盜贓文化資產或文化物品具有動產之性質，其涉外物權變動之問題，原則上應依有關動產物權的衝突規則決定其準據法，故法院通常即適用物權變動時物之所在地法。關於盜贓文化資產所有權的歸屬及相關問題，各國法律之規定差異甚大，當事人為達到物權變動之法律效果，即可能蓄意變更其所在地，亦可能為蒙混穿越國境而予以支解，凡此種種，均使文化資產承擔毀損滅失之額外風險。事實顯示單靠國內法規之制定，已無法有效保存各國之文化資產，如何加強對文化資產所有人之保護並修正物之所在地法主義，乃成為當前各國國內法及國際法之重要課題。本文分為五部分，從文化資產失竊之事實及相關法律問題切入，再比較觀察各國法律之相關規定及實際案例，並由國際法協會之決議及統一私法國際協會之相關公約，指出國際上的立法新趨勢，最後再歸納出數項結論，俾供作我國政府部門之參考與借鏡。

The stolen cultural properties or cultural objects are characterized as movables in private law. The competent court shall therefore decide the apllicalbe law in accordance with the conflicts rule for movables before considering the material disputes over their property rights with foreign elements. As the lex rei sitae is widely adopted in many countries' private international law, the law of the place where the event affecting the property right occurs is always applied by the courts. Under the circumstance that the laws of ownership differ greatly among countries, the possessor of stolen cultural properties take the legal benefits of changing their location while they bear extra physical risks of damage or destruction. Given the fact that the domestic laws are not sufficient to protect and conserve the cultural properties, legislative effort in the field of domestic and international law rests on the reinforce protecting the original owner and the reform of conflicts rules. This article is divided into five parts to address the problems. Beginning with introducing the facts and related questions of stolen cultural properties, the author analyze and compare the codifications and practices in some countries, and point out a new international legal trend by observing the recent resolution of the Institute of International Law and related UNIDROIT conventions. Hopefully, the conclusion of this article will become feasible advice for the ROC government.