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

Abstract

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.

Forensic Art History?

“…In adjudicating Nazi spoliation claims, Tabitha Oost argues that there is a paradigm shift underway, from property law to a model centered on victims' rights. The Netherlands and the UK have experimented with forming national panels to mediate between institutions and claimants seeking restitution, who might not otherwise have legal recourse (Oost 2018).…”

From “Leader to Pariah”? On the Dutch Restitutions Committee and the inclusion of the public interest in assessing Nazi-spoliated art claims

“…106 Article 4 of the Kunstrückgabegesetz furthermore provides an exemption 100 For example, see Letter of the State Secretary 2012, 4; Lewenstein/Amsterdam City Council Claim, para. 5.3 101 Weller 2015, 201-12;Campfens 2017, 315-47;Oost 2018. 102 Oost 2012, 15-16;Weller 2015, 201-12;Campfens 2017, 315-47.…”

Copies and Random Decision: a proposal to peacefully solve the conflict around looted art

“…This crime has been subject to a large literature (see e.g. Gaudenzi 2021, Oost 2018, Simpson 1997. Some of the stolen objects were immediately restituted after the war, some of them only in the course of time, and some not at all.…”