By the end of World War II, around 150,000 pieces of art had been looted by Nazis in Western Europe and nearly 500,000 in Eastern Europe.¹ On March 5, 2024, a Foreign Press Centers (“FPC”) Briefing was held to honor the 25th anniversary of the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (the “Washington Principles”),² a groundbreaking international effort consisting of eleven (11) principles³ to address the restitution of artworks looted by the Nazis during World War II.⁴ Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, the Special Adviser to the Secretary of State Blinken on Holocaust Issues estimated in the FPC Briefing “that over 100,000 of the 600,000 paintings and many more” creative works that were stolen by Nazis have never been returned.⁵ Though forty-four (44) nations around the globe have endorsed these principles,⁶ the degree to which these principles have been implemented in each nation varies by a considerable amount.⁷ As Part I of a four-part series, this article delves into the Washington Principles that form the cornerstone of this pivotal agreement, the international response to modernizing the Washington Principles, and highlights the countries making the most progress in placing Nazi-looted art in the hands of its rightful owners or their heirs.

How the Washington Principles Have Been Implemented Thus Far

Since the Washington Principles were drafted, there have been other international responses to combat the problem of Nazi-confiscated art and cultural objects, including most notably, the 2009 Terezin Declaration (“Declaration”).⁸

While the Declaration incorporated the Washington Principles, it filled in some of the gaps in the Washington Principles by adding certain affirmations. For example, the Declaration includes the forced sales and sales under duress under the types of property seizures that must be rectified to cover people who were forced to sell their artworks to pay for visas in their attempt to flee Nazi-occupied Germany.⁹ Further, the Declaration urges governments to modify current restitution legislations to ensure various legal provisions do not impede the restitution of art and cultural property, whereas the Washington Principles do not urge the modification of laws.¹⁰ The Declaration also includes affirmations to address technological advancements in the 21^st Century that did not exist when the Washington Principles were created.¹¹ For example, the availability of information via the Internet enhances the reach of private and public institutions and aids in the Declaration’s and the Washington Principle’s goal to establish a central registry that contains historical information about Nazi-confiscated art.¹²

In conjunction with the FPC Briefing, the “Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi–Confiscated Art,” was released by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken¹³ and a report on “Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide Overview” (“Report”) analyzing how countries have implemented the Washington Principles and the 2009 Terezin Declaration¹⁴ was released by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (“WJRO”), showing the world’s present and continuous fight to rectify Nazi-confiscated art and other cultural objects.¹⁵ According to the report, of the forty-seven (47) countries that drafted or endorsed¹⁶ the Declaration, seven (7) have made major progress, and three (3) have made substantial progress.¹⁷ WRJO categorized the level of progress based on a rating system of the following factors: (i) has done historical research on the subject (albeit through a historical commission or otherwise); (ii) does provenance research on its collections; (iii) has a claims process (whether through its restitution commission or otherwise); and (iv) has made a substantial amount of restitutions.¹⁸

Countries Making “Major” Progress Against Nazi-Confiscated Art

According to the Report, the following seven (7) countries have made “major” progress in adhering to the Washington Principles and/or the Declaration: the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.¹⁹ At a high level, this rating is based on each country’s ability to adhere to the four (4) aforementioned factors.²⁰

United States – Since 2016, the U.S. has signed into law multiple acts to assist owners seeking to recover Holocaust expropriated art, including the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 and the Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2018.²¹ The U.S. has also partnered with Germany to bring together each country’s museum professionals who specialize in World War II-era provenance projects and create a network of museum and research specialists that will enhance each country’s provenance research.²² Though various states have modified their laws to abide by the Washington Principles and the Declaration,²³ choice of law may still pose a significant threat to the success the rightful owner or their heirs may have in the recovery of Nazi-confiscated art.²⁴

Austria – Since the end of World War II, Austria has enacted and updated several restitution laws and made various cultural initiatives through restitution committees such as the Historical Commission, the Commission for Provenance Research, and the Restitution Committee, to aid the rightful owners or their heirs in recovering Nazi-confiscated art.²⁵ Since 1998, Austria’s Art Restitution Advisory Board has been responsible for returning over 67,800 Nazi-looted creative works to their rightful owners or heirs and 13,100 Nazi-confiscated objects to the National Fund of the Republic of Austria for Victims of National Socialism where there was no owner or heir.²⁶ Unfortunately, these recommendations are limited to the information that is available and some private entities in Austria continue to withhold provenance information.²⁷

United Kingdom – the UK has established advisory bodies like the Spoliation Advisory Panel (“Panel”) to assess and advise on restitution claims.²⁸ Though the Panel’s advice is not binding, it has always been adopted by the UK Parliament, which has resulted in either the return of 23 cultural objects or compensation to their owners or heirs from the 20 claims the Panel has advised on since 2000.²⁹ The UK also has one full-time post for Nazi-era provenance research at the Victoria & Albert Museum in England,³⁰ which was the first museum in the world to establish a dedicated Research Department.³¹

