The primary argument relates to the authority to remove the marbles granted by the 'lawful' government at the time. The government at the time was a subsidary o

The primary argument relates to the authority to remove the marbles granted by the 'lawful' government at the time. The government at the time was a subsidary of the Ottoman empire, Greece having been conquered roughly 400 years previously. The government was composed mainly of Turks though with numbers of Greek collaborators. The Turks didn't particularly about the Greek culture at the time and especially not about the ancient Greek culture. Now imagine a similar event occurring during WWII: a party from a third country obtaining authority by the 'lawful' (at the time) Vichy government (a Nazi subsidiary) to remove invaluable French art from the Louvre. What position would you hold today? These are essentially the same. Can a government that obtains its legitimacy through the imposition of force by a conquering power be considered 'lawful', and it's decisions hold legal force in any subsequent dislodgement of that conquering power? That's what this all boils down to. For me, the Ottomans were as 'lawful' a government of Greece as the Vichy were in France i.e. not lawful.