Georgetown 2-Year LLM grad helps repatriate artifacts to Cambodia

Post by Sokunthyda Long, a Fulbright recipient who graduated from Georgetown Law’s Two-Year LLM Program in 2023, passed the New York bar, and is part of the restitution team in repatriating artifacts back to Cambodia.

From interviewing former looters at remote cultural sites to being featured on a 60 Minutes segment by Anderson Cooper on the repatriation of Cambodian artifacts, my team at Edenbridge and Brad Gordon, along with the support and partnership with the Cambodian Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and other important liaisons, have been successful in returning hundreds of artifacts back to Cambodia.”

I started out as a legal intern at Edenbridge Asia in 2020 where I was involved in the repatriations of looted Cambodian artifacts. The team and I, along with other relevant stakeholders, are currently working to set up the Cambodian Treasures Foundation to focus on repatriation of statues and preservation of cultural heritage. My work consists of interviewing former looters, documenting evidence, and negotiating with museums, private collectors, and other dealers to return looted artifacts. These investigations have resulted in various significant returns, including the recent return of 14 artifacts from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in July, 2024. 

While matriculating at Georgetown Law’s Two-Year LL.M. Program with a focus in International Business and Economic Law in 2021, I was taught necessary skills to further my statute repatriation work. The Two-Year LL.M. Program provided me with more time to understand the legal world, especially in international legal diplomacy. I came to understand the significance of soft diplomacy in navigating through the intricacies of politics and economics of international relations. My legal writing and analysis courses have been critical in my understanding of expressing necessary legal arguments to other parties. I am able to draft letters, negotiate, and make requests for provenance research in a more professional manner. The Fundamentals of Legal Writing classes taught me to write with a reader in mind, a skill I developed and have since practiced in my current employment. Further, it is a skill I use in other contexts as well such as conveying my thoughts and rationale to team members, former looters, the media, and other persons in my everyday life.

Applying the knowledge and skills I learned at Georgetown Law to my current work, I am able to communicate with museum directors, cultural experts and other associates in a more confident manner when it comes to consulting and negotiating on returning or loaning the artifacts. It felt incredible to celebrate the returns of the 14 artifacts from the Met, especially the ones I personally researched back in 2020, where I went to the pillaged site and saw the bases and other fragments there. I talked to the former looter to gather more information about it, such as the size of the artifact, the period style, the medium, and any other necessary information that would help make our evidence stronger. It was rewarding to be able to go to the airport and watch the artifacts arrive, proving that the work the team and I did really led to remarkable results.

The repatriation has brought attention and has been picked up by major international media such as various articles written by The New York Times and The Economist, a 60 Minutes episode by Anderson Cooper and a 2 minute podcast by NPR’s All Things Considered.

Despite all of this media coverage, I have to admit that it’s still a bit unbelievable to me that we got the Met to return the artifacts. But I’m extremely proud to have been able to contribute to the effort.

Below are photos provided by Long:

Long at a cultural site back in 2020. “We did some research there and know what was taken out, but haven’t been able to locate those specific items yet, so they’re most likely with private collectors or in a warehouse somewhere.”
Long with one of the repatriated pieces from the Met. “The piece is called Uma or Parvati and she’s from Koh Ker. This is one of the pieces I specifically did research on, and I saw her base/pedestal in Koh Ker in 2020.”
Koh Ker. “I took this photo in March, 2024 right after I came back to Cambodia. I saw the monks and the blue umbrella and just thought that the color contrast was wonderful!”
Angkor Wat. “I took this photo in March, 2024 while conducting a field study on Cambodian cultural heritage with cultural experts, contemporary artists and museum associates.”

Law & Language: Miranda warning or warnings?

Post by Profs. Stephen Horowitz and John Dundon, Georgetown Legal English Lecturers

Despite teaching the same Two-Year LLM program Legal English course the past three years (same content, different sections), my esteemed colleague Prof. John Dundon and I just realized we differ on whether, when focusing on the line of criminal procedure cases and Miranda rights during our Legal English II course, the correct version of the phrase should generally be plural (i.e., Miranda warnings), or whether it is also acceptable for it to be singular (i.e., Miranda warning.)

I won’t say who was advocating for which side, but the argument for exclusively plural was that the Miranda v. Arizona opinion includes multiple items for which a warning must be provided, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The argument against was that the multiple items can be viewed collectively as one warning.

The only civilized way to settle this debate between two lawyer-linguists, of course, was to follow the descriptivist path of looking to the corpora.

Using the entire internet as a corpus (i.e., a Google search of the phrase “a Miranda warning”), it seems to support the use of the singular, as the phrase appears in the Wikipedia entry for Miranda Rights as well as in news articles (e.g., NPR; NYTimes), on legal info sites (e.g., Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute; usconstitution.net; NOLO.com), and on law firm sites (e.g., D’Emilia Law – “What is a Miranda Warning.”)

So do those arguing for the exclusive preference for the plural have the right to remain silent? Not without first consulting an attorney. In fact, nine of them.

If the corpus is instead the line of Miranda cases from our course, all of which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court–the esteemed body that originated Miranda rights and its associated language–then suddenly we see an extremely strong predilection for the view that Miranda is actually comprised of several warnings, which suggests that the plural may in fact be correct. And the singular version is then just a vulgar mutation that has been adopted by the masses. (Or, stated more objectively, a variation that has been adopted in less specialized settings.)

So what’s a lawyer-linguist legal English teacher working with Miranda cases to tell their students? Our takeaway is to just share this blog post with them so they recognize that the appropriate form–single or plural–likely depends on the context and the audience.

If you’re writing a brief for the court or you’re a judge writing an opinion or perhaps a law professor writing a law journal article, then plural seems the preferred option. But if you’re writing a news article or a client email or having a cocktail party conversation, then singular is would seem to be just fine.

If you disagree with us, then you have the right to consult with an attorney-linguist. And if you cannot afford one, then we will be happy to provide you with one of course.

css.php