Maybe Not the Best Solution, But a Solution: The German Foundation Agreement

Authors

Jolie Bell, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Abstract

This note will question whether the processes devised by the Agreement really favor survivors, helping them to realize some form of compensation for their insurance polices. Despite the efforts of the Agreement to prevent litigation of such insurance claims, there are still cases being filed, and legislation being proposed, to try to facilitate compensatory actions at a faster pace. While the Agreement on its face seems to be a welcome solution to the vast amount of litigation, it may be that the Agreement was a convenient way for Germany to dispose of the hundreds of thousands of life insurance policy claims against its government and companies, as well as an expedient way for the United States to keep friendly relations with its close trading partner, in the interest of foreign policy. Despite the difficulties litigation would present to plaintiffs, it might have been dismissed too soon as a means for recovery. It must be considered that while the Agreement and its chosen methods for resolving the insurance claims are plagued with many weaknesses, it may be the best solution to this multifaceted problem. Throughout this discussion it is necessary to keep in mind that the attempt to achieve compensation and restitution for Holocaust victims is "by definition, a fundamentally impossible task. The task to try and deal with moral issues of enormous significance and to do justice - [one] can never do justice ... moral restitution and the issue of doing moral justice is one that will not be settled by ... any of these agreements.

Disciplines

Constitutional Law | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Human Rights Law | Insurance Law | Law

Recommended Citation

Jolie Bell, Maybe Not the Best Solution, But a Solution: The German Foundation Agreement, 6 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 107 (2004).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol6/iss1/7