Looting of art has long been a feature of armed conflict, but the Nazi regime elevated cultural plunder to an unprecedented level of systematisation and scale. Art confiscation became both a tool of ideological oppression and an integral part of the persecution of Jews and other targeted groups, culminating in the Holocaust. While post-war restitution efforts attempted to restore legal rights, these proved limited and inconsistent. By the late 1990s, international pressure to address unresolved claims led to the establishment of restitution committees in Austria, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. This thesis of Tabitha Oost examines the work of these committees through the lens of a paradigm shift: from a strictly legal approach to a more morally driven, victim-centred framework. The central question concerns how these bodies balance legal certainty with the pursuit of morally just solutions that restore victims’ voices and acknowledge historical injustice. The analysis proceeds along two dimensions: the institutional (committees’ setup, procedures, and safeguards) and the substantive (the principles and rules guiding decision-making).
Institutional analysis
All three committees were deliberately designed to operate outside traditional legal frameworks, offering low-threshold and flexible procedures. They symbolised a removal of legal barriers such as statutes of limitation, with the expectation that this would foster claimant trust. However, their institutional structures initially lacked safeguards typically associated with judicial or extrajudicial bodies, such as clear independence or impartiality guarantees. Over time, these committees evolved into informal justice systems that played a central role in confronting the past. Initially praised for flexibility, they increasingly faced criticism for lack of transparency, procedural clarity, and overreliance on executive power. The growing involvement of legal professionals in restitution claims amplified tendencies towards juridification, exposing weaknesses in institutional design. Attempts at ad hoc reform highlighted the difficulty of reconciling a moral mission with weak structural embedding. Ultimately, as long as recognition of past atrocities remains the driving force, restoring victims’ agency requires transparent and predictable procedures; a purely moral approach has clear limitations.
Substantive analysis
The substantive frameworks vary considerably. Austria’s Kunstrückgabegesetz (KRG) remains closely tied to post-war restitution law, with the Beirat operating within a judicial-like structure. Its reliance on legal presumptions, such as defining a ‘circle of persecutees’, illustrates Austria’s continued attachment to legal tradition, though this has drawn criticism for weak legal reasoning. In contrast, the UK’s Spoliation Advisory Panel embodies the paradigm shift most clearly. Rooted in moral obligation and ‘moral weight’, it assesses a broad range of claims, including losses not directly caused by Nazi looting, while framing its mandate outside traditional legal adjudication. The Dutch approach initially reflected ambivalence: a policy-based framework that reinterpreted post-war concepts from a claimant’s perspective, introducing, for instance, a presumption of involuntary loss. However, dual and inconsistent decision-making tracks created confusion until the 2021 reforms, which introduced a hardship clause to ensure greater discretion and explicit prioritisation of the victims’ perspective.
Case analysis revealed that all three committees retain ownership as a key requirement and reject symbolic restitution. Yet they diverge in handling earlier legal rulings and Fluchtgut (flight goods). Austria has cautiously reinterpreted the KRG to address problematic precedents. The Dutch Restitutiecommissie has been more willing to overturn binding decisions, as in the Goudstikker case, though this has raised concerns over legal certainty. By contrast, the UK SAP, despite its broad moral mandate, has taken a more restrictive stance, particularly to avoid double compensation, as in the Glaser case. On Fluchtgut, Austria remains bound by territorial constraints, the UK adopts a restrained equity-based approach, while the Netherlands interprets flexibly to prioritise claimants’ perspectives. Overall, the Dutch committee has demonstrated the greatest openness to victim-centred reasoning, though it remains institutionally fragile.
Towards a hybrid model
The findings are situated within broader debates on restitution mechanisms, engaging with Matthias Weller’s call for legal embedding, Alexander Herman’s emphasis on respectability, and Bernadette Atuahene’s focus on victim agency. This thesis argues that a hybrid model is essential: one that combines legal structure with moral reasoning. Legal frameworks provide the institutional strength, transparency, and foreseeability needed for legitimacy, while moral considerations ensure sensitivity to victims and historical injustice. A statutory basis acknowledging the intent to remedy past wrongs would enhance both legitimacy and claimant agency. Austria demonstrates the benefits of legal embedding, while the Netherlands highlights the importance of claimant-centred communication and discretion. In conclusion, a victim-centred approach to Nazi-looted art restitution can only succeed when integrated into a legal framework. By combining law and morality in a hybrid paradigm, restitution committees can move beyond tension and create sustainable mechanisms appropriate to the complexity of historical injustice.
Oost defended her thesis on October 17th at the UvA. Promoters: prof. dr. Marc de Wilde and prof. dr. Wouter Veraart. Copromoter: mr. dr. Jan-Herman Reestman.
Tabitha Oost
The art of restitution: pursuing justice through restitution committees on Nazi-looted art
De dissertatie is beschikbaar in de repository van de universiteit