RESTITUTION, COMPENSATION OR INVESTMENT? – THE REPRIVATIZATION OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ASSETS
The article illustrates a process of property`s restitution within the boundaries of the former GDR. It presents the initial arrangements in this regard between the two German states, concluded in Joint Declaration and Unification Treaty, which provided an obligation to return assets expropriated by the state to its rightful owners or their heirs. This principle of restitution was subsequently developed in the Property Law of 1990. In order to stimulate investment further legislation, however, introduced exceptions to this rule, giving finally priority to investors over former owners rights. The aim of this article is to draw a conclusion from German experiences and to find clues for the regulation of still unresolved restitution issues in Poland.
State responsibility and the individual : reparation in instances of grave violations of human rights
Foreword. Individual Reparation Claims in Instances of Grave Human Rights Violations: The Position under General International Law C. Tomuschat. Individual Reparation Claims under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The Practice of the Human Rights Committee E. Klein. Compensation for Human Rights Violations: The Practice of the Past Decade in the Americas W.M. Reisman. Individual Reparation Claims under the European Convention on Human Rights M. Pellonpaa. International Obligations to Provide for Reparation Claims? R. Pisillo-Mazzeschi. Reparation for Human Rights Violations Committed by the Apartheid Regime in South Africa L. Fernandez. The United Nations Compensation Commission N. Wuhler. The Legal Position of the Individual under Present International Law A. Randelzhofer. Rehabilitation and Compensation of Victims of Human Rights Violations Suffered in East Germany (1945-1990) B. Fassbender. Documentary Annex. Table of Cases. Participants.
The Provincial Centre at Camulodunum: Towards an Historical Context
Present assessment of the provincial enclosure at Camulodunum, more particularly how far it can be compared to the standard picture of similar centres elsewhere, is inevitably constrained by the limited evidence at our disposal. With no numismatic sources to draw on and in the absence of a single record of the provincial priesthood — a striking void that calls for comment — documentary testimony is restricted to what can be made of two passages in the literary authorities. The first, a notorious sneer in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis (VIII.3), tells only that a temple of some sort was associated somehow with the emperor Claudius. The second text, an obscure allusion in Tacitus, is at first sight no more enlightening but, on closer analysis, the phrase templum Divo Claudio constitutum (Ann. xiv.31) yields the invaluable inference that the temple was to the deified, not the living Claudius; in which case construction must have been begun in a.d. 54 or later. Archaeological data throw no light on the origins of the temple or of the precinct in which it stood but exploration has steadily enlarged our knowledge of the site itself, and understanding of the remains has now reached the stage at which, for all its puzzling lacunae, the centre is as well known in some ways as the triple-tiered complex at Tarraco, the provincial enclave of Hispania Citerior. We have arrived at the point where the British sanctuary and its counterparts on the Continent can be mutually illuminating.