Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Conflation of Morality and “the Fair and Just Solution” in the Determination of Restitution Claims Involving Nazi-Looted Art: An Unsatisfactory Premise in Need of Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2019

Debbie De Girolamo
Affiliation:
School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom; Email: d.degirolamo@qmul.ac.uk.
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract:

In recent literature on the restitution of Nazi-looted art, reference can be found to notions of morality as impetus for the return of cultural property to claimants who, although they may be able to evidence their ownership to an object, are stymied by onerous legal frameworks. With such claims, it is often the recognition of a moral entitlement or obligation that leads to a resolution regarding restitution. This conflation of morality with justice seems to have taken hold, in particular, with the articulation of the Washington Principles in 1998, which call on nation-states to create alternative dispute resolution processes for the fair and just resolution of Nazi-looted art claims. In determining what is fair and just in the resolution of these looted art claims, regard is often made to the strength of a party’s moral claim to the property. The exercise of notions of morality is often seen as resulting in a fair and just outcome, linking morality with the fair and just solution of such cultural property claims. But, it is justice on what ground? Is morality the proper yardstick by which to determine whether outcomes of restitution claims are just and fair? This article explores the use of morality and offers an argument that it should not be the basis on which entitlement should be determined, primarily due to its amorphous nature and undefined relationship to justice. This is further supported by a claimant narrative suggesting that concepts of reconciliation and procedural fairness are of concern to claimants rather than recognition of moral entitlement. Having regard to these concerns, the article recognizes a need for a new conceptual framework from which to assess the delivery of the just and fair solution and that reflects these concerns.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Atkinson, Logan. 2002–3. “The Birth of the Ought: Evolution, Moral Choice and the Hobbesian Myth.” Ottawa Law Review 34: 307–18.Google Scholar
Bandle, Anne Laure, and Theurich, Sarah. 2011. “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Art-Law: A New Research Project of the Geneva Art-Law Centre.” Journal of International Communication Law and Technology 6, no. 1: 2841.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Leonard and Walker, Nigel. 1967. “Law and Moral Judgments. Sociometry 30, no. 4: 410–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowrey, Kathy. 2016. “Review of Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums—And Why They Should Stay There.” Indigenous Law Bulletin 8, no. 25: 2021.Google Scholar
Burris, Donald S. 2016. “From Tragedy to Triumph in the Pursuit of Looted Art: Altmann, Benningson, Portrait of Wally, Von Saher and Their Progeny.” John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law 15: 394434.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2014. “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Restitution Claims and the Binding Expert Opinion Procedure of the Dutch Restitutions Committee.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market: Ethical and Legal Issues , edited by Vadi, Valentina and Schneider, Hildegard E. G. S., 6191. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campfens, Evelien, ed. 2015. Fair and Just Solutions: Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2017. “Nazi-Looted Art: A Note in Favour of Clear Standards and Neutral Procedures.” Art Antiquity and Law 22, no. 4: 315–45.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2019. “The Bangwa Queen: Artifact or Heritage?International Journal of Cultural Property 26, no. 1: 75110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chechi, Alessandro. 2013. “Plurality and Coordination of Dispute Settlement Methods in the Field of Cultural Heritage.” In Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law, edited by Francioni, Francesco and Gordley, James, 177205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chechi, Alessandro. 2014. The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes . Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarsin, Bert. 2010. “The Third Time Is Not Always a Charm: The Troublesome Legacy of a Dutch Art Dealer: The Limitation and Act of State Defenses in Looted Art Cases.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 28: 255316.Google Scholar
Demarsin, Bert. 2011. “Let’s Not Talk about Terezín: Restitution of Nazi Era Looted Art and the Tenuousness of Public International Law.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 37: 117–85.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1997. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2012. “Justice and the Cultural Heritage Movement: Using Environmental Justice to Appraise Art and Antiquities Disputes.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 20: 4395.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2013a. “The Parthenon Sculptures and Cultural Justice.” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 23: 9431016.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2013b. “Social Norms and Illicit Cultural Heritage.” In Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law, edited by Francioni, Francesco and Gordley, James, 206–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, John. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frankel, Simon J., and Forrest, Ethan. 2013. “Museums’ Initiation of Declaratory Judgment Actions and Assertion of Statutes of Limitations in Response to Nazi-Era Art Restitution Claims: A Defense.” DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law 23: 279337.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon. 1969. The Morality of Law, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gert, Bernard. 1999. “Morally Relevant Features.” Metaphilosophy 30, no. 1–2: 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, Bernard, and Gert, Joshua. 2017. “The Definition of Morality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/morality-definition/ (accessed 16 December 2018).Google Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. Toronto: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gonthier, Charles D. 2003. “Law and Morality.” Queen’s Law Journal 29: 408–23.Google Scholar