The Czech Republic – It was the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic who invited representatives from 46 states to convene in Terezin and participate in the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference, which ultimately resulted in the Declaration.³² Before the Declaration and the Washington Principles, the Czech Republic had already enacted a restitution law that invalidated all transfers of public and private property that occurred after September 29, 1938, based on race or politics.³³ In 2012, the Czech Ministry of Culture also established the Documentation Centre for Property Transfers of the Cultural Assets of WWII Victims, which conducts historical research on legal and administrative mechanisms of Nazi-confiscated art and assists claimants with their restitution claims.³⁴

France – In 1944, France established the Commission for Art Recovery, responsible for the repatriation of an estimated 45,000 objects to their original owners.³⁵ Since the creation of the Washington Principles, France established the Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Spoliation,³⁶ which has the authority to provide recommendations to the Prime Minister and has recommended roughly $59 million to compensate victims or the heirs of victims for theft and forced sale of cultural property.³⁷ The digitization of archives in France has aided the country’s efforts in the transparency of provenance research with over 4,000 archival files and over 2 million archival pages.³⁸

Germany – Since the Washington Principles were published, over 31,928 Nazi-looted works were restituted in Germany.³⁹ In 2018, Germany committed to federally fund art museums to further Nazi-confiscated art research⁴⁰ and in 2020 established the Koordinationsstelle für Provenienzforschung in Nordrhein-Westfalen, which serves as the country’s contact point for provenance questions.⁴¹ While Germany’s efforts to improve its provenance and historical research have been successful,⁴² less than 5% of its museums are conducting provenance research and only about 3% of the 10,447 artworks in its Lost Art Database have been restituted,⁴³ which is likely the result of the Commission’s legal inability to restitute works if only one party (either the claimant or the possessor) is agreeable to the restitution.⁴⁴

Netherlands – Before WWII ended, on September 17, 1944, the Dutch government issued the Restitution of Legal Rights Decree in London.⁴⁵ Nearly six decades later, the Netherlands established the Restitutions Committee to assess restitution applications, which has since issued binding opinions returning Nazi-looted art to its rightful owner.⁴⁶ In 2021, the Restitution Committee launched a renewed WWII portal, which includes data such as photographs, descriptions, provenance history, and restitution status, as well as about 15,000 restitution forms filed with the Netherlands Art Property Foundation.⁴⁷ Other cultural initiatives are responsible for launching research groups to educate and share research on the restitution of looted art in the Netherlands, opening exhibitions, and preserving national collections.⁴⁸

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Washington Principles and all the best practices, declarations, and guides that have since been implemented, represent a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to address the injustice of looted art during World War II and the Holocaust. Though the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, and the Netherlands have made “major” progress in furthering this trans-generational fight, the Report illuminates each country’s shortcomings. Continuing to update laws to uphold the Washington Principles and abide by the Declaration, reaffirms each country’s commitment to rectifying historical wrongs and ensuring that stolen art and other creative works are rightfully returned to their rightful owners or their heirs. In the coming weeks, Dentons will release Part II of this four-part series, which will discuss countries making “substantial” or “some” progress against Nazi-confiscated art, followed by Part III, which will discuss the problems countries are having implementing the Washington Principles and the Declaration, followed by Part IV, which will discuss how countries may overcome these problems and predictions about the future of art restitution cases.

1 Rebecca E. Hatch, Esq., “Litigation Under Common Law for Recovery of Nazi Looted Art,” 141 Am. Jur. Trials 189 (2015).

2 U.S. Dep’t of State, 25th Anniversary of the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art: Best Practices & the Way Forward (Mar. 5, 2024), https://www.state.gov/briefings-foreign-press-centers/25th-anniversary-of-the-washington-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20five%20European%20nations,claims%20to%20Nazi%2Dlooted%20art [hereinafter FPC Briefing]. The Principles were endorsed at the December 3, 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. See COMMISSION FOR LOOTED ART IN EUROPE, https://www.lootedartcommission.com/Washington-principles (last visited Mar. 16, 2024).

3 The Washington Principles consists of the following eleven (11) non-binding principles:

1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.
2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives.
3. Resources and personnel should be made available to facilitate the identification of all art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.
4. In establishing that a work of art had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, consideration should be given to unavoidable gaps or ambiguities in the provenance in light of the passage of time and the circumstances of the Holocaust era.
5. Every effort should be made to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted in order to locate its pre-War owners or their heirs.
6. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.
7. Pre-War owners and their heirs should be encouraged to come forward and make known their claims to art that was confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.
8. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.
9. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or their heirs, can not be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution.
10. Commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues should have a balanced membership.
11. Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.

See Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dec. 3, 1998 [hereinafter Washington Principles], available at https://www.state.gov/washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/.

4 Id.

5 FPC Briefing, supra, note 2.

6 These countries include Albania, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay. See COMMISSION FOR LOOTED ART IN EUROPE, supra, note 2.

