Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-l8wb7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-09T08:36:22.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2025

Evelien Campfens Open the ORCID record for Evelien Campfens [Opens in a new window]
Evelien Campfens*
Affiliation:
Evelien Campfens is lecturer and consultant in cultural property law, affiliated with the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She is a member, on behalf of the Netherlands, of the Cultural Heritage Committee of the International Law Association. Previously, she served as the General Secretary of the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi-looted Art (2001–2015) and was Ph.D. and postdoctoral researcher at Leiden University (2015–2024). This note was prepared in May 2025.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On March 5, 2024, the “Best Practices for the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” were introduced in Washington, DC.1 Prepared by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and diplomats from various countries, they are presented as legally non-binding but morally important standards to clarify and improve the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.2 As such, they reinforce earlier calls on states to identify artifacts lost due to Nazi persecution and support “just and fair” solutions for title issues. Nevertheless, they go beyond these earlier instruments by proposing further action and widening key elements of the material norm.

Information

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , August 2025 , pp. 1114 - 1120
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of International Law

Introduction

On March 5, 2024, the “Best Practices for the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” were introduced in Washington, DC.Footnote 1 Prepared by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and diplomats from various countries, they are presented as legally non-binding but morally important standards to clarify and improve the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.Footnote 2 As such, they reinforce earlier calls on states to identify artifacts lost due to Nazi persecution and support “just and fair” solutions for title issues. Nevertheless, they go beyond these earlier instruments by proposing further action and widening key elements of the material norm.

Background

The adoption of the Best Practices and their endorsement a year later by thirty-two countries (the United States, Canada, Israel, and 29 European states) underscores that restitution of Nazi-looted art remains high on the political agenda.Footnote 3 Given the scale of art looting by the Nazis and the fact that many of these works were not returned to dispossessed owners or their heirs, this is perhaps not surprising.Footnote 4 Today, such artifacts can be found in public and private collections worldwide, often traded without information on their ownership history (provenance) in the international market. This poses significant challenges to restitution efforts.

The first major challenge is of a practical nature: the problem of traceability. Since the trade in unprovenanced artifacts – those lacking information on their ownership history – has traditionally been the norm rather than the exception, and no central registration system is in place, to keep track of ownership transfers, identifying looted art is notably difficult. Although due diligence standards for the trade increasingly require provenance research, particularly for the period 1933–1945, establishing facts from so long ago is both complex and time-consuming. However, identification obviously is a prerequisite for restitution.

The second major challenge is fragmentation of the legal framework. The relevant facts for the determination of ownership title tend to span long periods and multiple jurisdictions; legal assessment may thus involve historical and recent, foreign and local, and private and public laws. While treaties adopted since World War II aim to prevent the transfer of title over stolen or illicitly exported cultural objects to new possessors, these are non-retroactive and primarily operate at the interstate level.Footnote 5 Consequently, restitution claims based on historical losses are often inadmissible, particularly in civil law jurisdictions that permit title transfer to good-faith new possessors or simply through the passage of time. Nonetheless, at times the law offers prospects. Two cases, both involving Pissarro paintings, illustrate these complexities.

The first case, the well-known Cassirer case litigated in the United States, concerns a Pissarro sold under duress by a Jewish owner before fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939.Footnote 6 In the early 1990s, the Pissarro, after being traded multiple times, was acquired for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid without information on its wartime history. After years of litigation focusing on jurisdiction and choice of law issues, in 2024, in what appeared to be the final decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Spanish law should apply, designating the Museum as the lawful owner.Footnote 7 This outcome evoked widespread criticism, and on March 10, 2025, it was again successfully challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way for continued litigation in California.Footnote 8

