48 No. 77 JUSTICE Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art,”5 which have since been signed by 35 States. Nevertheless, it was essentially left to the participating States to implement these principles in their respective jurisdictions. In the years following 1998, five of the 42 States took broader national measures and created special dispute resolution bodies, each with its own structure.6 Switzerland is currently endeavoring to set up a corresponding body,7 as is Israel.8 None of the other signatory States, including the U.S., have taken any such steps.9 III. Implementation of the Washington Principles in Germany In Germany, the State that bears historical responsibility for the Holocaust, the 1999 “Joint Declaration,”10 a non-binding political agreement between the federal government, the federal states and the municipal umbrella organizations (“kommunale Spitzenverbände”), laid the foundations for the implementation of the Washington Principles. At the same time, the German federal government presented a “Manual” (“Handreichung”) for provenance research, including “Guidelines” (“Orientierungshilfe”) for decision-making by current holders of affected objects.11 In 2003, in implementation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Washington Principles, a further non-binding political agreement established the “Advisory Commission on the return of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, especially Jewish property” (“Beratende Kommission im Zusammenhang mit der Rückgabe NSverfolgungsbedingt entzogenen Kulturguts, insbesondere aus jüdischem Besitz”). Commonly referred to as the “Advisory Commission on Nazi-looted Property” (“Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut”),12 it was initially chaired 5. U.S. Department of State, “Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” (March 5, 2024), available at https://www.state.gov/office-of-the-special-envoy-for-holocaust-issues/best-practices-for-thewashington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art 6. These are the “Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut” in Germany, the “Kunstrückgabebeirat” in Austria, the “Commission pour la restitution des biens et de l'indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites” (CIVS) in France, the “Restitutiecommissie” in the Netherlands and the “Spoliation Advisory Panel” in the United Kingdom. For short assessments of the state of implementation in all participating States, see WJRO/Claims Conference, “Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide Overview” (compiled by Wesley Fisher and Ruth Weinberger, Washington, March 5, 2024). 7. The Swiss Federal Council decided to establish the “Unabhängige Kommission für historisch belastetes Kulturerbe” (“Independent Commission for Historically Contaminated Cultural Heritage”) in an ordinance that came into force on Jan. 1, 2024. On this Commission‘s features, see Uhlmann, Country Report Switzerland, in: Weller et al. (eds.), STUDIE ZUR STÄRKUNG DER BERATENDEN KOMMISSION [International Study on the Strengthening of the German Advisory Commission], Bonn 2024, 303-329, ¶ 13 et seq., available at https://kulturstaatsminister.de/fileadmin/user_ upload/Downloads/BKM/2024-04-05-bkm-studie-weller.pdf (The Study contains an English summary, at 198 et seq.). 8. Amnon Lehavi, Country Report Israel, in Weller et al., supra note 7, at 227-247, ¶ 30 et seq. 9. There are no “commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues” in the sense of Article 10 Washington Principles, nor is there any form of institutionalized “alternative dispute resolution” in the sense of Article 11 Washington Principles. Rather, claimants need to resort to litigation before State courts. Certain legislative measures seek to support their claims, however, their impact and scope appear limited. The latest reform of the Holocaust Expropriation Art Recovery Act 2025 was long stalled in Congress, but was eventually signed into law on April 13, 2026; available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119thcongress/senate-bill/1884 10. See https://kulturgutverluste.de/kontexte/ns-raubgut 11. The German Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, Manual on the implementation of the Declaration of the Federal Government, the Länder and the municipal umbrella organizations on the tracing and restitution of cultural property seized as a result of Nazi persecution, in particular from Jewish property of December 1999, revised version 2019, “Handreichung 2019” (German); there is an official English translation, but it differs considerably from the German authoritative version. Therefore, this text refers to the German version and the translation is by the author. On Nov. 28, 2025, the German Government released an updated version that reflects the reform discussed here; see https:// kulturstaatsminister.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Aufarbeiten/Verwaltungsabkommen_Schiedsgerichtbarkeit/2025Handreichung-NS-Raubgut-bf-final.pdf; this latest “Handreichung” will be referred to as “Handreichung 2025.” 12. Cf. supra note 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=