Debate Leading Up to the Law Russian cultural property law

1 debate leading law

1.1 yeltsin in favour of restitution 1992
1.2 duma halts restitution 1994
1.3 duma proposes law 1995 , 1996
1.4 yeltsin s position, july 1996
1.5 duma passes law, march 1997
1.6 yeltsin vetoes law, march 1997

debate leading law
yeltsin in favour of restitution 1992

in june 1992, decree of russian government created called state commission restitution of cultural valuables, decide issues related restitution. however, commission did little , @ halt june 1993, , later abolished march 2001. also, in 1992, there many bilateral cultural agreements number of countries such as, belgium, bulgaria, denmark, germany, greece, hungary, luxembourg, poland, , united kingdom mutual restitution of displaced cultural valuables; none of talked in constitutional court ruling in 1999 constitutionality of russian 1998 law, international agreements put above domestic laws. however, in june 1992 there restitution of books west russia; there 600 dutch books returned netherlands. but, small portion of estimated 30,000 dutch books had arrived in ussr. idea of restitution did not last long, , turned demands compensation.

duma halts restitution 1994

starting in 1994, idea of restitution had come stop, , debates started constructing law on said cultural valuables. duma deputies responsible start of debate stating there lack of international laws , inadequacy of domestic legislation justify refusal permit further restitution. came when duma deputies refused return of french archives part of 1992 agreement. demands compensation wartime loss , destruction started arise duma deputies, suggesting other countries should charged storage fees held in russia secretly on 50 years; , further possible restitution of cultural valuables occur other nations in exchange russian cultural valuables, because deputies @ point arguing many of plundered cultural valuables russia being held across ocean united states zone of occupation in germany. further, support of legal specialists , russian legislators argue cultural valuables brought moscow under government orders done legally. but, nevertheless there other side of debate, supported yeltsin government, argue compromise , internationally appropriate solutions.

duma proposes law 1995 , 1996

for 6 years debate continued. in january 1995 large international conference held in new york city titled “spoils of war”, international context issues surrounding cultural valuables plundered or misplaced @ end of second world war came light. firstly, important note no allied agreement made ever stated works of art or other cultural property used compensation purposes. efforts such done british , americans, carried out elaborate program of restitution countries of origin discussed. interestingly, stories such united states had returned on half million cultural items soviet union, russians not aware of this, among many topics discussed. on international level, legal concepts , precedents existed during time of plundering germany in 1945, such hague convention of 1907. article 56 of convention “forbids seizure, damaging , destruction of property of educational , art institutions, … , articles of scientific , artistic value belonging individuals , societies state”. such international law did not stop stalin ordering seizure of cultural valuables compensatory reparations germany. however, stalin’s order still followed russian position 50 years later, argue these transfers (seizures) carried out legally after war compensation. on other side such point of view wrong because russia not in compliance international law regarding protection of cultural property. despite ongoing debate , russia’s failure restitute cultural valuables other european countries, russia had interest in becoming member of council of europe. in order russia become member had sign statement of intent in order admitted, did , gained admission in late 1995. russia @ time agreed negotiate claims return of cultural property other european countries, , return property transferred moscow in 1945, in rapid manner. surprisingly, nothing agreement ever occurred or of mention in russian press; , less year later in may 1996 duma passed first reading of proposed law nationalizing spoils of war. law emphasized compensation russia wartime loss.

yeltsin s position, july 1996

it not long after, in july 1996, law passed unanimously, making other european counties hostile law. passage started slew of diplomatic protests, , result russian upper house, council of federation, rejected law because of outcry yeltsin administration. boris yeltsin, president of russian federation @ time, , administration stood strong behind argument rejecting law on basis conflict numerous international agreements.

duma passes law, march 1997

nevertheless, law continued gain support other nationalist-oriented parties, , push passage of law continued. chair of duma committee on culture, nikolai gubenko, continued stress law must, on basis cultural property transported soviet union done legally according allied agreements, , law way of providing justice loved ones, 30 million, no longer due horrific outcomes of war. more gained support, , revised law, duma again unanimously passed law on february 5, 1997, , further passed upper house, council of federation on march 5, 1997.

yeltsin vetoes law, march 1997

sticking believed, , despite ongoing support law, president yeltsin vetoed law on march 18, 1997. making position clear in official message duma, yeltsin stood firm law in contradiction of constitution. further yeltsin pointed out law went against russian bilateral agreements other european countries.