The second (Bauer) case, litigated in France, involves a Pissarro painting owned by a Jewish collector that was confiscated by the Nazis in Paris in 1943. In 1995, it was purchased for $800,000 by an American couple at a New York auction, without knowledge of its wartime history. The French courts, in their judgment on a claim by the original owner’s grandson, ruled that under the application of French (special post-war) law, the wartime confiscation was void, requiring the Pissarro’s restitution.Footnote 9 While the claimants welcomed this outcome as ‘pure justice’, the new possessors voiced their discontent by stating that, “It … is not up to [us] to compensate Jewish families for the crimes of the Holocaust.”Footnote 10 Reportedly, they considered bringing the case before the European Court of Human Rights, citing a violation of the right to freely enjoy property.Footnote 11

The Ethical Model

Against this legal background constrained by zero-sum solutions, the “ethical model” for restitution evolved based on non-binding soft law instruments. In this context, the 2024 Best Practices were preceded by the standard-setting 1998 Washington Principles, the 2000 Vilnius Forum Declaration, the 2009 Terezin Declaration, and a 2019 Resolution by the European Parliament in the European context.Footnote 12

The basic rule of this ethical model is that “if the pre-War owners of Nazi-looted art, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken to achieve a just and fair solution, depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.”Footnote 13 To facilitate claims, alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms are proposed for ownership issues.Footnote 14

Over the past 25 years, this approach has certainly resonated in the art world.Footnote 15 Overall, attention to the provenance of artifacts in the period 1933–1945 has increased, and a practice of settlements has evolved. Some states (the United Kingdom, France, Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany) have initiated proactive research projects into museum collections and set up special restitution panels.Footnote 16 Although the mandates of these panels differ and tend to be limited to specific (state) collections, they offer access to justice, which is often lacking.

Importantly, many of the forty-seven countries that endorsed the Washington Principles have not taken any significant measures, as highlighted in a 2024 WJRO report.Footnote 17 In most countries, provenance research is still not regarded as an essential part of museum practice, and only five of the forty-seven countries have established commissions to facilitate claims. Interestingly, the United States is not one of those countries, despite being a strong advocate of the Washington Principles.

The Best Practices

The Best Practices thus urge further action. They explicitly address provenance research, crucial for identifying and reconstructing historical facts, but also requiring specialized research that is often reliant on archival records that may not be easily accessible. Against this background, the Best Practices call on states to support provenance research, enhance archive accessibility, and establish coordination points (see paras. G, H, L, M).

Another key issue is the recommendation for states to set up “independent expert bodies” with unilateral access to ensure transparent procedures for title claims (see paras. I, J). This addresses the lack of claims procedures, obstructing justice for claimants and causing legal insecurity and uncertainty about the “fair and just” norm. Since extra-legal ADR procedures are voluntary and depend on current holders’ willingness, unilateral access to procedures would rely on prior general agreements. In this respect, a new model was recently announced in Germany, allowing unilateral access to arbitration panels, based on a standing offer by museums whereby claims will be assessed based on a surprisingly detailed framework.Footnote 18 In other new models, unilateral access is possible by opting for non-binding recommendations.

Under paragraph K, furthermore, the Best Practices suggest removing legal barriers to restitution, such as time limits for claims or the inalienability of public collections. While this point seems important, it is weakened by the preamble, which states that “countries will apply the best practices in accordance with national laws.”

Beyond encouraging state action, the Best Practices also aim to clarify the material (soft law) norm and redefine what constitutes “just and fair solutions” for “Nazi looted art.” Paragraphs B and C state that, beyond losses resulting from confiscation or duress sales—the traditional understanding of “Nazi-looting”—all losses or sales “by a persecuted person between 1933 and 1945 can be considered equivalent to an involuntary transfer.” This implies that sales without a direct causal relation to Nazi persecution, such as “flight goods” sold by refugees in neutral states, can be perceived as a “continuation of the theft.”Footnote 19 Although this interpretation hinges on the “historical and legal circumstances,” it broadens the range of artifacts that can be considered.

