Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T07:36:08.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redressing Historic Wrongs, Returning Objects to Their Rightful Owners or Laundering Tainted Objects? 21st-Century UK Remedies for Nazi-Era Injustices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2014

Charlotte Woodhead
Charlotte Woodhead*
Affiliation:
Warwick Law School, University of Warwick, UK. Email: c.c.woodhead@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel hears claims for cultural objects held in museum collections of which their original owners lost possession during the Nazi era. The Panel aims to achieve “fair and just” solutions for the parties and was created in response to the strong impetus to return cultural objects lost by Jewish owners during the Nazi era. This article argues that understanding the rationale for this claims process and the choice of remedies is essential for achieving such just and fair solutions, specifically whether the Panel aims to redress the past injustices of Hitler’s tyranny, return objects to their “rightful owners,” or prevent the public’s unjust enrichment from access to objects “tainted” by their Nazi association. If it aims to return cultural objects to their rightful owners or to strip museums of unjust gains, it is only a small step to allowing moral claims by other claimant groups whose cultural objects reside in national museums.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 113 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. “Binding Opinion in the Dispute on Restitution of the Painting Entitled Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Bernardo Strozzi from the Estate of Richard Semmel, Currently Owned by Museum de Fundatie.” Case Number RC 3.128. http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/recommendations/recommendation_rc_3128.html (25 April 2013; accessed 16 January 2014.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. “Binding Opinion in the Dispute on Restitution of the Painting The Landing Stage by van Maarten Fransz van der Hulst from the Estate of Richard Semmel, Currently Owned by Stichting Kunstbezit en Oudheden Groninger Museum. Case Number RC 3.126. http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/recommendations/recommendation_rc_3126.html (25 April 2013; accessed 16 January 2014.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. “Binding Opinion Regarding the Dispute about the Return of the Painting Madonna and Child with Wild Roses by Jan van Scorel from the Collection of Richard Semmel, Currently in the Possession of Utrecht City Council.” Case Number RC 3.131. http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/recommendations/recommendation_rc_3131.html (25 April 2013; accessed 16 January 2014).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. “Procedure in Binding Opinion Cases.”http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/procedure_in_binding_opinion_cases.html (accessed 3 December 2013).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. “Recommendation Regarding Glaser.” Case Number RC 1.99. http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/recommendations/recommendation_199.html (4 October 2010; accessed 1 December 2013).Google Scholar
Atkinson, Henry. “The Meanings and Values of Repatriation.” The Long Way Home: The Meaning and Values of Repatriation, edited by Turnbull, Paul and Pickering, Michael, 15–19. New York: Berghahn Books, 2010.Google Scholar
Bator, Paul M. International Trade in Art. London: University of Chicago Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Bazyler, M. J. Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts. London: New York University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Bazyler, M. J., and Alford, R. P., eds. Holocaust Restitution: Perspectives on the Litigation and Its Legacy. London: New York University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Birks, P. Unjust Enrichment, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Law Series, Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Kristen A., Katyal, Sonia K., and Riley, Angela R.. “In Defense of Property.” Yale Law Journal 118 (2009): 1022–25.Google Scholar
Clare, Maurice, and Turnor, Richard. “The Export Licensing Rules in the United Kingdom and the Waverley Criteria.” International Journal of Cultural Property 1 (1992): 273–96.Google Scholar
Commission for Looted Art in Europe. Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues. http://www.holocausteraassets.eu/en/news-archive/detail/terezin-declaration/ (June 2009; accessed 22 March 2013).Google Scholar
Commission for Looted Art in Europe. Vilnius Forum Declaration. http://www.lootedartcommission.com/vilnius-forum (October 2000; accessed 22 March 2013).Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. “The Holocaust, ‘Thefticide’ and Restitution: A Legal Perspective.” Cardozo Law Review 20 (1998): 601–23.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (CoE) Resolution 1205 on Looted Jewish Cultural Property, November 1999.Google Scholar
Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS). Restitution of Objects Spoliated in the Nazi-Era: A Consultation Document. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2006.Google Scholar
Department of National Heritage. Treasures in Trust: A Review of Museum Policy. London: Department of National Heritage, 1996.Google Scholar
Edsel, Robert M., and Witter, Brett. The Monuments Men: Allied Heros, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. London: Preface, 2009.Google Scholar
Eizenstat, S. E. Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor and the Unfinished Business of World War II. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.Google Scholar
Ekkart Committee. “Recommendations Regarding the Restitution of Works of Art.” The Hague, The Netherlands: Supervisory Committee, Origins Unknown. http://www.herkomstgezocht.nl/eng/rapportage/index.html (April 2001: accessed 1 December 2013).Google Scholar
Feliciano, Hector. “The Great Cultural Robbery: The Plunder of Jewish-Owned Art.” In The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust, edited by Beker, A.. Houndmills, 164–176. Palgrave, 2001.Google Scholar
Feliciano, Hector. The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World’s Greatest Works of Art. New York: Basic Books, 1997.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. “The Distinctiveness of Property and Heritage.” Penn State Law Review 115 (2011): 641–84.Google Scholar
Goff, Robert, and Jones, Gareth. The Law of Restitution, 7th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Charles A., and Weitz, Yael. “Claim by Museums of Public Trusteeship and Their Response to Restitution Claims: A Self-Serving Attempt to keep Holocaust-Looted Art.” Art Antiquity and Law 16 (2011): 215–224.Google Scholar
House of Commons Library. “Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill: Committee Stage Report.” Bill No. 111, Research Paper 09/59, UK Parliament, 23 June 2009.Google Scholar
International Council of Museums (ICOM). ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris: ICOM, 2013.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Michael J. “The End of the War and the Occupation of Germany, 1944–52. Laws and Conventions Enacted to Counter German Appropriations: The Allied Control Council.” In The Spoils of War, edited by Simpson, Elizabeth, 112–116. New York: Abrams, 1997.Google Scholar
MacDonald, David B. “Daring to Compare: The Debate about a Maori ‘Holocaust’ in New Zealand.” Journal of Genocide Research 5, no. 3 (2003): 383–403.Google Scholar
Museums Association. Britain Thinks: Public Perceptions of—and Attitudes to—the Purposes of Museums in Society. London: Museums Association, 2013.Google Scholar
Museums Association Ethics Committee. Ethical Guidelines 1: Acquisition: Guidance on the Ethics and Practicalities of Acquisition, 2nd ed. London: Museums Association. http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=11114 (2004; accessed 16 January 2014).Google Scholar
National Museums Directors’ Conference. Loans between National and Non-national Museums: New Standards and Practical Guidelines. London: National Museum Directors’ Conference, 2003.Google Scholar
National Museums Directors’ Conference. Statement of Principles and Proposed Actions on Spoliation of Works during the Holocaust and World War II Period. London: National Museum Directors’ Conference, 1998.Google Scholar
Nicholas, Lynn. The Rape of Europa. London: Macmillan, 1994.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Thérèse. “The Restitution of Holocaust Looted Art and Transitional Justice: The Perfect Storm or the Raft of Medusa?” European Journal of International Law 22 (2011): 49–80.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. Museums and the Holocaust. Leicester: IAL, 2000.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. “Spoliation and Holocaust-Related Cultural Objects: Legal and Ethical Models for the Resolution of Claims.” Art Antiquity and Law 12 (2007): 1–16.Google Scholar
Paterson, Robert K. “Resolving Material Culture Disputes: Human Rights, Property Rights and Crimes against Humanity.” Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution 14 (2006): 155–74.Google Scholar
Pickering, Michael. “Despatches from the Front Line? Museum Experiences in Applied Repatriation.” In The Long Way Home: The Meaning and Values of Repatriation, edited by Turnbull, Paul and Pickering, Michael, 163–174. New York: Berghahn Books, 2010.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. “International Control of Illicit Movement of the Cultural Heritage: The 1970 UNESCO Convention and Some Possible Alternatives.” Syracuse International Law and Commerce 10 (1983): 333–51.Google Scholar
Range, Daniel. “Deaccessioning and Its Costs in the Holocaust Art Context: The United States and Great Britain.” Texas International Law Journal 39 (2003–2004): 655–73.Google Scholar
Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. “Cultural Objects: Developments since 2000.” First Report, HC 59, 2003–2004.Google Scholar
Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. “Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade.” Seventh Report, HC 371-I, 1999–2000.Google Scholar
Simpson, Moira G. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era, rev. ed. Routledge: London, 2001.Google Scholar
Thompson, Janna. Taking Responsibility for the Past: Reparation and Historical Justice. Cambridge: Polity, 2002.Google Scholar
UK Arts Council. UK Export Licensing for Cultural Goods: Procedures and Guidance for Exporters of Works of Art and Other Cultural Goods. London: UK Arts Council, 2012.Google Scholar
UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Paris, adopted 14 November 1970; entered into force 24 April 1972.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. “Redressing Historic Injustice.” University of Toronto Law Journal 52 (2002): 135–59.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. “Superseding Historic Injustice.” Ethics 103 (1992) 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Vivian F. “Whose Responsibility? The Waverley System, Past and Present.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 227–69.Google Scholar
Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. Principles with Respect to Nazi-Confiscated Art. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/hlcst/122038.htm (accessed 22 April 2014).Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. “Moral Claims against Museums.” International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 2, no. 2 (2009): 1–12.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. “Nazi Era Spoliation: Establishing Procedural and Substantive Principles.” Art Antiquity and Law 18 (2013): 167–92.Google Scholar