Assessing the moral strength of Holocaust art restitution claims
Charlotte Woodhead
School of Law, University of Warwick
The United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel hears claims relating to Second World War
spoliation of cultural objects. Moral rather than legal considerations are a key part of the
Panel’s recommendations since in all of the claims heard by the Panel so far the institutions
holding the objects have held valid legal title to them. Under the Panel’s terms of reference
and in the ethos of the Washington Conference Principles of 1998 it seeks to achieve a just
and fair solution for all the parties.
This paper will analyse recent recommendations of the Panel and in particular the different
aspects of the moral considerations. It will focus on the two primary considerations of the
Panel: the circumstances in which the pre-war owner lost possession of the object (the
immorality of deprivation) and any moral obligation of the institution in terms of the
circumstances in which they acquired the object (the immorality of acquisition). However,
other matters appear to influence the moral strength of the claimants’ claims or the remedy
which they receive. In cases where the claimants or their forbears received post-war
compensation the Panel also analyses any potential unjust enrichment of claimants were
the object to be returned or monetary recompense awarded. The public interest in the
cultural object is also a consideration when determining whether or not to return the object
rather than to make a financial award. These will also be discussed.
This paper will analyse how far the Panel’s decisions differ from those which would be based
on purely legal considerations (assuming the absence of statutes of limitation) and will make
some comparisons with similar panels set up abroad to deal with the restitution of spoliated
cultural objects.