No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Washington Principles à rebours: Explaining Poland’s current restitution policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2023
Abstract
This article inquiries into Poland’s current approach to the implementation of the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art. It argues that it is more focused on the recovery of national heritage than on providing justice to Holocaust victims and their heirs. First, it discusses the outputs of the Expert Group established in 2009 to implement provenance research in line with the Washington Principles’s recommendations. It explains the failure of this initiative by bringing into focus the wider context of the inheritance of the war-time displacements and splitting of collections. It argues that Holocaust victims’ assets are one of many problematic items in Polish memory institutions and that the unresolved issue of post-war nationalizations are often perceived as an argument that hinders the Washington Principles’s implementation. It outlines the notions of “Polish war losses” and “national cultural goods” and discusses in detail the Polish provenance research databases. It notices that restitution in Poland is increasingly considered as an important national identity-building tool and analyzes several recent educational and branding initiatives of this kind.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Cultural Property Society
References
Bandurska, Zofia, Kacprzak, Dariusz, Kosiewski, Piotr, Romanowska-Zadrożna, Maria, Steinborn, Bożena, and Tarnowska, Maria. 2012. “Badania proweniencyjne muzealiów pod kątem ich ewentualnego pochodzenia z własności żydowskiej.” Muzealnictwo 53: 14–26.Google Scholar
Barelkowski, Matthias, and Kraft, Matthias. 2014. “La Pologne et les biens allemands et juifs après 1945.” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 61, no. 1: 62–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazyler, Michael J., Boyd, Kathryn Lee, Nelson, Kristen L., and Shah, Rajika L.. 2019. Fulfilling the Terezin Declaration and Immovable Property Restitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bazyler, Michael J., and Gostynski, Szymon. 2018. “Restitution of Private Property in Postwar Poland: The Unfinished Legacy of the Second World War and Communism.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 41, no. 331: 273–329.Google Scholar
Campfens, Evelien. 2021. Cross-border Claims to Cultural Objects: Property or Heritage? Delft: Primo!Studo.Google Scholar
Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, Nawojka. 2009a. “Dealing with Jewish Cultural Property in Post-war Poland.” Art Antiquity and Law 14, no. 2: 143–66.Google Scholar
Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, Nawojka. 2009b. “The Obligation of the State or a Hobby of the Few: The Implementation of the Washington Principles in Poland.” In Holocaust Era Assets: Conference Proceeding s, edited by Schneider, J., Klepal, J., and Kalhousová, I., 976–92. Prague: Forum 2000 Foundation.Google Scholar
Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, Nawojka. 2018. “Umgang mit dem sogenannten ‘postjüdischen’ Kulturgut in Polen von 1945 bis heute.” [Dealing with the so-called “post-Jewish” cultural heritage in Poland from 1945 to the present]. In Treuhändersiche Übernahme und Verwahrung. International und interdisziplinär betrachtet, edited by Kaiser, O., Köstner-Pemsel, Ch., and Stumpf, M., 303–11. Vienna: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, Nawojka. 2020. “Polskie. Żydowskie. ‘Pożydowskie’. Nazistowska grabież dzieł sztuki i problemy restytucji w Polsce 1945–2020” [Polish, Jewish. “Post-Jewish”: The Nazi plunder of art works and restitution problems in Poland 1945–2020]. Zagłada Żydów w Polsce 16: 200–32.Google Scholar
Cieślińska-Lobkowicz, Nawojka. 2021. “Poland.” In Museums and the Holocaust, edited by Redmond-Cooper, R., 145–60. Crickadarn, UK: Institute of Art and Law.Google Scholar
Cronin, Charles. 2018. “Ethical Quandaries: the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act and Claims for Works in Public Museums.” St. John’s Law Review 92, no. 3: 509–49.Google Scholar
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. 2015. “Nazi-Looted Art from East and West in East Prussia: Initial Findings on the Erich Koch Collection.” International Journal of Cultural Property 22, no. 1: 7–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heś, Robert. 2017. Lost Treasures of the Former Museums in Wrocław. Wrocław: Muzeum Narodowe we Wrocławiu.Google Scholar
Jakubowski, Andrzej. 2015. State Succession in Cultural Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janes, Robert R., and Sandell, Richard, eds. 2019. Museum Activism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kijewska-Trembecka, Marta. 2017, “A Note on the Post-War Story of the Wawel Tapestries in Canada.” TransCanadiana 9: 353–62.Google Scholar
Lutomski, Paweł. 2012. “‘The Law Alleviates Concerns’: Legal Dimensions of Polish-German Reconciliations.” In Germany Poland and Postmemorial Relations, edited by Koppa, K. and Nizynska, J., 65–84. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oost, Tabitha I. 2012. In an Effort to Do Justice? Restitution Policies and the Washington Principles. Amsterdam: Centre of Art, Law and Policy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Palica, Magdalena. 2014. “Il conte von Ingenheim tra arte e religione. Un collezionista prussiano in Italia” [Count Ingenheim between art and religion: A Prussian collector in Italy]. Predella 34: 393–404.Google Scholar
Perl, Anna A. 2013. “Poland’s Restitution Efforts in the United States.” Art Crime 45: 45–54.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. 1997. “Principles for the Resolution of Disputes Concerning Cultural Heritage Displaced during the Second World War.” In The Spoils of War, edited by Simpson, E., 225–30. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
Romanowska, Maria. 2016. “Badania Proweniencyjne w Polsce” [Provenance research in Poland]. Muzealnictwo 57: 179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanowska, Maria. 2017. “Badania Proweniencyjne w Polsce” [Provenance research in Poland]. Muzealnictwo 58: 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne. 2007. Prohibiting Plunder: How Norms Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stec, Piotr. 2016. “The Lady or the Tiger? Legal Pitfalls of Implementing the Return of Cultural Goods Directive.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 2, no. 2: 135–48.Google Scholar
Surmann, Jan. 2012. Shoah-Erinnerung und Restitution. Die US-Geschichtspolitik am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Weissman, Lara. 2012. “A Moot Issue? Rethinking Holocaust Era Restitution of Jewish Confiscated Personal Property in Poland.” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 13, no. 2: 679–712.Google Scholar
Weizman, Yechiel. 2017. “Unsettled Possession: The Question of Ownership of Jewish Sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a Local Perspective.” Jewish Culture and History 18, no. 1: 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierczyńska, Karolina. 2018. “The Polish-German Cultural Heritage Relationship in 1990–2019: Main Controversies and Areas of Progress.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 4, no. 2: 221–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woźniak, Grzegorz E. 2018. “Facts and Myths on Restitution of Property in Poland.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 41, no. 331: 331–50.Google Scholar
Załęczna, Magdalena. 2012. “Restitution in the Context of institutional Lock-in.” Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration 20, nos. 1–2: 153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Żarnowski, Jan 1936. Katalog Wystawy obrazów ze zbiorów dr Jana Popławskiego [Catalogue of the exhibition of paintings from doctor Popławski’s collection]. Warsaw: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie.Google Scholar