Graefe, Emily A. 2010. “The Conflicting Obligations of Museums Possessing Nazi-Looted Art.” Boston College Law Review 51: 473515.Google Scholar
Green, Leslie. 2013. “Should Law Improve Morality?Criminal Law and Philosophy 7: 473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1997. The Concept of Law . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, Rebecca. 2017. “Formation of Procedural Justice Judgments in Legal Negotiations.” Group Decision and Negotiation 26: 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Tiffany. 2016. Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums—And Why They Should Stay There . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kedar, Ronit Donyets. 2011. “The Unrecognized Dominance of Law in Morality: The Case of Promises.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24: 79108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2007. “Reconciling Individual and Group Justice with the Need for Repose in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Creation of an International Tribunal.” Brooklyn Law Review 73: 155216.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2008. “The Holocaust, Museum Ethics and Legalism.” Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice 18, no. 1: 143.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2009. “The New Battleground of Museum Ethics and Holocaust-Era Claims: Technicalities Trumping Justice or Responsible Stewardship for the Public Trust?Oregon Law Review 88: 3793.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2011. “Guarding the Historical Record from the Nazi-Era Art Litigation Tumbling toward the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159: 253–70.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2016. “The ‘Public Trust.’” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 18: 1425–78.Google Scholar
Markowitz, Sam. 2012. “A Meteorite and a Lost City: Mutually Beneficial Solutions through Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 219–50.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1985. “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles.” Michigan Law Review 83, no. 8: 18811923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1986. “Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property.” American Journal of International Law 80: 831–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1989. “The Public Interest in Cultural Property.” California Law Review 77: 339–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1998. “Cultural Property Ethics.” International Journal of Cultural Property 7, no. 1: 2131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 2005. “Cultural Property Internationalism.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12: 1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messer, Kirsten. 2008. “Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Memory of the Holocaust at War with a Survivor.” Northern Kentucky Law Review 35: 1935.Google Scholar
Moser, Stephanie. 2017. “Review of Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums—And Why They Should Stay There.” Journal of the History of Collections 29, no. 3: 528–30.Google Scholar
Mullery, Jessica. 2010. “Fulfilling the Washington Principles: A Proposal for Arbitration Panels to Resolve Holocaust-Era Art Claims.” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 11: 643–74.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. B., Patel, N. A., and Rosner, J.. 2017. “‘Ahead of the Lawmen’: Law and Morality in Disney Animated Films 1960–1998.” Law, Culture and the Humanities 13, no. 1: 104–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nudelman, Maria. 2015. “Who Owns the Scythian Gold? The Legal and Moral Implications of Ukraine and Crimea’s Cultural Dispute.” Fordham International Law Journal 38: 1261–97.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Mary Ellen. 2008. “Beyond Wealth: Stories of Art, War, and Greed.” Alabama Law Review 59: 10751105.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Thérèse. 2011. “The Restitution of Holocaust Looted Art and Transitional Justice: The Perfect Storm or the Raft of the Medusa?European Journal of International Law 22, no. 1: 4980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Manique, John. 2003. The Origins of Justice: The Evolution of Morality, Human Rights, and Law . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Oost, Tabitha I. 2012. In an Effort to Do Justice? Restitution Policies and the Washington Principles. Amsterdam: Centre of Art, Law and Policy.Google Scholar
Oost, Tabitha I. 2018. “Restitution Policies on Nazi-looted Art in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: A Change from a Legal to a Moral Paradigm?International Journal of Cultural Property 25, no. 2: 139–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2001. “Repatriation and Deaccessioning of Cultural Property: Reflections on the Resolution of Art Disputes.” Current Legal Problems 54, no. 1: 477532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2015. “The Best We Can Do?—Exploring a Collegiate Approach to Holocaust-related Claims.” In Campfens, Fair and Just Solutions?, 153–86.Google Scholar
