Article contents
Restitution for Historic Wrongs, the American Courts and International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
- Type
- Editorial Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998
References
1 N.Y. Times, Dec. 24, 1997, at B1; id., Jan. 1, 1998, at B1; id., Jan. 15, 1998, at A21; id., Feb. 5, 1998, at B1.
2 For a survey of that history, see Lynn Nicholas, The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War (1994).
3 Burnham v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 495 U.S. 604 (1990).
4 See Andreas, F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and Arbitration 420–39 (1993)Google Scholar.
5 For example, under §328 of the German Civil Procedure Code (ZivilprozeBordnung), a foreign judgment is not to be enforced if the court rendering it did not have jurisdiction as measured by German standards.
6 Pub. L. No. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (1996), discussed in Andreas, F. Lowenfeld & Brice, M. Clagett, Agora: The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LTBERTAD) Act , 90 AJIL 419 (1996)Google Scholar.
7 Such indemnification agreements are authorized by 20 U.S.C. §§971–977 (1994). Regulations of the Fédéral Council on the Humanities appear at 45 C.F.R. pt. 1160 (1997). The New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law §12.03 specifically prohibits attachments “or any kind of seizure” of property brought into the state for a nonprofit exhibition. The District Attorney apparently reads that as not including a criminal subpoena.
8 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
9 The FSIA does allow suits to recover property taken in violation of international law, but only if the property was brought into the United States in connection with a commercial activity. 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3) (1994).
10 See, in particular, the Sabbatino Amendment, 22 U.S.C. §2370(e) (2), which applies to takings after January 1, 1959.
11 Four European countries filed briefs in opposition to the position taken in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987).
12 Lowenfeld, supra note 4, at 453.
13 For a review of this literature, see Marc, Galanter, News from Nowhere: The Debased Debate on Civil Justice , 71 Denv. U. L. Rev. 77 (1993)Google Scholar.
14 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).
15 For a general survey, see Sauveplanne, J. G., The Protection of the Bona Fide Purchaser of Corporeal Movables in Comparative Law , 29 Rabels Zeitschrift 651 (1965)Google Scholar. See also Harding, C. S. P. & Rowell, M. S., Protection of Properly versus Protection of Commercial Transactions in French and English Law , 26 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 354 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1987).
17 Solomon, R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell, 569 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1991)Google Scholar.
18 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
19 Code Civil Art. 2279(2).
20 See, as to France, Leila Sadat, Wexler, The Interpretation of the Nuremberg Principles by the French Court of Cassation:From louvier to Barbie and Back Again , 32 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 289 (1994)Google Scholar. See, as to Germany, Robert, A. Monson, The West German Statute of Limitations on Murder: A Political, Legal and Historical Exposition , 30 Am. J. Comp. L. 605 (1982)Google Scholar.
21 163 F.2d 246 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 332 U.S. 772 (1947). The decision to proceed is reported as Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij, 173 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1949).
- 1
- Cited by