Russian cultural property law

Last updated

After the Second World War in 1945, issues surrounding wartime loss and compensation started to arise. Cultural valuables were taken from Germany and placed in the Soviet Union. Years later, at the break up of the USSR, the said cultural valuables came to attention as the issue of ownership arose. Following, the debates between the Russian Duma and the Yeltsin government began, with the Duma focusing on compensation to Russia for wartime loss, and Yeltsin focusing on maintaining international relationships and agreements. Arising from the debate, were many struggles, but ultimately the enactment of the Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.

Contents

Background

At the end of the Second World War in 1945, armed forces of the Soviet Union transferred cultural valuables (such as books, art, artifacts, etc.) from Germany, through organized collection in what some would argue as retaliation, and others as compensation for the wartime loss of cultural property the Soviet Union suffered, or through unorganized looting. Since the end of the War the existence of such valuables were kept secret, and their existence was denied. In 1991 when the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, and the rise of the Russian Federation began, a number of such hidden cultural artifacts were recognized and discussion of repatriation and ownership was allowed to occur publicly. Many artifacts remain in the Russian Federation, and advocates for retaining them cite the losses incurred by the Soviet Union as justifying the taking of plunder. In total during World War II, nearly thirty million Soviet people died as a result of prison camps, torture, starvation and cold blood murder. The USSR suffered a huge wartime loss, not only through cultural property but also by the deaths of millions of people. [1]

Debate

Yeltsin in Favour of Restitution 1992

In June 1992, a Decree of the Russian Government created what was called the State Commission for Restitution of Cultural Valuables, which was to decide issues related to restitution. However, the Commission did very little and was at a halt by June 1993, and then was later abolished by March 2001. [2] Also, in 1992, there were many bilateral cultural agreements with a number of countries such as, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, and the United Kingdom for mutual restitution of displaced cultural valuables; none of which were talked about in the Constitutional Court ruling in 1999 about the constitutionality of the Russian 1998 law, where international agreements were to be put above domestic laws. [3] However, in June 1992 there was the only restitution of books to the west by Russia; there was 600 Dutch books that were returned to the Netherlands. But, this is only a small portion of the estimated 30,000 Dutch books that had arrived in the USSR. The idea of restitution did not last long, and soon turned into demands for compensation. [4]

Duma halts restitution 1994

Starting in 1994, the idea of restitution had completely come to a stop, and the debates started about constructing a law on said cultural valuables. Duma deputies are responsible for the start of the debate by stating that there is lack of international laws and the inadequacy of domestic legislation to justify its refusal to permit further restitution. [5] This came about when Duma deputies refused the return of French archives that were a part of a 1992 agreement. Demands for compensation from wartime loss and destruction started to arise from the Duma deputies, suggesting that other countries should be charged storage fees for what was held in Russia secretly for over 50 years; and further that the only possible restitution of cultural valuables that would occur to other nations was in exchange for Russian cultural valuables, because the deputies at this point were arguing that many of the plundered cultural valuables from Russia were being held across the ocean from the United States Zone of Occupation in Germany. [6] Further, with the support of some legal specialists and Russian legislators argue that all the cultural valuables that were brought to Moscow under government orders were all done so legally. But, nevertheless there is the other side of the debate, which is also supported by the Yeltsin government, who argue for compromise and internationally appropriate solutions.

Duma Proposes Law 1995 and 1996

For six years the debate continued. In January 1995 a large international conference was held in New York City titled "Spoils of War", where the international context about the issues surrounding cultural valuables plundered or misplaced at the end of the Second World War came to light. Firstly, it was important to note that no allied agreement that was made ever stated that works of art or other cultural property could be used for compensation purposes. Efforts such as what was done by the British and the Americans, where they carried out an elaborate program of restitution to countries of origin were discussed. Stories such as the United States had returned over half a million cultural items to the Soviet Union, but Russians were not aware of this, were among many topics discussed. [7] On an international level, legal concepts and precedents existed during the time of the plundering from Germany in 1945, such as the Hague Convention of 1907. Specifically Article 56 of the Convention "forbids the seizure, damaging and destruction of property of educational and art institutions, … and articles of scientific and artistic value belonging to individuals and societies as well as to the State". [8] Such international law did not stop Stalin from ordering the seizure of cultural valuables as compensatory reparations from Germany. However, Stalin's order is still followed by the Russian position 50 years later, as they would argue that these transfers (seizures) were carried out legally after the war as compensation. On the other side such a point of view is wrong because Russia is not in compliance with international law regarding the protection of cultural property. Despite the ongoing debate and Russia's failure to restitute cultural valuables to other European countries, Russia had an interest in becoming a member of the Council of Europe. In order for Russia to become a member they had to sign a statement of intent in order to be admitted, which they did and gained admission in late 1995. Russia at this time agreed to negotiate claims for the return of cultural property to other European countries, and to return property that was transferred to Moscow in 1945, in a rapid manner. Surprisingly, nothing to this agreement ever occurred or was of any mention in the Russian press; and less than a year later in May 1996 the Duma passed the first reading of the proposed law nationalizing the spoils of war. The law emphasized compensation to Russia for wartime loss. [9]

Yeltsin's Position, July 1996

It was not long after, in early July 1996, the law was passed almost unanimously, making other European counties very hostile about the law. The passage started a slew of diplomatic protests, and as a result the Russian Upper House, the Council of the Federation, rejected the law strongly because of the outcry from the Yeltsin administration. Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation at the time, and his administration stood strong behind this argument for rejecting the law on the basis that it would conflict with numerous international agreements. [10]

Duma Passes Law, March 1997

Nevertheless, the law continued to gain support from other nationalist-oriented parties, and the push for the passage of the law continued. The chair of the Duma Committee on Culture, Nikolai Gubenko, continued to stress that the law was a must, on the basis that all the cultural property that was transported to what was the Soviet Union was all done so legally according to allied agreements, and that the law is way of providing justice to the loved ones, nearly 30 million, that are no longer with us due to the horrific outcomes of the war. With more gained support, and a slightly revised law, the Duma again almost unanimously passed the law on 5 February, 1997, and was further passed by the upper house, the Council of Federation on 5 March, 1997. [11]

Yeltsin Vetoes the Law, March 1997

Sticking to what he believed, and despite the ongoing support for the law, President Yeltsin vetoed the law on 18 March, 1997. Making his position clear in his official message to the Duma, Yeltsin stood firm that the law was in contradiction of the Constitution. Further Yeltsin pointed out that the law went against Russian bilateral agreements with other European countries. [12]

Constitutional Court ruling

Notwithstanding the President's power to veto the law, the Council of the Federation overrode Yeltsin's veto, with a vote of 141 to 37 in favor of the law on 14 May, 1997. Regardless of the fact that the Council of the Federation overrode Yeltsin's veto, he still refused to sign the law, and further cited allegations of voting irregularities; and repeated his position that the law conflicted Russia's international legal obligations. [13] President Yeltsin was forced to sign the law by the Constitutional Court in a decision on 6 April, 1998. The Constitutional Court ruled that they were unable to consider the constitutionality of the law before the President signed it. So, on 15 April, 1998, President Yeltsin signed the law making it officially Federal Law. The Law did return to Constitutional Court in 1999 for review on the basis of unconstitutionality, contradiction of Russia's international legal obligation and alleged irregular voting practices. The ruling of 20 July, 1999 did rule in fact that parts of the law were unconstitutional and that parts of the voting process were violated; but despite these findings the law was still validated and found not in conflict with the Constitution. The ruling further stated that the cultural valuables that were relocated to now what is known as Russia at the end of the Second World War should not be returned to the former aggressor countries and should remain in Russia as a form of compensation. The law was sent back to the Duma for amendments to be made in November 1999, and then finally 25 May, 2000, the Federal Law received the Presidential signature from the then President Vladimir Putin. [14]

The law

The Federal Law on Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of World War II and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation consists of six Chapters and twenty-five Articles. The Law is aimed at governing cultural valuables displaced to know what is known as Russia. The fundamental goals of the Federal Law are "to protect said valuables from misappropriation and prevent their illegal export beyond the borders of the Russian Federation as well as their unlawful transfer to whomsoever; to establish the necessary legal bases for treating said cultural valuables as partial compensation for the damage caused to the cultural property of the Russian Federation as a result of the plunder and destruction of its cultural valuables by Germany and its war allies during World War II; to protect the interests of the Russian Federation in the settlement of disputed issues with foreign states concerning said cultural valuables through consistent compliance with the principle of mutuality; to provide a possibility for acquainting citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens, including specialists in the fields of education, science and culture, with said cultural valuables; and to create favorable conditions for the continuous development of international cooperation in the fields of education, science and culture". [15]

