USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Steve Coopersmith, Ashley Rastegarpour and Philippa Grumbley, The Coopersmith Law Firm, LLP
to relinquish their intellectual property, thereby depriv - ing them of economic benefits. (Marilyn Creswell, The Seizure of Jewish Intellectual Property Ahead of World War II ) These mechanisms intensified the dispossession of art and cultural heritage, producing a campaign aimed at the destruction of Jewish identity. Approximately 600,000 to 650,000 works of art were seized or sold under coercive conditions. An estimated 100,000 of those works remain unrecovered. Some works were taken outright, while others were sold under duress by Jewish owners creating complex and contested ownership histories that complicate restitution claims. (Thérèse O’Donnell, T he Restitution of Holocaust Looted Art and Transitional Justice: The Perfect Storm or the Raft of the Medusa?; Alexander Stanfield, The Choice of Law for Nazi-Looted Art Restitution: Cas- sirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation and California Assembly Bill 2867 ) Even during the war, Jewish refugees and international organisations began grappling with how to achieve restitution. Early restitution discussions defined what property was recoverable and who the proper claim - ants were, generally identifying private property, heir - less property, and communal property as recoverable categories. Restitution and its limits Although the need for restitution was recognised early, postwar systems were fractured and politically con - strained. Jewish survivors lacked meaningful repre - sentation at the Paris Reparations Conference, and early Allied frameworks prioritised intergovernmental transfers rather than individualised compensation. This same tension between legal principle and practi - cal enforcement was evident even during the war. The 1943 London Declaration rejected recognition of war - time transfers in Nazi-occupied territories, reflecting the principle that many Nazi-era “sales” were legally invalid because they were the likely product of coer - cion or extortion. (Charles Cronin, Ethical Quandaries: The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act and Claims for Works in Public Museums ) By the immediate post-war period, the consequences of this gap became even more apparent. In 1946, the
US Department of State warned that stolen art was entering the United States. Nevertheless, most fami - lies lacked the resources, documentation, or capacity to pursue recovery. Subsequent initiatives, including the Roberts Commission, the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program, and the 1998 Washington Con - ference on Holocaust-Era Assets, made meaningful efforts to address looted art, but they did not create binding legal remedies. The Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art similarly articulated eleven voluntary guidelines but relied entirely on good-faith compliance rather than compulsion. (Gideon Taylor & Ruth J. Weinberger, Seeing the Humanity in Each Object: Finding Justice Amid the Law; Abigail Green - berger Rosovsky, Note, The Greatest Art Theft in His- tory: How Bipartisan Legislation Attempts to Redress Nazi Looted Art ) In the absence of any central or binding framework in the United States, Holocaust-era property claims have therefore proceeded through ordinary civil litiga - tion mechanisms. This allows museums and foreign institutions to rely on statutes of limitation, laches, and adverse possession, often resolving disputes on procedural grounds rather than on the merits. This reliance on ordinary litigation reflects a broader real - ity: existing legal frameworks have proven functionally inadequate to govern Holocaust-era art disputes. The turn to US courts Beginning in the 1990s, Holocaust heirs increasingly turned to US courts as European legal systems faced territorial limits and strict time bars. By contrast, US procedural doctrines, including class actions and unjust enrichment, initially made recovery more real - istic. (Leora Bilsky, Transnational Holocaust Litigation ) One of the most consistent obstacles in the US, how - ever, was the statute of limitations. Before federal stat - utory involvement, claims were governed by varying state limitation periods and accrual rules. In many jurisdictions, a claim accrued at the time of the wrong - ful taking, meaning it could lapse decades before heirs even located the artwork. Without reform, many Holo - caust-era claims would never reach the merits. Congress responded by enacting the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the “HEAR
224 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook