Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:09:18.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting into Place Solutions for Nazi Era Dispossessions of Cultural Objects: The UK Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2016

Charlotte Woodhead
Charlotte Woodhead*
Affiliation:
Warwick Law School, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Since 2000, the United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel has provided an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving disputes surrounding Nazi era dispossessions of cultural objects. This article analyzes the way in which the panel has reached its recommendations and how they have been implemented. While the panel’s recommendations provide a means of resolving disputes in circumstances where litigation might fail a claimant, claimants may encounter difficulties should an institution fail to implement the recommended remedy because of the extra-judicial nature of the recommendations. This article therefore analyzes the effectiveness of the panel’s work in overcoming some of the shortcomings of litigation and the way in which the parties have put into effect the panel’s recommendations. Furthermore, suggestions are made for ways in which to ensure compliance with the recommendations even in the absence of judicial enforcement.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 23 , Special Issue 4: SPECIAL ISSUE: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Cultural Property Disputes: Merging Theory and Practice , November 2016 , pp. 385 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2016 

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

Barkan, Elazar. 2000. The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bazyler, Michael J., and Alford, Roger P.. 2006. “Introduction.” In Holocaust Restitution: Perspectives on the Litigation and Its Legacy, edited by Bazyler, Michael J. and Alford, Roger P., 1–13. London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2015. “Sources of Inspiration: Old and New Rules for Looted Art.” In Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 13–40. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. 1998. “The Holocaust, ‘Thefticide’ and Restitution: A Legal Perspective.” Cardozo Law Review 20, no. 2: 601–24.Google Scholar
Dugot, Monica S. 2006. “The Holocaust Claims Processing Office: New York State’s Approach to Resolving Holocaust-Era Art Claims.” In Holocaust Restitution: Perspectives on the Litigation and Its Legacy, edited by Bazyler, Michael J. and Alford, Roger P., 271–79. London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Ashton, Rothman, Richard A., and Goldstein, David B.. 1995. “A Tale of Two Innocents: Creating an Equitable Balance between the Rights of Former Owners and Good Faith Purchasers of Stolen Art.” Fordham Law Review 64, no. 1: 49–96.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Sir Paul. 2015. Independent Review of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/spoliation-advisory-panel#review-of-the-spoliation-advisory-panel (accessed 1 April 2016).Google Scholar
Legget, Jane. 2000. Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for Good Practice. London: Museums and Galleries Commission.Google Scholar
Marck, Annemarie, and Muller, Eelke. 2015. “National Panels Advising on Nazi-Looted Art in Austria, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany.” In Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 41–89. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Thérèse. 2011. “The Restitution of Holocaust Looted Art and Transitional Justice: The Perfect Storm or the Raft of Medusa?” European Journal of International Law 22, no 1: 49–80.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2000. Museums and the Holocaust. Leicester: IAL Publishing.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2015. “The Best We Can Do?: Exploring a Collegiate Approach to Holocaust-related Claims.” In Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 153–85. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, Jeremy. 2005. “War and Cultural Heritage: Return of a Beneventan Missal.” Art Antiquity and Law 10, no 3: 299–306.Google Scholar
Scovazzi, T. 2011. “The Return of the Benev. VI29 Missal to the Chapter Library of Benevento from the British Library.” Art Antiquity and Law 16, no. 4: 285–95.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2013. “Nazi Era Spoliation: Establishing Procedural and Substantive Principles.” Art Antiquity and Law 18, no. 2: 167–92.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.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2015a. “The Changing Tide of Title to Cultural Heritage Objects in UK Museums” International Journal of Cultural Property 22, nos. 2–3: 229–57.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2015b. “Not Merely Symbolic Restitution: Constable’s Beaching a Boat, Brighton.” Art Antiquity and Law 20, no. 3: 243–55.Google Scholar