# The Washington Principles: What They Do Not Bind > Forty-four states signed eleven non-binding sentences in 1998. What decides a claim is not the principles but the machinery each state built, and whether a museum can refuse to take part. > The Study - 2026-08-02 > Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/study/washington-principles-1998-what-they-do-not-bind/ ## Key points - The Washington Principles are non-binding by their own preamble, and they define neither confiscation nor a just and fair solution, which leaves both to national machinery. - Germany's Advisory Commission issued twenty-six recommendations in twenty-two years because proceedings required the holder's consent; the arbitration court that replaced it on 1 December 2025 allows unilateral claims and issues binding awards. - The Dutch balance-of-interests test showed that the principles can be read in the museum's favour; the correction came from a domestic evaluation in 2020, because no international mechanism exists. - France's obstacle was the inalienability of public collections under article L.451-5 of the code du patrimoine, removed generally only by the framework law of 22 July 2023. ## Eleven sentences, and a preamble that gives them away ## Five states built machinery, and no two built the same thing ## Consent was the hidden veto, and Germany has now removed it ## The Dutch reversal proves the text does not constrain the reading ## France moved the obstacle rather than the standard ## The pattern across five systems is about access, not about merit The Washington Principles are best read as a procurement specification rather than a rule of decision. They told forty-four states to build something and left every design choice open, and it is the design choices that have decided the cases: who may start proceedings, whether the holder may refuse them, whether the award binds, and whether a doctrine of public property law is disapplied. Anyone assessing a claim should establish which country holds the object and what that country built, and should treat the 1998 text as the least useful document in the file. ## Questions **Do the Washington Principles create a legal right to restitution?** No. The preamble describes them as non-binding and expressly recognises that participating nations have differing legal systems and act within their own laws. Any enforceable right comes from national legislation, such as Austria's Art Restitution Act, or from a national mechanism whose awards bind, such as the German Court of Arbitration. **Can a claimant now force a German museum into proceedings?** Yes, for objects located in Germany and held by public owners or institutions. Since 1 December 2025 a claimant may file unilaterally, relying on a standing offer to arbitrate made by more than two hundred institutions, and the resulting award binds. Private holders are outside the system. **What did the 2024 Best Practices actually change?** They supplied definitions the 1998 text omitted: art as all kinds of cultural property, confiscated as all methods of dispossession, and just and fair solutions as solutions that are just and fair primarily for victims and heirs, with restitution as the primary remedy. They remain non-binding, and the number of endorsing states is reported inconsistently across sources. **Which national system gives a claimant the best prospects?** On present arrangements, Germany, because a claimant can compel a forum and obtain a binding award against a public institution under an evidentiary framework that presumes gaps in provenance. Austria offers proactive state research but a ministerial decision at the end. The United Kingdom's panel weighs moral obligation but cannot bind. Switzerland still requires the holder's agreement to open a case. ## Sources - [1] Commission for Looted Art in Europe, 'Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art' (text, preamble and eleven principles, 3 December 1998). - [2] Beratende Kommission NS-Raubgut, official site (establishment 2003; activities terminated 30 November 2025). - [3] Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit NS-Raubgut, 'Advisory Commission' (start 14 July 2003; approximately 25 cases and 26 recommendations; bilateral consent requirement). - [4] German Lost Art Foundation, 'Court of Arbitration for Nazi-looted Cultural Property launched' (1 December 2025; 36 arbitrators; unilateral requests; binding awards). - [5] Koch Boes Rechtsanwaelte, 'Germany's New Arbitration Court for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property: Key Procedural Features' (standing offer by more than 200 institutions; public respondents only; object must be in Germany; evidentiary framework). - [6] Center for Art Law, 'Navigating New Grounds on the Nazi-Looted Art Restitution Field: Swiss Commission and German Arbitration Tribunal' (Swiss committee 2024; bilateral referral; criticism). - [7] GOV.UK, 'Spoliation Advisory Panel' (terms of reference 2016; recommendations not legally binding; full and final settlement). - [8] Commission for Looted Art in Europe, 'Spoliation Advisory Panel' (established February 2000; list of published reports). - [9] Kommission fuer Provenienzforschung, Austria (Art Restitution Act 1998; Advisory Board recommends to the federal minister; federal collections). - [10] CIVS, 'History of CIVS' (decree no. 99-778 of 10 September 1999; framework law of 22 July 2023 and decree of 5 January 2024; three missions). - [11] Restitutions Committee, Netherlands, official site (advising since 2001; recommendations and binding opinions). - [12] Commission for Looted Art in Europe, 'Dutch (Kohnstamm) Committee for the Evaluation of the Restitution Policy, report of 7 December 2020'. - [13] Commission for Looted Art in Europe, 'Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, 5 March 2024' (fifteen best practices; three definitions). - [14] Center for Art Law, '25 Years of the Washington Principles: The Strides and Stumbles in Reclaiming Nazi-Confiscated Art'. - [15] Legifrance, LOI n. 2020-1673 du 24 decembre 2020 (article 1 citing the inalienability of French public collections under article L.451-5 of the code du patrimoine).