7 CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/06/style/nazi-looted-art-report-wjro-tan/index.html (last visited Mar. 17 2024).

8 Terezin Declaration, June 30, 2009, https://www.state.gov/prague-holocaust-era-assets-conference-terezin-declaration/. The Washington Principles were further strengthened by the 2022 Terezin II Conference. See FPC Briefing, supra, note 2.

9 FPC Briefing, supra, note 2.

10 Emily Blyze, Museums and Nazi-looted Art: Washington Principles vs. Terezin Declaration, Association for Research Into Crimes Against Art (March 13, 2011), https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2011/03/museums-and-nazi-looted-art-washington.html?m=0; see also Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8.

11 Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8.

12 Blyze, supra, note 10; see also Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8.

13 U.S. Dep’t of State, Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, “Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi–Confiscated Art,” (March 5, 2024), https://www.state.gov/best-practices-for-the-washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/ [hereinafter Best Practices]. The Best Practices outline fifteen (15) non-binding but morally important practical steps to advance countries’ implementation of the restitution of Holocaust-era creative works and cultural objects, as a modern interpretation and guideline to the Washington Principles. See id.; see also FPC Briefing, supra, note 2.

14 Wesley A Fisher & Ruth J. Weinberger, Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide Overview, WORLD JEWISH RESTITUTION ORGANIZATION, THE CONFERENCE ON JEWISH MATERIAL CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY, 5 (Mar. 5, 2024), https://art.claimscon.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/11-March-2024-Holocaust-Era-Looted-Cultural-Property-A-Current-Worldwide-Overview.pdf [hereinafter The Report].

15 Id. at 11; FPC Briefing, supra, note 2; Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8.

16 Serbia attended the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference where the Declaration was signed as an observer but later endorsed the Declaration. See Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8; see also The Report, supra, note 14 at 40.

17 CNN, supra, note 7. For more information about the three (3) countries that have made substantial progress, the thirteen (13) countries that have made some progress, and the twenty-four (24) countries that have made little or no progress, see Part II and Part III of this Series to be released on April 15, 2024 and April 29, 2024.

18 The Report, supra, note 14 at 6.

19 Id. at 6-7.

20 See id.; see also id. at 14 (summarized in the below chart).

21 The Report, supra note 14, at 112.

22 Id.

23 On August 10, 2022, New York implemented New York Senate Bill S117A.377, which was the first bill to mandate institutions to label works of art stolen during the Nazi era in Europe. Id. at 113; see also Senate Bill S117A, The New York State Senate, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S117 (last visited Oct. 4, 2023).

24 See, e.g., Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024) (whether the alleged owners could successfully recover a painting stolen by Nazis from an art foundation in Spain fell on whether the law of California or the law of Spain applied; the former meant the plaintiff would recover the art while under the law of Spain, the plaintiff would not); but see Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 529 F. Supp. 2d 300, 305 (D.R.I. 2007), aff'd, 548 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008) (where the choice of law was not at issue and Rhode Island law governed, the estate of the original owner of a painting was granted its motion for summary judgment).

25 The Report, supra note 14, at 22.

26 Id. at 22-23.

27 Id. at 24.

28 Id. at 109. As of March 5, 2024, the Spoliation Advisory Panel has not received any claims for privately-owned items. Id.

29 COMMISSION FOR LOOTED ART IN EUROPE (JULY 21, 2017), https://www.lootedartcommission.com/press-releases_subj;SK0IBF72281.

30 The Report, supra note 14, at 110.

31 VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM, https://www.vam.ac.uk/info/research (last visited Mar. 19, 2024); see also VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM, “Explore 'Entartete Kunst': The Nazis' inventory of 'degenerate art' V&A,” https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/explore-entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inventory-of-degenerate-art#?xywh=-2454%2C-303%2C8987%2C6044 (last visited Mar. 19, 2024).

32 Terezin Declaration, supra, note 8.

33 The Report, supra note 14, at 40.

34 Id. at 40-41.

35 Id. at 45.

36 CIVS, https://www.civs.gouv.fr/home/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2024).

37 The Report, supra note 14, at 45.

38 Id. at 47.

39 Id. at 49.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 51.

42 See, e.g., Germany’s Lost Art Database containing an estimated 180,000 publicly accessible objects. Id.

43 See, e.g., Michael E. Ruane, “Many countries lag in returning art looted by Nazis, report finds,” THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 6, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/03/06/nazi-art-looted-holocaust/ (Pablo Picasso’s “Madame Soler” portrait, which has been claimed by the family of collector Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, yet remains in Germany’s possession as the government does not consider it looted art). The Report, supra note 14, at 49.

44 The Report, supra note 14, at 49-50.

45 Id. at 74; see also THE RESTITUTIONS COMMITTEE, “Looted Art and Restitution in the Netherlands: A Historical Overview,” https://www.restitutiecommissie.nl/en/history/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2024).

46 THE RESTITUTIONS COMMITTEE, supra, note 45.

47 The Report, supra note 14, at 75.

48 Id. at 75-76.