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

Bibliographic Data

ID4282918
AuthorsTabitha I Oost (0000-0002-0548-6383, University of Amsterdam, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume28
Issue1
Pages55-85
Publication date2021-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Property (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0940-7391 • E-ISSN: 1465-7317
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0940739121000072
OpenAlexW3175621569
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited12

This article considers the recent and vigorous critique of the Dutch restitution policy on Nazi-looted art in connection with the inclusion of what has been termed the "public interest" in the applicable substantive assessment framework. This assessment framework is entirely based on morally induced policy rules, and it allows the Dutch Restitutions Committee to advise on requests for restitution based on a weighing of interests, including the significance of the work to a museum or public art collection. Although one might question the appropriateness of such interests in a framework designed to remedy historic injustices, it remains to be seen whether this critique is entirely justified. Recent recommendations issued by the Dutch Restitutions Committee indicate that it takes a generous, rather than strict, approach when dealing with requests for restitution. All in all, it seems that both institutional and substantive vulnerability are inevitable if one embarks on a morally induced framework based on mere policy rules rather than legal rules

Inclusion (mineral · Law and economics · Nazism · Pariah group · Political science · Public interest · Restitution · Sociology · Vulnerability · Vulnerability (computing · Archaeological Research and Protection · Free Will and Agency · Legal principles and applications · Law

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access