Pauer-Studer, Herlinde. 2012. “Law and Morality under Evil Conditions: The SS Judge Konrad Morgen.” Jurisprudence 3, no. 2: 367–90.Google Scholar
Perry, Michael J. 2000. “What Is Morality Anyway?Villanova Law Review 45, no. 1: 69105.Google Scholar
Plachta, Michael. 2019. “European Parliament Adopts Resolution on Cross-Border Restitution Claims of Works of Art and Cultural Goods.” International Enforcement Law Reporter 35, no. 1: 1113.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
Renold, Marc-Andre. 2015. “Cultural Co-ownership: Preventing and Solving Cultural Property Claims.” International Journal of Cultural Property 22, no. 2–3: 163–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renold, Marc-Andre, and Chechi, Alessandro. 2015. “Just and Fair Solutions: An Analysis of International Practice and Trends.” In Campfens, Fair and Just Solutions?, 187200.Google Scholar
Reppas, Michael J. 2007. “Empty ‘International’ Museums’ Trophy Cases of Their Looted Treasures and Return Stolen Property to the Countries of Origin and the Rightful Heirs of Those Wrongfully Dispossessed.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 36: 93123.Google Scholar
Reyhan, Patricia Y. 2001. “A Chaotic Palette: Conflict of Laws in Litigation Between Original Owners and Good-faith Purchasers of Stolen Art.” Duke Law Journal 50: 9551153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roodt, Christa. 2013. “State Courts or ADR in Nazi-era Art Disputes: A Choice ‘More Apparent Than Real’?Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 421–63.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, Thomas K. 1999. “The Murals of Teotihuacan: A Case Study of Negotiated Restitution.” In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property?, edited by Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, 73–84. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Sevier, Justin. 2014. “The Truth-Justice Tradeoff: Perceptions of Decisional Accuracy and Procedural Justice in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems.” Psychology, Public Policy and Law 20: 212–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shyllon, F. 2015. “Restitution of Antiquities to Sub-Saharan Africa: The Booty and Captivity: A Study of Some of the Unsuccessful Efforts to Retrieve Cultural Objects Purloined in the Age of Imperialism in Africa.” Art Antiquity and Law 20, no. 4: 369–84.Google Scholar
Skinner, Katharine N. 2013. “Restituting Nazi-Looted Art: Domestic, Legislative, and Binding Intervention to Balance the Interests of Victims and Museums.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 15: 673712.Google Scholar
Soltes, Ori Z. 2016. “Cultural Plunder and Restitution and Human Identity.” John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law 15: 460–71.Google Scholar
Thompson, Erin L. 2011. “Cultural Losses and Cultural Gains: Ethical Dilemmas in WWII-Looted Art Repatriation Claims Against Public Institutions.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 33: 407–41.Google Scholar
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation. Vol. 6. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1988. “What Is Procedural Justice: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures.” Law and Society Review 22: 103–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veraart, Wouter. 2015. “Between Justice and Legal Closure: Looted Art Claims and the Passage of Time.” In Campfens, Fair and Just Solutions?, 211–21.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Warren, Karen J. 1999. “A Philosophical Perspective on the Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Property Issues.” In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property?, edited by Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, 126. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Weller, Matthias. 2015. “Key Elements of Just and Fair Solutions: The Case for a Restatement of Restitution Principles.” In Campfens, Fair and Just Solutions?, 201–10.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2014. “Redressing Historic Wrongs, Returning Objects to Their Rightful Owners or Laundering Tainted Objects? 21st-Century UK Remedies for Nazi-era Injustices.” International Journal of Cultural Property 21, no. 2: 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2015. “The Changing Tide of Title to Cultural Heritage Objects in UK Museums.” International Journal of Cultural Property 22, no. 2–3: 229–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2016. “Putting in Place Solutions for Nazi Era Dispossessions of Cultural Objects: the UK Experience.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23, no. 4: 385406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 33
Total number of PDF views: 253 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th December 2019 - 19th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-tmbpq Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2021-01-19T19:20:11.443Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Conflation of Morality and “the Fair and Just Solution” in the Determination of Restitution Claims Involving Nazi-Looted Art: An Unsatisfactory Premise in Need of Change
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Conflation of Morality and “the Fair and Just Solution” in the Determination of Restitution Claims Involving Nazi-Looted Art: An Unsatisfactory Premise in Need of Change
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Conflation of Morality and “the Fair and Just Solution” in the Determination of Restitution Claims Involving Nazi-Looted Art: An Unsatisfactory Premise in Need of Change
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *