From “Leader to Pariah”? On the Dutch Restitutions Committee and the inclusion of the public interest in assessing Nazi-spoliated art claims

IF 0.6 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
T. I. Oost
{"title":"From “Leader to Pariah”? On the Dutch Restitutions Committee and the inclusion of the public interest in assessing Nazi-spoliated art claims","authors":"T. I. Oost","doi":"10.1017/S0940739121000072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article considers the recent and vigorous critique of the Dutch restitution policy on Nazi-looted art in connection with the inclusion of what has been termed the “public interest” in the applicable substantive assessment framework. This assessment framework is entirely based on morally induced policy rules, and it allows the Dutch Restitutions Committee to advise on requests for restitution based on a weighing of interests, including the significance of the work to a museum or public art collection. Although one might question the appropriateness of such interests in a framework designed to remedy historic injustices, it remains to be seen whether this critique is entirely justified. Recent recommendations issued by the Dutch Restitutions Committee indicate that it takes a generous, rather than strict, approach when dealing with requests for restitution. All in all, it seems that both institutional and substantive vulnerability are inevitable if one embarks on a morally induced framework based on mere policy rules rather than legal rules.","PeriodicalId":54155,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Property","volume":"28 1","pages":"55 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0940739121000072","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cultural Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739121000072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article considers the recent and vigorous critique of the Dutch restitution policy on Nazi-looted art in connection with the inclusion of what has been termed the “public interest” in the applicable substantive assessment framework. This assessment framework is entirely based on morally induced policy rules, and it allows the Dutch Restitutions Committee to advise on requests for restitution based on a weighing of interests, including the significance of the work to a museum or public art collection. Although one might question the appropriateness of such interests in a framework designed to remedy historic injustices, it remains to be seen whether this critique is entirely justified. Recent recommendations issued by the Dutch Restitutions Committee indicate that it takes a generous, rather than strict, approach when dealing with requests for restitution. All in all, it seems that both institutional and substantive vulnerability are inevitable if one embarks on a morally induced framework based on mere policy rules rather than legal rules.
从“领袖到贱民”?关于荷兰赔偿委员会和纳入公众利益在评估纳粹掠夺艺术品索赔
本文考虑了最近对荷兰关于纳粹掠夺艺术品的归还政策的激烈批评,并将所谓的“公共利益”纳入适用的实质性评估框架。这一评估框架完全基于道德诱导的政策规则,它允许荷兰归还委员会根据利益权衡,包括作品对博物馆或公共艺术收藏的重要性,对归还请求提出建议。尽管有人可能会质疑,在一个旨在纠正历史不公正的框架中,这种利益是否合适,但这种批评是否完全合理,还有待观察。荷兰赔偿委员会最近提出的建议表明,它在处理赔偿请求时采取慷慨而不是严格的办法。总而言之,如果一个人开始建立一个仅仅基于政策规则而不是法律规则的道德框架,那么体制上和实质上的脆弱性似乎都是不可避免的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Cultural Property
International Journal of Cultural Property HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信