Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:22:58.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restitution Policies on Nazi-Looted Art in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: A Change from a Legal to a Moral Paradigm?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2018

Tabitha I. Oost
Tabitha I. Oost*
Affiliation:
Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article considers the constant tension facing several national panels in their consideration of Nazi spoliation claims concerning cultural objects. It will argue that this tension results from a shift in paradigms in dealing with Nazi-related injustices—from a strictly legal paradigm to a new victim groups-oriented paradigm, where addressing and recognizing the suffering caused by the nature of past crimes is central. While these national panels originate from this new paradigm and embody the new venues found for dealing with Nazi-looted art claims, this paradigm change at the same time presents these panels with a predicament. It seems impossible to abandon the legalist paradigm completely when remedying historical injustices in the specific category of cultural objects. Through a comparison between the Dutch and United Kingdom (UK) systems, this article will illustrate from both an institutional and substantive perspective that these panels seem to oscillate between policy-based, morality-driven proceedings (new paradigm) and a legal emphasis on individual ownership issues and restitution in kind (old paradigm). This article addresses this tension in order to provide insights on how we could conceptually approach and understand current restitution cases concerning Nazi-looted art in the Netherlands and the UK.

Keywords

looted artrestitutionWW IIreparationsrestitution committeesADR
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 139 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2018 

