scholarly journals Property restitution and ending displacement in Kosovo: coordinated effort or at cross-purposes?

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-205
Author(s):  
Anneke Rachel Smit
Keyword(s):  

N/A

Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

The Nazis and their cohorts stole mercilessly from the Jews of Europe. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, returning survivors had to navigate unclear and hostile legal paths to recover their stolen property from governments and neighbors who often had been complicit in their persecution and theft. While the return of Nazi-looted art and recent legal settlements involving dormant Swiss bank accounts, unpaid insurance policies and use of slave labor by German companies have been well-publicized, efforts by Holocaust survivors and heirs over the last 70 years to recover stolen land and buildings were forgotten. In 2009, 47 countries convened in Prague to deal with the lingering problem of restitution of prewar private, communal, and heirless property stolen during the Holocaust. The outcome was the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, aiming to “rectify the consequences” of the wrongful Nazi-era immovable property seizures. This book sets forth the legal history of Holocaust immovable property restitution in each of the Terezin Declaration signatory states. It also analyzes how each of the 47 countries has fulfilled the standards of the Guidelines and Best Practices of the Terezin Declaration. These standards were issued in 2010 in conjunction with the establishment of the European Shoah Legacy Institute (ESLI), a state-sponsored NGO created to monitor compliance. The book is based on the Holocaust (Shoah) Immovable Property Restitution Study commissioned by ESLI, written by the authors and issued in Brussels in 2017 before the European Parliament.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Spain is typically described as having been a neutral country during World War II. However, during the war, the Fascist ideology of Spain’s General Francisco Franco was closely aligned to that of the Nazis’ National Socialism. Unlike Hitler’s Germany, however, Franco’s Spain did not enact anti-Jewish policies or engage in the persecution of Jews. More than 25,000 Jews were able to escape Nazi-controlled Europe to Spain during the war. No immovable property—private, communal, or heirless—was taken from Jews or other targeted groups in Spain during the war. As a result, no immovable property restitution laws were required. Spain endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

In 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in violation of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The invasion marked the beginning of what Russia would later call the Great Patriotic War during which the Soviet Union suffered tens of millions of civilian and military losses. Private property in the Soviet Union was earlier confiscated through Lenin and Stalin’s nationalization programs. Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union suffered property confiscation by the German forces, with most of the confiscation taking place in the Soviet Republics of Belarussia and Ukraine and western Russia. Russia does not have any private or communal property restitution and/or compensation laws relating to Holocaust-era confiscations, or return of property confiscations dating back to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Russia also does not have any special legislation dealing with heirless property. Russia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009, but declined to endorse the 2010 Guidelines and Best Practices.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Yugoslavia (which included present-day Macedonia) 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. Macedonia gained its independence in 1991. In 2000, Macedonia passed its primary denationalization law, which addressed the restitution of private, communal, and heirless property. It was the first law in any of the Balkan countries to address heirless property. Macedonia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah

Cyprus was a British Crown colony during World War II. Cyprus was a haven to refugees escaping Nazi persecution during World War II, and after concentration camps in Europe were liberated, detention centers were set up on the island by the British in an effort to curtail survivors from entering British Mandate Palestine. No immovable property—private, communal, or heirless—was confiscated from Jews or other targeted groups in Cyprus during the war. As a result, no immovable property restitution laws were required. Cyprus endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document