Misplaced Pages

Restitutions Committee

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Dutch art restitution committee
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Dutch. (December 2018) Click for important translation instructions.
  • Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Misplaced Pages.
  • Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
  • You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Dutch Misplaced Pages article at ]; see its history for attribution.
  • You may also add the template {{Translated|nl|Restitutiecommissie}} to the talk page.
  • For more guidance, see Misplaced Pages:Translation.
Restitutions Committee logo

The Dutch Restitutions Committee (Dutch: Restitutiecommissie) was established in 2001 to deal with claims for the restitution of Nazi-era looted works of art to their original owners or their descendants. The rulings of the committee have been controversial with some restitution advocates arguing that they are unfair to claimants.

Criticisms

Of the five international Restitution Committees that exist (UK, France, Austria & Germany) the Dutch Restitution Committee has the lowest restitution rate, returning only about one third of the artworks claimed. Recently the Restitution Committee introduced the controversial Balance of Interest test, which takes into consideration the desire of the (typically government owned) museum to keep a looted artwork, rather than return it to the rightful claimants. This resulted in the Committee's refusal to restitute a number of important artworks and led to international criticism at what many viewed as a self-serving mechanism. Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, the author of the Washington Principles, recently indicated at an international conference in Berlin, that the "Balance of Interest test in not in accordance with the Washington Principles" and indicated that this mechanism should no longer be used.

In 2020 a Dutch panel concluded that the restitution process was unduly complex and unfair to claimants. Taco Dibbits, the director of the Rijksmuseum, denounced the "balance of interest" policy to a bicycle thief who argues that he should be able to keep stolen property because he's using it.

In the face of sustained criticism, the Dutch Restitutions Committee reversed its former rulings in several cases.

Presidents

See also

References

  1. "The Restitutions Committee". Lootedart.com. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
  2. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (20 October 2011). "Restitution - Second World War - Government.nl". Government.nl. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
  3. Boffey, Daniel (5 December 2018). "Dutch art panel's ruling against Jewish family criticised as 'step back'". Theguardian.com. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
  4. "Dutch policy on Nazi-loot restitutions under fire". Theartnewspaper.com. 21 December 2018. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
  5. Siegal, Nina (2020-12-07). "Dutch Panel for Looted Art Claims Must Change Course, Report Finds". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
  6. Siegal, Nina (2024-02-28). "A Landmark Kandinsky With a Troubled Past Is in the Spotlight, Again". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-03-07.

External links


Stub icon

This Netherlands-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: