Romania

2019 ◽  
pp. 359-378
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Communist Regime ◽  
World War ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Second Wave

Romania was allied with Germany for most of World War II. Extensive “Romanianization” (akin to Germany’s Aryanization) of Jewish property took place. More than 400,000 Romanian Jews died during the Holocaust. After switching sides in the war, Romania promptly enacted legislation to reverse the theft of property. Little was done, however, to act on these commitments during the Communist regime (1945–1989). Instead, widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of confiscation. Restitution only began to take place after 1989. However, restitution laws have not been effectively applied, and to date only limited restitution has taken place in Romania. A 2013 restitution law was recognized by the European Court of Human Rights as providing, in theory, an accessible and effective framework for the restitution of nationalized or confiscated property. In the post-Communist period, Romania has enacted a number of laws relating to the restitution of communal property belonging to religious organizations and national minorities. These laws chiefly cover communal property taken during the Communist era. Romania endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Croatia

2019 ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
World War ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Yugoslavian Republic ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Property Restitution

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Croatia) was invaded by the Axis powers in 1941 and immovable property was confiscated. After the war, Yugoslavia enacted a property restitution law, but it was short-lived. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization—which this time occurred irrespective of race, religion, or ethnicity—resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. It was not until the early 1990s that the post–Yugoslavian Republic of Croatia enacted its first set of denationalization legislation. Croatia’s main restitution laws, however, were not enacted until after the conclusion of the conflicts in the Balkans, which began in 1991 and ended in 1995. Croatia has since passed legislation relating to restitution of private and communal property, albeit with certain key limitations. Ambiguity in one of the main restitution laws left it unclear whether property confiscated during World War II was included. Croatia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Slovenia

2019 ◽  
pp. 415-430
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Private Property ◽  
World War ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
The Law ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Property Restitution

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Slovenia) was occupied by Germany, Italy, and Hungary during World War II, and immovable property was confiscated. Roughly 90 percent of the Jews who lived in Slovenia before World War II were murdered during the war. Postwar Yugoslavia enacted a short-lived property restitution law. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. Slovenia gained its independence in 1991 and that same year passed a denationalization law, which was later amended to permit foreign nationals to make property claims. The law addresses the restitution of private property nationalized between 1945 and 1963. The law has also been used to gain return of communal property. Some communal property has been returned to the Jewish community in Slovenia, despite lack of specific legislation. Slovenia has not passed legislation for the restitution of heirless property. Slovenia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Serbia

2019 ◽  
pp. 385-400
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Property Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Property Restitution

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Serbia) was invaded by the Axis powers in 1941. Nazi Germany established a brutal occupation. Other parts of modern-day Serbia were occupied by Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy. Roughly 85 percent of the Jews who lived in Serbia before World War II were murdered. Postwar war Yugoslavia enacted a short-lived property restitution law. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. Restitution began in the 2000s. Serbia is the only country that has enacted private property restitution legislation since endorsing the Terezin Declaration in 2009. Serbia has also passed communal property legislation—albeit with key limitations whose effects have disproportionately negatively impacted the Jewish community. In February 2016, Serbia enacted heirless property restitution legislation and the first country to enact an heirless property law since the Terezin Declaration was drafted in 2009. Serbia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

“The heart above the ruins”: Miriam Waddington’s Poetry, the Spanish Civil War, and Jewish Canadian Literature

1969 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Robins Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Spanish Civil War ◽  
World War ◽  
Canadian Literature ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
The Subject ◽  
War Consequences

The Jewish Canadian writer Miriam Waddington returned repeatedly to the subject of the Spanish Civil War, searching for hope amid the ruins of Spanish democracy. The conflict, a prelude to World War II, inspired an outpouring of literature and volunteerism. My paper argues for Waddington’s unique poetic perspective, in which she represents the Holocaust as the Spanish Civil War’s outgrowth while highlighting the deeply personal repercussions of the war – consequences for women, for the earth, and for community. Waddington’s poetry connects women’s rights to human rights, Canadian peace to European war, and Jewish persecution to Spanish carnage.