In combination with paragraph D, which proposes that the primary “just and fair solution” is restitution (i.e., full ownership transfer) and prioritizes the interests of the heirs of the victims over others, and paragraph F, which suggests that proceeds received from sales at the time should not serve as compensation today, this represents a significant extension of claimants’ rights. Because the rights of other interested parties within the “just and fair” framework, such as good faith new possessors (who often hold legal title), are not addressed, one wonders whether such a new standard, if accepted, could also (negatively) impact their proactive cooperation, particularly in the private sector.Footnote 20

Since their introduction, the Best Practices have received little criticism, although they have been labelled as “political desiderata” rather than “true best practices.”Footnote 21 Whether the path taken to expand the material norm is indeed desirable obviously depends on one’s position. From a broader perspective, the ethical model for Nazi looted art increasingly serves as a reference for other cases involving historically “tainted” artifacts; thus, a broader definition of “looting” is likely to resonate beyond this field.

Conclusion

Despite the relatively large number of states that signed up to the Best Practices, their impact as golden standards remains to be seen. The majority of signatory states to the original Washington Principles have yet to implement measures to enable restitution, while claims to Nazi-looted art are frequently inadmissible under positive law. In this context, the Best Practices serve as a welcome reminder of the work needed, particularly in the areas of provenance research and access to justice. On a positive note, the call on states to fulfill their promises of justice and provide claimants with claims procedures appears to be yielding results. For instance, in 2025 Switzerland adopted a new regulation establishing a claims procedure that cites the Best Practices—interestingly also aimed at claims based on colonial-era losses.Footnote 22 Additionally, recently Belgium also announced that it was setting up a panel for Nazi-looted art.Footnote 23

BEST PRACTICES FOR THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE PRINCIPLES ON NAZI-CONFISCATED ARTFootnote * [March 5, 2024]

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available from the U.S. State Department website (visited May 12, 2025), https://www.state.gov/office-of-the-special-envoy-for-holocaust-issues/best-practices-for-the-washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art.

On 3 December 1998, 44 states participating in the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets endorsed the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which is incorporated by reference herein. These principles were subsequently commented on and clarified in the Vilnius Forum Declaration of October 5, 2000, endorsed by 38 states, the Terezin Declaration of June 30, 2009, endorsed by 47 states, and the 2010 Terezin Guidelines and Best Practices (which recognized the State of Israel’s special moral role as a home for the largest number of survivors of the Holocaust [Shoah]).

In recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Washington Conference Principles, the following legally non-binding but morally important best practices clarify and improve the practical implementation of these Principles. As was the case with the Principles, the best practices were drafted with the awareness that there are differing legal systems and that states act within the context of their own laws. Countries will apply the best practices that follow in accordance with national laws.

A. “Art” refers to the cultural property of victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution, in public or private hands, including but not limited to paintings and other visual and decorative art, sacred scrolls, synagogue and ceremonial objects, as well as libraries, manuscripts, archives, records, and musical instruments belonging to individuals and to Jewish and other communities, organizations, and institutions.

B. “Nazi-confiscated” and “Nazi-looted” refer to what was looted, confiscated, sequestered, and spoliated, by the Nazis, the Fascists and their collaborators through various means including but not limited to theft, coercion, and confiscation, and on grounds of relinquishment, as well as forced sales and sales under duress, during the Holocaust era between 1933-45.

C. Taking into account the specific historical and legal circumstances in each case, the sale of art and cultural property by a persecuted person during the Holocaust era between 1933-45 can be considered equivalent to an involuntary transfer of property based on the circumstances of the sale.

D. “Just and fair solutions” means just and fair solutions first and foremost for the victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution and for their heirs. In principle, as set out in the Terezin Declaration, the primary just and fair solution is restitution, among other just and fair solutions.

E. Restitution should be to all lawful beneficiaries and heirs in accordance with a country’s usual inheritance law. All pre-War owners who are identified through provenance research or their heirs should be proactively sought by the current possessors for the purpose of restitution.

F. In case of restitution, current possessors should not seek repayment from the pre-War owners or their heirs of the purchase price of Nazi-confiscated works of art in their collections. Compensation should be tax exempt.

G. Governments should encourage provenance research and projects to catalogue, digitize and make available on the internet public and private archives, including dealer records. Public and private collections should be encouraged to publish their inventories.

H. Provenance researchers should have access to all relevant archives and source documents. Provenance research carried out by public or private bodies should be made publicly available on the internet. Where queries are made, as a matter of fairness current possessors in particular should disclose all documentation related to acquisition and provenance to claimants. Provenance research, particularly regarding potential claims, ideally should be conducted by an independent research body to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Such an independent institution should be granted access to all relevant archives whether public or private.

I. Countries are encouraged to create an independent expert body whose composition may be the states’ responsibility, to which unilateral access is available that can adjudicate cases of art and cultural property and arrive at or recommend a binding or non-binding decision (for example, the use of commissions in Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). Such bodies should have balanced, expert, and representative membership. Use of alternative resolution mechanisms is encouraged to avoid litigation.

J. Claims handling bodies such as national commissions, museums or other agencies, are encouraged to publish terms of reference and rules of procedure as well as their decisions and recommendations so that the claims process and grounds for decisions are fully transparent to claimants.

K. To make restitution of art and cultural property that remains in state-owned collections and private hands possible, countries should consider making exceptions to barriers such as regulations against deaccessioning from state collections, statutes of limitations, market overt, usucapion (mode of acquiring title to property by uninterrupted possession of it for a definite period), good faith acquisition, and export bans.

L. Countries and institutions should maintain and publish online comprehensive information and statistics on research undertaken, works of art that have been identified and restitutions or other fair and just solutions that have been achieved. Information should be published about claims which have been made and that have been resolved, including reasons for the decision, giving due regard to confidentiality.

M. Countries and institutions should establish central contact points to provide information, advice and help on any query regarding art, records, archives and claims.

N. There is a recognized urgent need to work on ways to achieve a just and fair solution to the issue of spoliated art and cultural property where pre-War owners or their heirs, both individuals and legal persons cannot be identified, while recognizing there is no universal model for this issue and recognizing the previous Jewish or other ownership of such cultural assets.

O. Art and cultural property that is determined to have been the property of Jewish communities should be returned to an existing successor community, institution, or organization, and/or a successor organization for the Jewish people as a whole. The objects should not be seen as collection items but as part of the collective memory of the Jewish people. As yet unreturned items that exist in textual form, such as manuscripts, archives, scrolls, and books, should be digitized and made easily accessible over the internet.

WASHINGTON CONFERENCE PRINCIPLES ON NAZI-CONFISCATED ARTFootnote * [December 3, 1998]

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available from the U.S. State Department website (visited May 12, 2025), https://www.state.gov/washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/.

In developing a consensus on non-binding principles to assist in resolving issues relating to Nazi-confiscated art, the Conference recognizes that among participating nations there are differing legal systems and that countries act within the context of their own laws.

  1. 1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.

  2. 2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives.

  3. 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. 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. 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. 6. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.

  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

References

EndNotes

1 See https://2021-2025.state.gov/release-of-best-practices-for-restitution-of-nazi-confiscated-art [Hereinafter Best Practices].

2 Wesley A. Fisher, Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art and the Way Forward, in Jana Jirásková (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the expropriation of property during the Second World War held in Prague on 17–18 September, 2024, pp. 11–22 (CDMP), https://www.lootedart.cz/en/wp-content/uploads/Sbornik_WEB.pdf.

3 Status Apr. 2, 2025.

4 For earlier (postwar) efforts, see Evelien Campfens, Sources of Inspiration: Old and New Rules for Looted Art, in Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to Litigation in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes (Evelien Campfens (ed., 2015)).

5 See, e.g., the 1954 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (249 U.N.T.S. 358); the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231); the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (2421U.N.T.S. 457).

6 See Elena Baylis, Introductory note to Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (9th Cir.), 62 I.L.M. 1079 (2023); and Emily Behzadi, Introductory note to Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (U.S. Sup. Ct), 62 I.L.M. 100 (2023).

7 U.S. 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024).

8 U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-652, vacating the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision and granting the petition for writ of certiaorari, the case was remanded to the U.S. 9th Cir. “for further consideration in light of Assem. Bill 2867, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2024).”

9 Bauer v. B and R Toll (2017) Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, No RG 17/58735 No 1/FF; confirmed (2019) Cour de Cassation, No. B 18-25.695; As a background, the Pissarro was seized and claimed while on loan in Paris.

10 A. Quinn, French Court Orders Return of Pissarro Looted by Vichy Government, The New York Times (Nov. 8, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/arts/%0D%0Adesign/french-court-pissarro-looted-nazis.html?searchResultPosition=1.

11 Under Art. 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (E.T.S. 9). See Vincent Noce, American collector to sue France over restitution of $1.7m Pissarro painting, The Art Newspaper (July 2, 2020), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/07/02/american-collector-to-sue-france-over-restitution-of-dollar17m-pissarro-painting.

12 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (Dec. 3, 1998) Released in connection with the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Washington, DC; Vilnius Forum Declaration on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets (Oct. 5, 2000) (under the auspices of the Council of Europe); Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues (June 30, 2009); Council of Europe, Resolution 1205 on Looted Jewish Cultural Property (Nov. 4, 1999), Doc. 8563; European Parliament Resolution of 17 January 2019 on Cross-border Restitution Claims of Works of Art and Cultural Goods Looted in Armed Conflicts and Wars, 2017/2023 INI. 2019.

13 cf. Washington Principles, under 8.

14 Id., under 11.

15 See, e.g., Evelien Campfens, Cross-border Claims to Looted Art—Research for IURI Committee European Parliament. Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Brussels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2023)754126 (2023).

16 For an overview of the committees, see Annemarie Marck and Eelke Muller, National Panels Advising on Nazi-Looted Art in Austria, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany—a Brief Overview, in Campfens, supra note 4, pp. 41–89.

17 Wesley A. Fisher and Ruth.J. Weinberger, Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide Overview (Mar. 5, 2024), https://art.claimscon.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/4-March-2024-Holocaust-Era-Looted-Cultural-Property-A-Current-Worldwide-Overview.pdf.

18 Press Release, Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, Federal, state and local governments improve restitution practice in Germany and increase inclusion of victims and their descendants, https://kulturstaatsminister.de/presse/federal-state-and-local-governments-improve-restitution-practice-in-germany-and-increase-inclusion-of-victims-and-their-descendants#c7515; for the underlying documents released in March 2025 (in German), see https://kulturstaatsminister.de/aufarbeiten-und-erinnern/aufarbeitung-der-ns-gewaltherrschaft/ns-raubgut/beratende-kommission.

19 Cf. Fisher, supra note 2, p. 14.

20 Note that, according to paragraph A, the Best Practices are explicitly also meant for private collections. Cf. Fisher, supra note 2, p 13.

21 Id., p. 22; Matthias Weller, Stärkung der Beratende Komission, p. 34, at 70, https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/Fachbereich_Rechtswissenschaft/Einrichtungen/Lehrstuehle/Weller/Publications_Research_Project/Weller-Studie-Staerkung_der_Beratenden_Kommission-27-03-24.pdf.

22 Decree of Mar. 21, 2025, Bundesgesetz über den internationalen Kulturgütertransfer (Kulturgütertransfergesetz, KGTG), https://www.parlament.ch/centers/eparl/curia/2024/20240027/Schlussabstimmungstext%204%20SN%20D.pdf. See also https://www.artdependence.com/articles/swiss-parliament-approves-chf9879-million-cultural-budget-after-resolving-looted-art-dispute (May 7, 2025).

23 Beleidsnota 2024-2029 Cultuur, Vlaams minister van Welzijn en Armoedebestrijding, Cultuur en Gelijke Kansen, https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/70838; Geert Sels, Minister Gennez pakt naziroofkunst aan: ‘Wij zijn te lang passief gebleven,’ De Standaard (May 1, 2025), https://www.standaard.be/media-en-cultuur/minister-gennez-pakt-naziroofkunst-aan-we-zijn-te-lang-passief-gebleven/63155596.html.