does it really matter what is right and what is wrong? Throughout history, it has always been the rich and powerful one to define the game rules. Back in old days it's by means of wars. Nowadays, more civilized methods like using treaties, WTO..etc.
So now the french wants to use the bronze artefacts to gain political benefits in helping the dalai lama. On the other hand, china emphasizes of 'unspecified consequences' to Christie's.
Would you say using something that was robbed to threat another person for benefits is correct? Or would you say hosting a private auction is wrong? I think it's hard to clearly define all right and wrong here. Simply the rich and powerful will win. i.e. if france is strong enough to endure a long and cold boycott of all french goods from the chinese community, then france wins and get to keep all the robbed artefacts in Louvre. If china is rich enough to gain control over some significant markets, and get other countries' support since they need the financial help, then eventually china win when no one stands in the french side. Again, game rules will change as power shifts...