalienability principle with international law to give it relevancy in the realm of postconflict restitution of captured records.

Abstract

In 2005, with limited time, personnel, and financial resources, the staff of Special Collections at the University of Arkansas Libraries embarked on a planning project. Departmental staff identified key issues, conducted research on approaches to archival planning, and developed a process that required minimal time and money. A four-member task force assumed major responsibility, while a larger advisory committee reviewed and provided input to the plan. The task force adopted a mission statement for the archives and then tackled the tougher issues. The process educated staff and provided a plan for addressing sixteen key initiatives.

Abstract

Taking Mark Greene's Fall/Winter 2013 American Archivist article, “A Critique of Social Justice as an Archival Imperative: What Is It We're Doing That's All That Important?,” as its point of departure, this article poses a critique of normative assumptions of race prevalent in the archival profession and analyzes the concomitant resistance to the integration of social justice and the political. In the recent past, an increasing emphasis has been placed on rethinking the role of archives and archivists, and the ways in which each reinforces unequal power structures and the manufacturing of distorted histories. This notwithstanding, Greene's article points toward a strain of resistance to self-reflexivity within the archives community, and, moreover, is emblematic of an inability to think critically about race, whiteness, and sociocultural positionality that is supported by the escalating homogeneity of the profession. Using perspectives derived from archival theory, philosophy, and political science, this article teases out some of the reasons for this resistance to the “political” and critical within archives, and the problematic implications of efforts to continuously assert the neutrality, if not objectivity, of archival space. It reflects on the ramifications of this latter phenomenon for the archival profession and how it helps reinforce social and political inequalities that curb nascent organizational efforts at diversity and inclusivity.

The American Archivist is the semi-annual journal of the Society of American Archivists. It seeks to reflect thinking about theoretical and practical developments in the archival profession, particularly in North America; about the relationships between archivists and the creators and users of archives; and about cultural, social, legal, and technological developments that affect the nature of recorded information and the need to create and maintain it.

The American Archivist is a refereed journal. Each submission will be reviewed by experts in the subject matter of the submission and a final decision for publication will be based on this

A Brief Preliminary Comment on “Being Assumed Not to Be” 1 —And a Pledge This Will Not Become Ad Hominem Ad Infinitum

A Brief Preliminary Comment on “Being Assumed Not to Be” ¹ —And a Pledge This Will Not Become Ad Hominem Ad Infinitum