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

Aalders, Gerard. 1999. Roof: De ontvreemding van joods bezit tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgever.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. 2002. “Report 2002.”http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/sites/default/files/report%202002.pdf (accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. 2011. “Report 2011.”http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/sites/default/files/Verslag%202011.pdf (accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. 2012. “Report 2012.” http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/sites/default/files/Report%202012.pdf (accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Restitution Applications for Items of Cultural Value and the Second World War. 2016. “Report 2016.”http://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/sites/default/files/Report%202016.pdf (accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Andrieu, Claire. 2007. “Two Approaches to Compensation in France: Restitution and Reparation.” In Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe, edited by Dean, Martin, Goshler, Constantin, and Ther, Philippe, 134–54. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Andrieu, Claire. 2011. “Post-war Restitution vs Present-Day Reparation in France: Towards the Disappearance of Legal and Political Dilemmas?” In The Post-war Restitution of Property Rights in Europe: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Veraart, Wouter and Winkel, Laurens, 11–19. Amsterdam: Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
Baily, Diggory, and Norbury, Luke. 2017. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation. 7th ed. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Barkan, Elazar. 2000. The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bazyler, Michael J. 2003. Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts. New York: New York 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, Micheal J. and Alford, Roger P., 1–13. London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
BodemannMichael, Y Michael, Y. 1996. Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bussemaker, Jet (former Minister of Education Culture and Science). 2015. “Foreword.” In Just and Fair Solutions: Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, ix–xi. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bureau Berenschot. 2015. “Een toekomstgericht restitutiebeleid: Over een duurzame, transparante en onomstreden organisatie rondom restituties.”https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2015/05/01/een-toekomstgericht-restitutiebeleid (accessed 26 March 2018).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, edited by Vadi, Valentina and Schneider, Hildegard, 61–91. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien, ed. 2015a. 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. 2015b. “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
Chechi, Alessandro. 2014a. The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chechi, Alessandro. 2014b. “The Gurlitt Hoard: An Appraisal of the Role of International Law with Respect to Nazi-Looted Art.” Italian Yearbook of International Law 23: 199–217.Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. 1998. “The Holocaust, ‘Thefticide’ and Restitution: A Legal Perspective.” Cardozo Law Review 20, no. 2: 601–23.Google Scholar
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2006. Restitution of Objects Spoliated in the Nazi-Era: A Consultation Document. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.Google Scholar
Edsel, Robert M., and Witter, Brett. 2009. The Monuments Men: Allied Heros, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. London: Preface.Google Scholar
Eizenstat, Stuart E. 2003. Imperfect Justice, Looted Assets, Slave Labor and the Unfinished Business of World War II. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Feliciano, Hector. 1995. Le Musée disparu: Enquête sur le pillage des oevres d’art en France par le Nazis. Paris: Austral.Google Scholar
Francini, Esther Tisa, Heuss, Anna, and Kreis, Georg. 2001. Fluchtgut-Raubgut: der Transfer von Kulturgütern in and über die Schweiz 1933–1945 und die Frage der Restitution. Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz-Zweiter Weltkrieg Bd 1. Zürich: Chronos.Google Scholar
Gerstenfeld, Manfred. 2008. “International Aspects of the Restitution Process in the Netherlands at the End of the Twentieth Century.” In The Dutch Intersection: The Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History, edited by Kaplan, Josef, 421–35. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Goschler, Constantin, and Ther, Phillipe, eds. 2003. Raub und Restitution: “Arisierung” und Rückerstattung des jüdischen Eigentums in Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag.Google Scholar
Goschler, Constantin. 2005. Schuld und Schulden: Die Politik der Wiedergutmachung für NS-Verfolgte seit 1945. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
Hellwege, Philip. 2016. “Precluding the Statute of Limitations: How to Deal with Nazi Looted Art after Cornelius Gurlitt.” Southwestern Journal for International Law 22, no. 1: 105–62.Google Scholar
Herkomst Gezocht/Origins Unknown. 2006. Eindrapportage Commissie Ekkart/Final Report Ekkart Committee. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Sir Paul. 2015. Independent Review of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415966/SAP_-_Final_Report.pdf (accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Kurtz, Michael J. 1997. “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, 112–16. New York: Abrams.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2008. “The Holocaust, Museum Ethics and Legalism.” Review of Law and Social Justice 18, no 1: 1–43.Google Scholar
Lubina, Katja. 2009. Contested Cultural Property: The Return of Nazi Spoliated Art and Human Remains from Public Collections. Maastricht: Self-published.Google Scholar
Marck, Annemarie, and Muller, Eelke. 2015. “National Panels Advising on Nazi-Looted Art in Austria, France, the United States, The Netherlands and Germany.” In Just and Fair 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
Mosimann, Peter, and Schönenberger, Beat, eds. 2015. Fluchtgut: Geschichte, Recht und Moral—Referate zur gleichnamigen Veranstaltung des Museums Oskar Reinhart in Winterthur vom 28. August 2014. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag.Google Scholar
Muller, Eelke, and Schretlen, Helen. 2002. Betwist Bezit: De Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit en de teruggave van roofkunst na 1945. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Munneke, S. A. J. 2012. “Hiërarchie van regelingen.” In Wetgeven: handboek voor de centrale en decentrale overheid, edited by Zijlstra, S. E., 71–98. Kluwer: Deventer.Google Scholar
Murphy, Nathan. 2010. “Splitting Images: Shared Value Settlements in Nazi-Era Art Restitution Claims.” Florida Entertainment Law Review 41, no. 3: 2–43.Google Scholar
Neumann, Klaus, and Thompson, Janna. 2015. “Introduction: Beyond the Legalist Paradigm.” In Historical Justice and Memory, edited by Neumann, Klaus and Thompson, Janna, 3–26. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Nicolas, Lynn. 1994. The Rape of Europe: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Thérèse. 2010. “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
Oost, Tabitha I. 2012. In an Effort to Do Justice: Restitution Policies and the Washington Principles. Amsterdam: Centre for Art Law and Policy.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2000. Museums and the Holocaust: Law, Principles and Practice. Leicester: IAL Publishing.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2001. “Repatriation and Deaccessioning of Cultural Property: Reflections on the Resolution of Art Disputes.” Current Legal Problems 54, no. 1: 477–532.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2007. “Spoliation and Holocaust Related Cultural Objects: Legal and Ethical Models for the Resolution of Claims.” Art, Antiquity and Law, 12, no. 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 2015. “The Best We Can Do? Exploring a Collegiate Approach to Holocaust-related Claims.” In Just and Fair Solutions. Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 153–86. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Peters, Robert. 2012. “Remedying Historical Injustice: Ethical and Historical Considerations in Returning Cultural Materials.” In Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New Developments in International Law, edited by Borelli, Sylvia and Lenzerini, Frederico, 141–56. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Petropoulos, Jonathan. 1996. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. 2004. “Responding to WWII Art Looting.” In Permanent Court of Arbitration/Peace Palace Papers: Resolution of Cultural Property Disputes, edited by International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 113–37. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Rebholz, Michael. 2015. “Recovery of Nazi-Related Art: Legal Aspects under German and US Law Exemplified by the Gurlitt Case.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 37, no. 2: 305–34.Google 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, no. 14: 421–63.Google Scholar
Ruppert, Christiaan. 2015. “Nederlandse akkoorden in 2000 over Joodse oorlogstegoeden.” BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review 130, no. 3: 50–71.Google Scholar
Ruppert, Christiaan. 2017. Eindelijk Restitutie: De totstandkoming van Nederlandse akkoorden over Joodse oorlogstegoeden (1997–2000). Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
Schöneberger, Beat. 2009. The Restitution of Cultural Assets: Causes of Action-Obstacles to Restitution-Developments. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag.Google Scholar
Unfried, Berthold. 2014. Vergangenes Unrecht, Entschädigung und Restitution in einer globalen Perspektive. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
Van Velten, Aart A. 2006. “Juridische verwikkelingen rond de voormalige collectie Goudstikker.” Weekblad voor Privaatrecht Notariaat en Registratie no. 6660: 259–61.Google Scholar
Venema, Adriaan. 1986. Kunsthandel in Nederland 1940–1945. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.Google Scholar
Veraart, Wouter. 2005. Ontrechting en rechtsherstel in Nederland en Frankrijk in de jaren van bezetting en wederopbouw. Rotterdam: Sanders Instituut and Kluwer.Google Scholar
Veraart, Wouter. 2011. “Contrasting Legal Concepts of Restitution in France and the Netherlands.” In The Post-War Restitution of Property Rights in Europe: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Veraart, W. and Winkel, Laurens, 21–34. Amsterdam: Scientia.Google Scholar
Veraart, Wouter. 2015. “Between Justice and Legal Closure: Looted Art Claims and the Passage of Time.” In Just and Fair Solutions: Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 211–22. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Veraart, Wouter. 2016. “Two Rounds of Postwar Restitution and Dignity Restoration in the Netherlands and France.” Law and Social Inquiry 41, no. 4: 956–72.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 Mauch Messenger, Phyllis, 1–26. Alberquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Weller, Matthias. 2015. “Key Elements of Just and Fair Solutions.” In Just and Fair Solutions: Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes: Status Quo and New Developments, edited by Campfens, Evelien, 201–10. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2013. “Nazi-Era Spoliation: Establishing Procedural and Substantive Principles.” Art Antiquity and Law 18, no. 2: 167–93.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2014. “Redressing Historic Wrongs, Returning Objects to Their Rightful Owners or Laundering Tainting Objects? 21st-Century UK Remedies for Nazi-Era Injustices.” International Journal of Cultural Property 21, nos. 2–3: 113–42.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Charlotte. 2016. “Putting into Place Solutions for Nazi Era Dispossessions of Cultural Objects: The UK Experience.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23, no. 4: 385–406.Google Scholar