Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art
On December 3rd 1998, 44 governments and 13 non-governmental organizations from all over the world came together to formulate the notions presented by the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, agreeing to make every possible effort to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis.
We, as the members of Law for the Fine Arts Association, had the opportunity to join the “Conference on Washington Principles” held by Center for Art Law[1] on the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the principles. We listened to Peter J. Toren’s first-hand experience[2], who litigated on behalf of his family on a case involving stolen art, and we learnt from Jennifer Kreder’s professional perspective. To these two guests, Irina Tarsis contributed as moderator.
The event provided us with the chance to familiarize with various cases concerning Nazi looted art. The first was Menzel v. List, which was presented to court on 26 February 1969 and, regarding which, conflicts still stand. Other famous cases followed: U.S. v. Portrait of Wally[3], Republic of Austria v. Altman[4], Toren’s case and, in 2019, Reif v. Nagy[5].
The Washington Principles were relevant as they adjusted the way in which claims could be formulated: by establishing eleven notions as the reference point for all signing parties, they encouraged governments to implement these principles to identify and return stolen art pieces. Nonetheless, we are still not able to resolve all the issues regarding this sore topic and courts still fail to restore the families affected.
What is this challenge caused by? What are the obstacles that have made it difficult for heirs of Holocaust victims to receive monetary compensation or to recover their lost works of art? Is it the inevitable memory obfuscation that makes research so complex? Or is it the loss of evidence with time? Or does the problem have to do with the conflicting judicial systems that may be involved? Or are we, instead, facing opportunistic behaviors? Have the Washington Principles been effective? How does the situation reflect upon the wars going on now and will we be able to bring solutions to the future art disputes that will arise from them? Why are the States involved not collaborative sometimes? What is the role of the press? Is there an issue of internalized racism? All of these questions were discussed during this panel and allowed us to broaden our perspectives on this ever-inclusive subject that is strictly intertwined with history, generational grief, international conflicts, and economic matters.
As mentioned above, this subject raises numerous questions and consequently, a variety of opinions. However, one thing everyone can agree on is the importance of sustaining awareness around this issue. The problem of Nazi-confiscated art will still be relevant in the upcoming 25 years, given that many artworks still haven’t been returned to their rightful owners and others have still not been found. As pointed out during the conference, even if this issue were to be entirely solved (which is an overly optimistic and unrealistic hypothesis), the notions discussed during the Washington Conference would still be relevant. Moreover, this is an ever-present issue, given the current ongoing wars: with war comes looting and, with looting, comes stolen history, culture and many legal conflicts. As pointed out by Irina Tarsis, “if we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it”.
As the Law for Fine Arts community, we recognize the cultural and juridical magnitude of the issue of Nazi confiscated art. We are grateful to the Center for Art Law for presenting and informing on this topic and its related concerns.
Author: Idil Ulcuay.
Editor: Vittoria Coffrini Dell'Orto.
Citations:
[1] Non-profit organization that conducts research and offers resources and programming for the advancement of a vibrant arts and law community (https://itsartlaw.org/).
[2] “The Torens’ Case to Recover Nazi-Looted Family Art Collection & the Current Restitution Landscape.” Center for Art Law, May 30, 2023. https://itsartlaw.org/2023/02/17/the-torens-case-to-recover-nazi-looted-family-art-collection-the-current-restitution-landscape/.
[3] Michael B. Mukasey, United States District Judge. “U.S. v. Portrait of Wally, a Painting by Egon Schiele.” Legal research tools from Casetext, April 11, 2002. https://casetext.com/case/us-v-portrait-of-wally-a-painting-by-egon-schiele.
[4] “Republic of Austria v. Altman, 541 U.S. 677 (2004).” Justia Law. Accessed December 12, 2023. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/677/.
[5] Singh, J. “Reif v. Nagy.” Legal research tools from Casetext, July 9, 2019. https://casetext.com/case/reif-v-nagy-5.
