The United Kingdom’s Spoliation Advisory Panel hears claims for cultural objects held in museum collections of which their original owners lost possession during the Nazi era. The Panel aims to achieve “fair and just” solutions for the parties and was created in response to the strong impetus to return cultural objects lost by Jewish owners during the Nazi era. This article argues that understanding the rationale for this claims process and the choice of remedies is essential for achieving such just and fair solutions, specifically whether the Panel aims to redress the past injustices of Hitler’s tyranny, return objects to their “rightful owners,” or prevent the public’s unjust enrichment from access to objects “tainted” by their Nazi association. If it aims to return cultural objects to their rightful owners or to strip museums of unjust gains, it is only a small step to allowing moral claims by other claimant groups whose cultural objects reside in national museums.

Australia has, like many other states over the past few years, introduced a statute that provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad and immunity from suit for certain parties. This article explores the historical context that lead to the adoption of this statute and comprehensively explores the legislative regime, highlighting its peculiarities.

This article examines the events leading up to, surrounding, and following UNESCO’s controversial removal of Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List in 2009. At the heart of the controversy lay the construction of a new four-lane bridge, the Waldschlößchen Bridge, that would cut through scenic meadows, destroying long-protected vistas and changing the city’s cultural landscape. Although supported by German court decisions and local public opinion polls, the bridge has been denounced by many as an eyesore and an affront to the ideals of World Heritage. Yet despite the bridge, Dresden supposedly maintains World Heritage worthiness, even if it no longer enjoys that title. The author attempts to make sense of these contradictions in order to discover lessons applicable to the World Heritage program as a whole.