Keywords
Conflict of laws, Choice of law, Comparative impairment, Stolen art, Art, Lex rei sitae originis, Louisiana Civil Code, Brainerd Currie, Governmental interest analysis, Forum law
Abstract
The Nazis looted hundreds of thousands of pieces of art across Europe before and during World War II. Many of the victims and heirs of parties wrongfully dispossessed are still searching for their stolen art or, in some cases, are fighting in order to get it back. As seen in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, choice of law—or determining the applicable substantive law that governs the dispute—can have enormous impacts on stolen art cases. This essay examines the pitfalls of using several choice of law approaches, such as comparative impairment, or more territorial-based approaches in stolen art cases. This essay finds that Currie’s Governmental Interest Analysis is likely the best choice-of-law approach. This approach, which allows judges to inquire into the substantive law of each state while giving deference to forum law, upholds conflict of laws principles and international principles surrounding stolen art cases.
Repository Citation
Elizabeth Bueche,
Choosing Heritage: A Comparative Analysis of Choice of Law Approaches in Nazi-looted Art Cases,
16 J. Civ. L. Stud.
(2024)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol16/iss1/9