18. Human Rights II: Emergent Principles

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Political Order ◽  
European Convention ◽  
World War ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
European Court ◽  
English Law

This chapter presents an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights, an International treaty originating in the reconstruction of Europe’s political order following World War II. The chapter is organised as follows. Section I discusses the main procedural and substantive features of the Convention itself, whilst Section II assesses its status and use in English law up until (approximately) the early-1990s. Sections III and IV examine the leading judgments of the European Court on Human Rights in the areas of privacy and freedom of expression.

scholarly journals The Legal Status of Jewish Properties after the Second World War

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-150
Author(s):  
Camelia Moldoveanu
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Communist Regime ◽  
World War ◽  
Post World War Ii ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Fascist Regime ◽  
Second World

The author examines the legislative means by which the Jewish minority in Romania was dispossesd of its assets prior to World War II by the Fascist regime, and in the wake if this war, by the Communist regime. The study examines how, the post World War II govermennt willfully hindered the restitution of unlawfully taken Jewish assets, and how it has allowed not only the perpetuation of the dispossession which took place during the Holocaust, but has also added measures for the nationalization of Jewish assets. The post 1989 restitution process is also examined briefly, to outline the successive failures of the Romanian Government to enact proper restitution.

Slovakia

2019 ◽  
pp. 401-414
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Nazi Occupation ◽  
Velvet Revolution ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Property Transfers ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Independent Country

During World War II, Slovakia (previously part of the independent country of Czechoslovakia) became a vassal state of Nazi Germany. Roughly 70,000 Jews were deported from Slovakia. Immediately after World War II, Czechoslovakia enacted legislation invalidating property transfers made during Nazi occupation. The measures were short-lived, however, because the country fell under Communist rule that resulted in a second wave of confiscations from all persons. It was not until after the Velvet Revolution in 1989 that new immovable property restitution laws were enacted for private and communal property. In 2002, Slovakia entered into an agreement with the Jewish community of Slovakia to accept a sum amounting to 10 percent of the estimated value of unrestituted Jewish heirless property, as payment for heirless property that had previously reverted to the state. Slovakia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Montenegro

2019 ◽  
pp. 273-290
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Private Property ◽  
World War ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Jewish Refugees ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Property Restitution

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Montenegro) was invaded by the Axis powers in 1941 and immovable property was confiscated. Only an estimated 30 Jews lived in Montenegro prior to World War II. During the war, Montenegro received Jewish refugees from neighboring Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the war, Yugoslavia enacted a property restitution law, but it was short-lived. As Yugoslavia fell under Communist rule, widespread nationalization—which this time occurred irrespective of race, religion, or ethnicity—resulted in a second wave of property confiscations. The Republic of Montenegro in its current form came into existence in 2006. Restitution in Montenegro began in earnest in the 2000s, after nearly 50 years of Communist rule. During this period, Montenegro passed two property restitution laws, which chiefly addressed the issue of private property restitution. The most recent property restitution law included language that a separate law would be enacted to address communal property restitution. To date, no such law has been passed, but the government has stated that its deadline to adopt the law is the end of 2018. No provisions for heirless property have been made. Montenegro endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Israel

2019 ◽  
pp. 195-200
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
World War ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Late Nineteenth

Even prior to World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews emigrated to Palestine. In the late nineteenth century, waves of anti-Semitism swept through Europe, reviving the Zionists’ quest to re-establish a Jewish homeland. An Israeli state was eventually declared in 1948. Even though Israel had not been a sovereign state during World War II, and no property expropriation laws had been passed, in 2005, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) convened a commission to investigate the issue of property restitution in Israel—movable and immovable—for victims of the Holocaust. In 2006, Israel passed a restitution law addressing private property located in Israel where the owner had disappeared or died during World War II. The law also addressed what would happen if the properties had become heirless. A commission, the Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims’ Assets (known as “Hashava” in Hebrew), was created in 2006 to return assets of the Holocaust located in Israel (including land). Hashava ceased operations at the end of 2017. Israel endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

Rejecting Radbruch: The European Court of Human Rights and the Crimes of the East German Leadership

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 653-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Miller
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Central Line ◽  
West Germany ◽  
World War ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
East And West Germany ◽  
European Court ◽  
East German ◽  
East And West

The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the Convention in its judgement in the complaints of the former East German political and military leaders Streletz, Kessler, and Krenz. All three were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison by German courts in relation to the deaths of East Germans who were killed in attempts at fleeing across the fortified border between East and West Germany. Nonetheless, the Court's decision constitutes a clear rejection of the Radbruch Formula, which served as a central line of reasoning in the decisions of the German courts in the cases. The author addresses the Court's rejection of the Radbruch Formula, focusing especially on the distinct historical and political circumstances that existed after World War II and in 1989.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document