# data[].attributes.headline
Yale Should Return the Painting for Moral Reasons - the Museum Should do the Right Thing

# data[].attributes.subject
Yale Should Return the Painting for Moral Reasons - the Museum Should do the Right Thing

# data[].attributes.headline
The Expropriation of the Painting by the Newly Formed Russian Government is Similar to the Confiscation of Jewish-Owned Artworks by the Nazis

# data[].attributes.subject
The Expropriation of the Painting by the Newly Formed Russian Government is Similar to the Confiscation of Jewish-Owned Artworks by the Nazis

# data[].attributes.body
The taking of the painting was done without the consent of Morozov and was performed under duress. It should be again noted that this confiscation was an example of selective expropriation. Clear parallels can be drawn between the confiscation of Jewish-owned works by the Nazis and the taking of Morozov's collection under the guise of Nationalisation. The former is widely held to be immoral, and questions should be raised as to why the the latter isn't held in the same disrepute.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yale Should Not Continue to Own or Display Artworks that were Obtained via Human Rights Violations

# data[].attributes.subject
Yale Should Not Continue to Own or Display Artworks that were Obtained via Human Rights Violations

# data[].attributes.body
Many major Western cultural institutions have come under scrutiny for the way that their collections were acquired. Museums and galleries have increasingly faced fierce backlash as the tide of public opinion turns against them when it is discovered, or made public, that their collections were obtained via human rights violations. Surely it is ultimately beneficial for Yale University to be on the right side of history, to take positive steps and lead by example towards righting wrongs undertaken in early twentieth-century Europe.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yale Should Return the Painting to the Heir of Morozov for the following reasons:

# data[].attributes.subject
Yale Should Return the Painting to the Heir of Morozov for the following reasons:

# data[].attributes.body
EUR-Lex. (n.d.) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT  [Accessed 14th June 2019].
Gerson, A. (2017) The Night Cafe Redux: A Study of Sordidness, from Arles to the U.S. Courts.Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 49(1-2), 197-209.

Frith, M., Yildizci, E. & Renold, M. (2014) The Night Cafe Painting--Morozov Heirs v. Yale University. Available from: https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/the-night-cafe-painting-2013-morozov-heirs-v-yale-university [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Kahn, A. (2016) Van Gogh's Night Cafe to Remain at Yale. Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter. 2016, 1-2. Available from: https://media.gibbonslaw.com/files/publication/d7c0f12d-02c2-4827-9b3d-ed62e914ebf6/presentation/publicationattachment/adc38852-62d8-4995-b9bc-91aa01281bac/aba%20art%20%26%20cultural%20heritage%20law%20newsletter%20-%20winter%202016.pdf [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Konowaloff v. Yale Univ., Night Cafe, Property, a Painting, in rem (2016). Available from: https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/32433-pdf-Prior.pdf [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Konowaloff v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York (2012).  Available from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1618007.html [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Kreder, J. (2017) International Hurdles in Nazi-Era and Russian Revolution Cultural Property Cases. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 49(xx), 227-240.

Legal Information Institute (n.d.) Fifth Amendment. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Moscow Times (2016) Van Gogh Legal Battle - From Soviet Union to Supreme Court. Available from: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/van-gogh-legal-battle-from-soviet-union-to-supreme-court [Accessed 4th July 2019]

United Nations (n.d.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff. (2014)  5 F. Supp. 3d 237 (2014). Available from:  https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20140321a40  [Accessed 14th June 2019].

Yale University Art Gallery (2019). European Art-Artist: Vincent Van Gogh, Dutch, active France, 1853-1890. Available from: https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/12507 [Accessed 14th June 2019].

# data[].attributes.headline
Yale does not hold good title to the painting

# data[].attributes.subject
Yale does not hold good title to the painting

# data[].attributes.body
The painting was illegally removed from Russia and the sale of the painting to Clark occurred under dubious circumstances (Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff, 2014; Konowaloff v. Yale Univ., Night Cafe, Property, a Painting, in rem, 2016). Even if Russia had a valid ownership claim to the painting under the 1918 decree, Clark's ownership claim came from theft against Russia. Considering the painting was bequeathed to Yale by Clark, Yale's title is as good as Clark's, i.e., coming from a thief.

In the United States and in common law, a thief cannot convey good title. As between Konowaloff and Yale, Konowaloff had superior ownership rights to the painting as compared to Yale which obtained its title from Clark, who had no good title.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vincent van Gogh: Le café de nuit (The Night Café) 1888

# data[].attributes.subject
Vincent van Gogh: Le café de nuit (The Night Café) 1888

# data[].attributes.body
In the Yale University Art Gallery https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/12507

# data[].attributes.body
Vincent van Gogh’s Le Café de nuit, (The Night Cafe)is an oil painting produced in Arles, France in the latter half of 1888 (Yale University Art Gallery, 2019). This masterpiece has previously been valued to be worth more than $200 million. The painting was purchased in 1908 by Ivan Morozov, a wealthy Russian textile industrialist and became part of an impressive European art collection.

In November of 1917, and at the height of the Bolshevik Revolution, the new government of Russia issued the “Decree of the Land”, ultimately abolishing the ownership of private property (Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff, 2014;  Konowaloff v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, 2012). However, it wasn’t until 1918 when the Bolsheviks issued a decree nationalizing the art collection of Morozov (along with two other Russian citizens), occupied Morozov’s home, and seized his art collection, including this van Gogh, that the painting left Morozov’s possession. The painting became categorized as state property and was displayed in Moscow for a time, in the Museum of Modern Art, before then finding its way to the Knoedler Gallery in New York, who had acquired it from the Matthiesen Gallery in Berlin.

Stephen Clark, an American art collector, purchased the work from the Knoedler Gallery in 1933 and owned the work until his death in 1960. He left the van Gogh to his alma mater, Yale University, where it has hung in the Yale University Art Gallery since 1961. There is some speculation as to whether Clark purchased the painting directly from the Russians, using the Knoedler and Matthiesen Galleries as intermediaries. Allegations have also been made that the sale to Clark arose from dubious circumstances, including that the painting may have been stolen from the Russian government.

In 2002 Pierre Konowaloff discovered that he was the heir to his great grandfather’s (Morozov) estate. Since 2008 he has been actively seeking the return of the van Gogh.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Expropriation of "The Night Cafe" by the Russian Government Violated Ivan Morozov's Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
The Expropriation of "The Night Cafe" by the Russian Government Violated Ivan Morozov's Human Rights

# data[].attributes.body
In 1918, the painting, "The Night Cafe", owned then by I. Morozov was confiscated by the Russian government and decreed as state property without just compensation to Morozov. This decree of specifically confiscating art collections was not part of a general confiscation of property but rather a selective expropriation that targeted only three Russian citizens, including Morozov (Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff, 2014; Konowaloff v. Yale Univ., Night Cafe, Property, a Painting, in rem, 2016).

Under Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),  everyone has the right to own private property and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of such property (United Nations, n.d.). Although not a treaty, UDHR sets forth a common standard outlining fundamental inalienable human rights that are to be universally protected.

This right is articulated in many jurisdictions.  In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a provision similar to the US (EUR-Lex, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.headline
US Court Ruling did Not Directly Address Whether the Confiscation is Valid or Not

# data[].attributes.subject
US Court Ruling did Not Directly Address Whether the Confiscation is Valid or Not

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the Act of State Doctrine, the court was prevented from examining the issue of whether the confiscation of the painting by the Russian government with no just compensation or the nationalization of Morozov's private property is a violation of Morozov's Human Rights (Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff, 2014; Kahn, 2016).

The Act of State Doctrine is a doctrine that prevents courts of a country from questioning the laws and acts of another sovereign, provided that the other sovereign's acts were carried out within its own territory and against its own citizens (Kreder, 2017, Yale Univ. v. Konowaloff, 2014).  Because of this doctrine, the court could not even address the issue of human rights violation.