Federal appeals court denies reparations to descendants of first 20th century genocide News
Studiolarsen / Pixabay
Federal appeals court denies reparations to descendants of first 20th century genocide

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday denied descendants of the victims of the first twentieth-century genocide the ability to collect reparations from Germany.

This putative class action was brought on behalf of members and descendants of the Ovaherero and Nama indigenous peoples. Between 1884 and 1903, Germany colonized present-day Namibia, which was originally occupied by Ovaherero and Nama peoples. During the course of colonization, these peoples were treated as property and enslaved. The UN Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights deemed the events a genocide in 1985.

In an effort to seek redress from such events in the US, the Ovaherero and Nama peoples had to prove that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) was applicable to the present case. Plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction was proper under the FSIA because human remains collected from this colonization period were shipped from Germany to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. They also argued that the New York Public Library houses one of the few copies of the Blue Book, a record of the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples.

More specifically, plaintiffs assert that the takings exception if the FSIA is applicable in their case. In order for the takings exception to establish jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show: “(1) rights in property are in issue; (2) that the property was taken; (3) that the taking was in violation of international law; and (4) that one of the two nexus requirements is satisfied.” However, the court disagreed with the contention that the takings exception was applicable in this case. The court reasoned that the complaint “fails to allege that the expropriated property is present in connection with a commercial activity,” rather the New York properties are being used for governmental use.

While the court dismissed this complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it noted that “the terrible wrongs elucidated in Plaintiffs’ complaint must be addressed through a vehicle other than the U.S. court system.”