Restitution of Looted Art: What About Access to Justice?

Campfens, Evelien

doi:10.4467/2450050xsnr.18.024.10378

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For some of its supporters, the Act would assure foreign lenders to loan artworks to the US without the threat of being involved in legal proceedings before the US courts. 113 Others expressed the hope that the adoption of the Act would open the gates for Russian loans, which had been stalled after the ruling of Chabad. 114 On the other side of the coin, Ori Z. Soltes, Chair of the Holocaust Art Restitution Project, suggested that the Act would only hinder historic cases involving the Nazi-era, the Bolshevik and Cuban Revolutions, as well as impede claims concerning antiquities which had been recently plundered by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).…”

Section: Clarification Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential of the US Courts to Adjudicate Restitution Claims Involving Colonial Cultural Objects

Giorgallis

2022

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restitution claims involving colonial cultural objects are usually said to lack a sound legal basis. These claims are instead perceived more often than not as belonging solely in the realm of ethics. This article, however, calls that perception into question. It argues for the existence of a more complex picture. It does so by bringing to the forefront the potential of the US courts to adjudicate restitution claims concerning colonial cultural objects. By analysing the largely unexplored 1900 exception of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (2016), amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (1976) expropriation exception, this article posits that the exception might hold the key for offering an alternative road in accessing justice. Being applicable to takings of a systematic nature against members of a targeted and vulnerable group which have taken place after 1900, this provision might provide legal recourse for those colonial takings which have occurred after the dawn of the 20th century.

show abstract

Section: Clarification Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential of the US Courts to Adjudicate Restitution Claims Involving Colonial Cultural Objects

Giorgallis

2022

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 14 O’Donnell 2010, 55; Woodhead 2014, 128; 2016, 386; Campfens 2015b, 37. In this article, I understand by the term “restitution in kind,” restitution of the looted artwork itself, in contradistinction to other forms of restitution, such as restitution of a comparable artwork or replica or financial compensation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 57 See Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation and Control, 5 January 1943 “Note on Meaning, Scope and Application,” for the specific reference to “the stealing or forced purchase of works of art.” Looting in the Declaration also comprised transactions “apparently legal in form,” of course pertaining to forced sales, (accessed 26 March 2018). See also Palmer 2000, 60–62, 303–05; Campfens 2015b, 16–26.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Oost

2018

Int J Cult Prop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Whose Cultural Objects? Introducing Heritage Title for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Campfens

2020

Neth Int Law Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural objects have a special, protected, status because of their intangible ‘heritage’ value to people, as symbols of an identity. This has been so since the first days of international law and, today, there is an extensive legal framework to protect cultural objects and to prohibit looting. Despite this, for as long as demand exists and profits are high, cultural objects continue to be looted, smuggled and traded. At some point, their character tends to change from protected heritage in an original setting to valuable art and commodity in the hands of new possessors. In this new setting, the legal status of such objects most likely will be a matter of ownership and the private law regime in the country where they happen to end up. This article suggests that, irrespective of the acquired rights of others, original owners should still be able to rely on a ‘heritage title’ if there is a continuing cultural link. The term aims to capture the legal bond between cultural objects and people, distinct from ownership, and is informed by international cultural heritage and human rights law norms. The proposition is that, whilst ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, legal tools are lacking to address heritage interests and identity values that are acknowledged in international law. Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solve title issues over contested cultural objects. The notion of ‘heritage title’ in a human rights law approach can act as a bridge in that regard.

show abstract

Restitution of Looted Art: What About Access to Justice?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The Potential of the US Courts to Adjudicate Restitution Claims Involving Colonial Cultural Objects

The Potential of the US Courts to Adjudicate Restitution Claims Involving Colonial Cultural Objects

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

Whose Cultural Objects? Introducing Heritage Title for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About