The aftermath of World War II triggered an unprecedented effort to rectify the cultural and artistic looting injustices perpetrated by the Nazi regime. The enforcement of the Washington Conference Principles in 1998 (“Washington Principles”)¹ by 44 nations and the subsequent signing of the Terezin Declaration in 2009 (“Declaration”)² by 47 nations marked pivotal milestones in this ongoing journey toward Nazi-looted art restitution and repatriation.³ Part I of this series highlighted the actions of the seven countries that have made major progress in implementing the Washington Principles and the Declaration,⁴ Part II of this series discussed the three countries that have made substantial progress and the 13 countries that have made some progress in implementing the Washington Principles and the Declaration,⁵ and Part III speculated the roadblocks countries making little or no progress in implementing the Washington Principles and the Declaration may be experiencing.⁶ As we stand on the precipice of a new era, just over a quarter of a century after the Washington Principles were created, the question arises: What does the future hold for art restitution?

A Retrospective Glance: Achievements and Challenges

The past two decades have witnessed a heightened global consciousness and a renewed commitment to addressing the lingering hardships of the Holocaust. Numerous nations, cultural institutions, and organizations have undertaken commendable efforts to facilitate the restitution of Nazi-confiscated art.

For instance, the U.S., U.K., Czech Republic, Netherlands, France, Germany, and Austria have all established specialized restitution commissions and advisory bodies, which have significantly advanced the cause of repatriation.⁷ Within these countries, private institutions such as prominent auction houses have also recently been praised for implementing rigorous provenance research protocols by Ambassador Stuart Elliot Eizenstat, ⁸ Special Advisor on Holocaust Issues to the US Secretary of State.⁹ Some countries have also increased the statute of limitations for filing restitution claims,¹⁰ which benefited, and will continue to benefit, the rightful heirs to Nazi-confiscated art who may not have otherwise been able to file restitution claims.¹¹

Despite these laudable strides, the road to comprehensive restitution remains fraught with challenges and complexities. For example, some countries may be struggling more than others to successfully return Nazi-looted art to its rightful owner or their heirs due to financial restraints, the absence of internal pressure placed on museums, or laws that, for various reasons, may be hard to enforce.¹² For others, they face challenges for reasons that remain unknown.¹³

Envisioning the Upcoming Years: A Roadmap for Progress

As we look ahead over the next few years or even decades, a multifaceted approach encompassing technological, ethical, legal, and practical considerations emerges as the key to sustaining and accelerating the momentum of art restitution.

With advancements in technology and collaboration, comes greater opportunities to streamline and enhance restitution processes. This was previously seen by the creation and signing of the Declaration, which addressed the increasing availability of the Internet for information dissemination and establishing a central registry for Nazi-confiscated art.¹⁴ Since the Declaration, there have been further technological advancements such as blockchain technology¹⁵ and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).¹⁶ As blockchain technology continues to develop as it is used for authenticating luxury goods and other activities, museums may use blockchain technology and distributed ledgers to create immutable records of ownership, provenance, and transaction histories.¹⁷ Additionally, NFTs can be used to create a secure and transparent record of ownership and provenance for cultural artifacts. This can help combat art forgery and theft, while also providing valuable historical information.¹⁸ The downside is that understanding blockchain technology can be intimidating for individuals, and people who work in the art world are no exception.¹⁹ This creates a barrier to the use of the technology and thus will require museums and other art institutions to have a genuine passion or interest in educating themselves on this technology so that it can be used to enhance the success rate for the return of Nazi-looted art to its rightful owner or their heirs.²⁰

At the online conference “Restitution of Nazi-looted Art: The Next 25 Years,” which was held on January 17, 2024 (“Online Conference”), Ambassador Stuart Elliot Eizenstat discussed several best practices that he believed should be implemented over the next 25 years to better combat the fight against Nazi-looted art.²¹ These recommended best practices included (1) modifying laws that ban museums from returning Nazi-looted art; (2) amending statutes of limitations for claimants to bring Nazi-looted art restitution claims; (3) improving statistical recordkeeping regarding art restitution; (4) ensuring that the burdens of proof are shifted from Holocaust victims or their heirs to those current possessors of suspected looted artworks, recognizing the inherent challenges faced by claimants in establishing provenance; (5) developing solutions for Nazi-looted art where there is no heir or the heir cannot be traced; and (6) enhancing the importance of provenance research.²²

