Trade and Restitution of Looted Art - The ‘Guelph Treasure’ case study.

Abstract

The cultural system underwent significant changes following the Second World War. Works of art were not exempt from the conflict and were employed as instruments of power and propaganda. The National Socialist regime actively sought to eradicate cultural opposition. Cultural heritage holds immense value for the community that creates and safeguards it. To destroy it is to assault the community and disregards essential rights. UNESCO and other supranational organizations formed after the conflict have implemented regulations aimed at safeguarding cultural heritage. These include a legislative system incorporating crucial international laws pertaining to the preservation of cultural property, such as the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 Paris Convention, and the 1995 Rome Unidroit Convention. Today, they serve as legal benchmark in cases involving the circulation, removal and return of works of art. The latter issue is complex but still relevant, as the recent Guelph Treasure case shows. The Welfenschatz is a collection of ecclesiastical medieval art housed in the Berlin Decorative Arts Museum. In 1935, the collection was owned by a group of Jewish art dealers who sold it to the Dresdner Bank (acting as agent for the Prussian State) for 4.25 million Reichsmarks. In 2008, some of their heirs submitted a request to Germany, claiming the return of the collection. The lawsuit has since escalated, involving the German State, Restitution Commissions, US courts and even the US Supreme Court. It was not the first time that heirs of persecuted Jews had sought compensation in the United States. Nevertheless, the 2021 Supreme Court's ruling is bound to be controversial and will set the stage for a general reassessment of restitution cases.