On November 8th, Professor Lisiane Feiten Wingert Ody from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, delivered a guest lecture at Philosophy Hall on the Washington Principles and legal battles concerning the restitution of artwork stolen by the Nazi regime. Ody, a civil and comparative law scholar, is a co-founder of the Center for German and European studies in Porto Alegre and a member of the Luso-German Association of Jurists and the German Association for Law and Art. Her recent publications include Law and Art (2018) and Introduction to Brazilian Law (2017). Sponsored by several institutions, including the Institute of European Studies at UC Berkeley, German Historical Institute Washington: Pacific Office Berkeley, Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law, Center for Jewish Studies, and the Institute of International Studies, the lecture attracted an intimate audience of ten attendees and was introduced by Carla Shapreau.
Ody, with deep roots in both Brazilian and German heritage, was first introduced to Holocaust Reparation and Art Law about thirty years ago while working on civil law in Germany. Following World War II, it became illegal to possess artwork stolen by the Nazis, yet reclaiming these collections has proven challenging. Ody explains that the 1998 “Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” marked a turning point, establishing an international framework to address these historical injustices. These principles aim to guide the restitution of artwork seized by the Nazis, representing a significant step toward justice for Holocaust survivors and their descendants. However, as Ody highlights, these principles lack legal enforceability, leading to inconsistent implementation across different countries.
Prior to the Washington Principles, several high-profile cases brought attention to the need for regulation. In 1997, Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally was seized by the New York Museum of Modern Art from the Leopold Museum of Austria due to claims of theft by the Nazis. This prompted the Association of Art Museum Directors to revise guidelines on legal disputes over art. Similarly, Gustav Klimt’s Portrait ofAdele Bloch-Bauer, which had also been seized by the Nazis, was the subject of a protracted legal battle between the heirs of its original Jewish owner and the Austrian government, who claimed the painting as national heritage. A landmark U.S. court decision allowed the case to proceed, ruling that Austria’s commercial use of the painting permitted American jurisdiction, setting a precedent for art restitution cases.
The Washington Principles aim to bridge the gap between law and morality in reclaiming Nazi-stolen art. They constitute the pursuit of justice, rather than strictly legal reparation. Despite certain successes, challenges persist, particularly regarding the principle of good faith acquisition. For instance, Lucas Cranach’s Adam and Eve, a diptych originally owned by a Jewish art dealer, was sold to third parties who purchased it in good faith after WWII, unaware of its tainted provenance. Under the current legal framework, these cases do not necessarily meet the criteria for restitution, highlighting a significant gap in the Washington Principles’ reach.
Ody argues that global uniformity in handling restitution cases is needed. The Washington Principles are not legally binding, serving more as a moral guideline for public institutions like museums. The high-profile Gurlitt case, involving Cornelius Gurlitt’s concealed collection of Nazi-looted art, including Henri Matisse’s Femme Assise, reignited debates on restitution laws. Although some pieces were eventually returned to their rightful owners, the case underscored the need for stronger, legally binding approaches to art restitution.
In conclusion, Ody emphasized several key points. First, provenance has evolved from a moral issue into a matter of political significance. Second, all nations should uniformly apply the Washington Principles to public and private collections to honor the WWII commitment to restoring Nazi-looted art. Third, Germany’s establishment of the German Center for Cultural Property Losses, following the Gurlitt case, marks a commitment to systematic provenance research. However, Ody argues that while the Washington Principles are a critical step forward, they require substantial reforms to fulfill their original promise. Fourth, provenance defects should be considered as a defect in the artwork itself, compromising its lawful use and enjoyment. Lastly, traditional statute of limitations should not apply as these are extraordinary cases requiring unique considerations.