We predict that with the recent development of the “Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi–Confiscated Art,” released by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken,²³ and the best practices outlined at the Online Conference, some museums may feel more pressure from society, as opposed to from governments, to maintain a list of art pieces held in their trust, improve their provenance research processes and recordkeeping, and use the ability to be transparent to their advantage in an age where transparency, accountability, and authenticity are trending and highly publicized.²⁴ Notwithstanding the changes some museums may make to become more transparent and take more accountability for their actions or inactions, we are not hopeful that all museums will follow their lead.

Further, as legal frameworks continue to be bolstered by nations around the globe,²⁵ and precedent-setting cases are shaping the narrative of cultural heritage preservation,²⁶ there will likely be more pressure on governments to amend statutes of limitations and get rid of laws that are inconsistent or in conflict with art restitution laws, thus restoring equilibrium to a now-turbulent sea of ambiguity.

Like Professor Dr. Leora Bilsky who attended the Online Conference, we also predict that the environment that surrounds Nazi-looted art restitution will continue to slowly move away from a focus on a particular piece or collection of art being returned to a particular individual, toward a more collective approach that is community-active and fosters relations between entire communities and the cultural objects that carry meaning for them.”²⁷

Summation of Our Art Restitution Crystal Ball Readings

The restitution of Nazi-looted art transcends mere legal and financial considerations; it represents dynamic acts of restorative justice and a collective commitment to preserving the integrity of cultural heritage. In other words, the future of art restitution around the world is a tapestry woven with threads of hope and determination not solely lying within the halls of jurisprudence but also within the boardrooms of creative institutions, enterprises, individuals, and communities. By fostering transparency, strengthening legal frameworks, investing in education, and embracing technological advancements in real-time, nations can chart a course toward a future where the wounds of the past are more healed, and the rightful custodians of cultural treasures are reunited with their art.