International criticism

The Law enacted by the Russian Federation on displaced cultural valuables, has been nothing but criticized on an international level. A Hungarian specialist cited a large number of issues on how the Russian law violates international law and treaties.[ vague ] But more specifically, emphasized that Hungary is entitled to the restitution of Hungarian property removed to the USSR as a result of the Second World War. Further, similar feelings were expressed by a Ukrainian specialist, who argues that Ukraine and other former Soviet republics should have a say in determining the fate of their cultural valuables, on the basis of international norms and democratic principles. [16] A specific criticism of the law is the notion of a limitation period. This is the idea that a claim must be made within 18 months of the information about a specific cultural valuable is published in an appropriate federal agency publication. This strikes a lot of concerns because who decides and what is an adequate publication, and after the 18 months what happens. [17] In 2009, a Ministry of Culture legal specialist wrote that the passage of the law "would appear as a unilateral Russian rejection of its international obligations and evoke a negative impact on international relations of the Russian Federation with various European governments". [18] In June 2013, news reports illustrated that the controversy about the appropriation of German artefacts by the USSR was still on-going between Germany and Russia. During a visit to St Petersburg, Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, criticized an exhibition at the Hermitage Museum that contained a number of valuables that were stolen from Germany. President Putin declared that the issue was very sensitive and that both sides would continue to talk to resolve the issue. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Russia</span> Political system of Russia

The politics of Russia take place in the framework of the federal semi-presidential republic of Russia. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia has seen serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet governance. For instance, leading figures in the legislative and executive branches have put forth opposing views of Russia's political direction and the governmental instruments that should be used to follow it. That conflict reached a climax in September and October 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin used military force to dissolve the parliament and called for new legislative elections. This event marked the end of Russia's first constitutional period, which was defined by the much-amended constitution adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978. A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of Russia</span> Since 1991, head of state of the RSFSR and Russia

The president of the Russian Federation is the executive head of state of Russia. The president is the chair of the Federal State Council and the supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian Armed Forces. It is the highest office in Russia.

Succession of states is a concept in international relations regarding a successor state that has become a sovereign state over a territory that was previously under the sovereignty of another state. The theory has its roots in 19th-century diplomacy. A successor state often acquires a new international legal personality, which is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator or historical heir, which despite change to its borders retains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations.

The Russian United Democratic Party Yabloko is a social-liberal political party in Russia. The party consequently participated in the elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of all eight convocations. Until 2003, Yabloko was represented by a faction in the State Duma and later until 2007 by individual deputies. In March 2002, the party became a full member of the Liberal International, and since November 1998, it had been in observer status. The founder of the party Grigory Yavlinsky is an honorary vice-president of the Liberal International and winner of its Prize for Freedom. Since 2006, Yabloko has been a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). As of 2021, the party was represented by factions in 4 regional parliaments of the Russian Federation. In addition, members of the party were deputies of 13 administrative centers of the subjects of the Russian Federation, 183 representatives of the party were municipal deputies in Moscow, 84 in Saint Petersburg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 Russian presidential election</span>

Presidential elections were held in Russia on 26 March 2000. Incumbent prime minister and acting president Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded Boris Yeltsin after his resignation on 31 December 1999, was seeking a four-year term in his own right and won the elections in the first round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federation Council (Russia)</span> Upper house of the Federal Assembly of Russia

The Federation Council, or Senate, is the upper house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, according to the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Our Home – Russia</span> 1995–2006 political party in Russia

Our Home – Russia was a Russian political party that existed from 1995 to the mid-2000s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russian State Library</span> National public library in Moscow, Russia

The Russian State Library is one of the three national libraries of Russia, located in Moscow. It is the largest library in the country, largest in Europe and one of the largest in the world. Its holdings crossed over 47 million units in 2017. It is a federal library overseen by the Ministry of Culture, including being under its fiscal jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Priam's Treasure</span> Artifacts found by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann

Priam's Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologists Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hissarlik on the northwestern coast of modern Turkey. The majority of the artifacts are currently in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Repatriation (cultural property)</span> Return of stolen art to the original owners or heirs

Repatriation is the return of the cultural property, often referring to ancient or looted art, to their country of origin or former owners.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nico Gunzburg</span>

Nico Gunzburg was a Belgian lawyer, criminologist and centenarian. In 1885, his parents fled from Riga and settled in Antwerp.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce</span> Nazi art looting organization active in France in WWII

The Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce was a Nazi Party organization dedicated to appropriating cultural property during the Second World War. It was led by the chief ideologue of the Nazi Party, Alfred Rosenberg, from within the NSDAP Office of Foreign Affairs. Between 1940 and 1945, the ERR operated in France, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, and on the territory of the Soviet Union in the Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Much of the looted material was recovered by the Allies after the war, and returned to rightful owners, but there remains a substantial part that has been lost or remains with the Allied powers.

Patricia Kennedy Grimsted is a historian focused on the dispossession and restitution of cultural materials during and after World War II. She is a leading authority on archives in the former Soviet Union and its successor states.

The Turgenev Library is a Russian public library located in Paris, France. The library was founded in 1875. It is the oldest Russian-language library outside of Russia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2nd State Duma</span> Convocation of the lower house of Russian parliament

The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the 2nd convocation is a former convocation of the State Duma, Lower House of the Russian Parliament. The 2nd convocation meets at the State Duma building in Moscow, worked from December 17, 1995 – December 19, 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Spoils of War (symposium)</span> International symposium

"The Spoils of War—World War II and Its Aftermath: The Loss, Reappearance, and Recovery of Cultural Property" was an international symposium held in New York City in 1995 to discuss the artworks, cultural property, and historic sites damaged, lost, and plundered as a result of World War II. The three-day event was sponsored by the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. The conference was organized by Elizabeth Simpson, an archaeologist and professor at the Bard Graduate Center.

<i>Skandinavskii sbornik</i> Academic journal

Skandinavskii sbornik, also Скандинавский сборник, Skandinaavia kogumik, and Skrifter om Skandinavien, was an annual serial publication of the history and wider humanities in Scandinavia and the Baltic. It was published by the University of Tartu in Estonia between 1956 and 1990 and has been described as the principal forum for scholars of Nordic studies in the Soviet region. It emphasised long-term trends over short-term events and had a philosophy that peaceful coexistence between nations and peoples was the most natural order of things. It ceased publication following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

State of emergency in Russia is a special legal regime that is introduced in the country or its regions to protect against an internal threat. The state of emergency involves restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens and legal entities, as well as imposing additional duties on them. In this case, the state of emergency, which is introduced in the case of violent unrest or clash, coup attempt, natural disaster, or man-made disaster, should be distinguished from the martial law regime that is introduced in the event of external aggression.

After World War II and coming to power of the communist government in Poland, large scale nationalization occurred. Following the fall of communism in Poland in 1989, some of the formerly nationalized property have been subject to reprivatisation and restored to previous owners, their heirs or other claimants.

The Commission for Provenance Research is an institution of the Republic of Austria for provenance research, based in Vienna. Created in February 1998 at the Federal Ministry responsible for culture at the time - which is now the Federal Ministry for Art, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport. Its members work as provenance researchers in the various federal museums and collections.

References

  1. ↑ Monten, Lina (2004–2005). "Soviet World War II Trophy Art In Present Day Russia: The Events, The Law, and The Current Controversies". Depual J. Art. & Ent. Law. 37.
  2. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  3. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  4. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  5. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  6. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  7. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  8. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  9. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  10. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  11. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  12. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  13. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  14. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  15. ↑ "The Documentation Project" . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  16. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  17. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  18. ↑ Kennedy Grimsted, Patricia (2010). "Legalizing "Compensation" and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory" . International Journal of Cultural Property. 17 (2): 217–255. doi:10.1017/s094073911000010x. S2CID   159710386 . Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  19. ↑ "Merkel and Putin view exhibition of disputed art". BBC News. June 21, 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.