1. The Washington Principles consists of the following 11 non-binding principles:
   1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.
   2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives.
   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. 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. 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. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.
   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. 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. 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. 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. Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.
   See Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dec. 3, 1998 [hereinafter Washington Principles], available at https://www.state.gov/washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/.↩
2. 2009 Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference, June 30, 2009 [hereinafter Terezin Declaration], available at https://www.state.gov/prague-holocaust-era-assets-conference-terezin-declaration/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2024). The 2022 Terezin II Conference further strengthened the Washington Principles. Id.↩
3. Wesley A Fisher & Ruth J. Weinberger, Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide OVERVIEW, WORLD JEWISH RESTITUTION ORGANIZATION, THE CONFERENCE ON JEWISH MATERIAL CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY (Mar. 5, 2024), https://art.claimscon.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/11-March-2024-Holocaust-Era-Looted-Cultural-Property-A-Current-Worldwide-Overview.pdf [hereinafter The Report].↩
4. On March 5, 2023, the report “Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property: A Current Worldwide Overview” analyzing how countries have implemented the Washington Principles and the Declaration was released by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (“WJRO”). The Report, supra note at 3. WJRO categorized the level of progress made by each country based on a rating system of the following factors: (i) has done historical research on the subject (albeit through a historical commission or otherwise); (ii) does provenance research on its collections; (iii) has a claims process (whether through its restitution commission or otherwise); and (iv) has made a substantial amount of restitutions. Id. at 7. “Major progress,” “substantial progress,” “some progress,” and “little or no progress” were what the WJRO named the levels of progress. See id. at 5; see also Daniel A. Schnapp and Caen A. Dennis, Part I: The Washington Principles and the Countries Making The Most Progress Against Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dentons (Apr. 2, 2024) [hereinafter Part I of this Series], https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/april/2/part-i-the-washington-principles-and-the-countries making#:~:text=Every%20effort%20should%20be%20made,central%20registry%20of%20such    %20information.↩
5. Daniel A. Schnapp, Samuel Fifer, Aleksandra Sitnick & Caen A. Dennis, Part II: A Strong Start: Countries Making “Substantial” or “Some” Progress Against Nazi-Confiscated Art (Apr. 15, 2024) [hereinafter Part II of this Series], https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/april/15/part-ii-a-strong-start-countries-making-substantial-or-some-progress.↩
6. Daniel A. Schnapp, Samuel Fifer & Caen A. Dennis, Part III: Roadblocks and Challenges to Restitution of Nazi-Confiscated Art (Apr. 29, 2024) [hereinafter Part III of this Series], https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/april/29 /part-iii-roadblocks-and-challenges-to-restitution-of-nazi-confiscated-art#:~:text=Every%20effort%20should%20be%20made,central%20registry%20of%20such       %20information.↩
7. Part I of this Series, supra note 4.↩
8. Amanda Buonaiuto, WYWH: “Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art: The Next 25 Years,” Center for Art Law (Mar. 9, 2024), https://itsartlaw.org/2024/03/09/wywh-restitution-of-nazi-looted-art-the-next-25-years/.↩
9. Online Conference "Restitution of Nazi-looted Art: The next 25 Years" (Jan. 17, 2024), https://kulturgutverluste.de/en/events/online-conference-restitution-nazi-looted-art-next-25-years↩
10. See The Report, supra note 3 at 23. In the U.S., the 2016 Holocaust Expropriation Art Recovery Act (HEAR Act) extended the statute of limitations to six years and allowed certain heirs of rightful Nazi-looted art owners to bring claims against third parties. Catherine Hickley, “Jewish cabaret artist’s heirs file suit for return of 12 works by Schiele” (Nov. 9, 2023), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/11/09/jewish-cabaret-artists-heirs-file-suit-for-return-of-12-works-by-schiele.↩
11. Hickley, supra note 10.↩
12. Part III of this Series, supra note 6.↩
13. Id.↩
14. Part III of this Series, supra note 6.↩
15. The first modern blockchain launched in 2009, the same year as the Declaration was created and signed but was not popularized until 2014. See Kryptomat.io, A Brief History of Blockchain Technology That Everyone Should Read, https://kriptomat.io/blockchain/history-of-blockchain/#:~:text=Nakamoto%20uploaded%20blockchain%20source%20code,             with%20the%20associated%20 cryptocurrency%2C%20Bitcoin (last visited May 6, 2024); see also Geeks for Geeks, History of Blockchain (Oct. 6, 2023) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/history-of-blockchain/.↩
16. Mitchell Clark, NFTs, explained, THE VERGE (Jun 6, 2022, 8:30 AM) https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq.↩
17. Santosh G, Beyond the Hype: Web3's Potential to Reshape the Future of Art and Culture, LinkedIn (Apr. 19, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-hype-web3s-potential-reshape-future-art-culture-santosh-g-rj3dc.↩
18. Id.↩
19. Id.↩
20. Id.↩
21. Buonaiuto, supra note 8.↩
22. Id.↩
23. U.S. Dep’t of State, Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, “Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi–Confiscated Art,” (Mar. 5, 2024), https://www.state.gov/best-practices-for-the-washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/ [hereinafter Best Practices]. The Best Practices outline fifteen (15) non-binding but morally important practical steps to advance countries’ implementation of the restitution of Holocaust-era creative works and cultural objects, as a modern interpretation and guideline to the Washington Principles.↩
24. See Buonaiuto, supra note 8; see also VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM, https://www.vam.ac.uk/info/research (last visited Mar. 19, 2024); see also VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM, “Explore 'Entartete Kunst': The Nazis' inventory of 'degenerate art' V&A,” https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/explore-entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inventory-of-degenerate-art#?xywh=-2454%2C-303%2C8987%2C6044 (last visited Mar. 19, 2024).↩
25. Part I of this Series, supra note 4.↩
26. The Report, supra note 3 at 23.↩
27. Buonaiuto, supra note 8.↩