Preventive Restitution: A New Frontier in International Law
I want to share with The Times of Israel readers a scholarly article that I have co-authored with Dr. Dmytro Hrebeniuk, Associate Professor at the National University “Odesa Law Academy,” where I am currently pursuing my PhD in international law.
The article, “The Evolution of the Phenomenon of Restitution in Legal Doctrine and International Legal Practice,” has completed editorial review, has been accepted for publication, and is scheduled to appear in Issue No. 82 (2026) of the Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence.
I am sharing it here because I believe the subject is not merely academic.
It is relevant to Israel, Ukraine, the United States and Europe.
Restitution touches questions of war, occupation, confiscated property, cultural heritage, Holocaust-era loss, post-totalitarian justice, human rights and historical memory. These are not problems of the past alone. They remain part of the legal and moral landscape of the present.
Our article traces the development of restitution from the Roman concept of restitutio in integrum to its modern role in international legal responsibility.
But the part of the research that interests me most is the possibility that restitution may continue to evolve.
Traditionally, restitution is understood as a response to something that has already happened.
Property is taken. A right is violated. Territory is occupied. Cultural objects are removed. Then law asks how the previous condition can be restored.
But what happens when restoration becomes impossible?
What happens when a community disappears, an archive is destroyed, a cemetery is erased, or a unique form of living heritage vanishes?
At that point, law may still compensate.
It may recognize the injustice.
It may preserve memory.
But it may no longer be able to restore what actually existed.
This is why I am increasingly interested in what I describe as the preventive dimension of restitution.
From restoration after loss to preservation before irreversible loss
The central question is simple:
Must international law always wait until loss has already occurred?
Or can the underlying logic of restitution sometimes operate earlier — by helping to preserve something before the possibility of restoration disappears altogether?
This does not mean replacing classical restitution.
Nor does it mean that every preservation effort suddenly becomes an international legal claim.
The point is narrower.
If the purpose of restitution is to restore a violated legal or factual condition, then there may be situations where waiting until destruction occurs defeats the very purpose of restoration.
That possibility deserves serious discussion.
In our article, we examine the evolution of restitution through Roman law, modern state responsibility, the Factory at Chorzów case, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the work of the United Nations International Law Commission and the return of cultural property.
But we also look at living heritage.
And this is where two very different examples become important.
The first is the dodo, Raphus cucullatus.
The dodo represents irreversible loss.
Once the species disappeared, the possibility of true restoration disappeared with it.
No court can order its return.
No compensation can recreate the original living population.
The second example is the Kanaani cat, an exceptionally rare Israeli breed.
The Kanaani still exists.
That difference matters.
Its lineage can still be documented.
It can still be preserved.
Recognition can still be strengthened.
Institutions, researchers and non-state actors can still act.
The point is not that a rare animal breed is legally equivalent to confiscated property or occupied territory. It is not.
The point is timing.
The dodo belongs to memory. The Kanaani still belongs to choice.
That distinction captures the essence of preventive restitution.
Why this matters to Israel and the Jewish people
For Israel and the Jewish people, restitution is not an abstract legal doctrine.
Jewish history contains countless examples of property, institutions, archives, synagogues, cemeteries and cultural assets that were confiscated, destroyed or dispersed.
Some could be returned.
Some could be compensated for.
Some survive only in memory.
Holocaust-era restitution remains one of the clearest examples of how historical injustice can continue to generate legal and moral obligations generations later.
Israel has lived with these questions directly — through Holocaust-era assets, inheritance, historical justice and the attempt to reconnect property and memory with those entitled to them.
That is one reason I believe Israel is one of the natural places for a broader discussion about the future of restitution.
But the discussion should not end with what was lost.
Jewish memory also asks what must still be preserved.
There is a profound difference between remembering something after it has disappeared and protecting it while it still exists.
Jewish memory is not only retrospective.
It also asks what must be carried forward.
Why this matters to Ukraine
Ukraine also stands at the center of contemporary restitution questions.
Its history contains layers of confiscation, occupation, war, Soviet nationalization, displacement and destruction of cultural and religious property.
Today, Ukraine faces new questions involving damaged property, cultural loss, occupation and the legal consequences of war.
This makes restitution not only a historical subject, but a contemporary legal necessity.
The Ukrainian experience may therefore become increasingly important for the future development of international restitution law.
Why this matters to the United States and Europe
The United States and Europe remain deeply involved in questions of Holocaust restitution, cultural-property recovery, human-rights law, post-conflict justice and international legal responsibility.
European courts and institutions have already shaped much of the modern doctrine of restitution.
American institutions, Jewish organizations, museums, foundations and legal scholars continue to play an important role in restitution and historical-justice initiatives.
The debate is therefore inherently international.
It crosses borders because the losses themselves crossed borders.
Property moved.
People were displaced.
Communities disappeared.
Archives were scattered.
Ownership changed repeatedly.
And legal responsibility often survived long after the political system that created the injustice had vanished.
Preventive restitution should become practical
I do not believe preventive restitution should remain only a theoretical concept.
It should inspire institutions.
In the case of the Kanaani, I believe one possible model would be the creation of dedicated conservation centers or protected living-heritage parks in Israel and the United States — not traditional zoos, but carefully designed institutions focused on preservation, genetic continuity, veterinary research, public education and international cooperation.
There are useful international examples.
Municipal cat-protection projects in Turkey demonstrate that public institutions can maintain large-scale facilities devoted specifically to the welfare and protection of cats.
China provides an even more ambitious example through the giant panda.
The panda has become not only a conservation success story, but also a symbol of international scientific cooperation and public diplomacy.
The lesson is not that the Kanaani should simply copy the panda model.
The lesson is that a rare living heritage can become the subject of institutional responsibility before it reaches the point of disappearance.
I therefore envision a hybrid model: an International Kanaani Conservation Network beginning in Israel and the United States, with protected breeding, research, documentation and public-education centers operating under shared international standards.
Other countries could later join.
Ukraine already has an important connection through the Kyiv-based Feline Alliance of Ukraine and its work within the WCF system to promote and recognize the breed.
Finland also holds a symbolic place in the Kanaani’s modern international history as the country where the breed made its international WCF show debut in Vantaa.
Such a network would do more than preserve a rare breed.
It would demonstrate what preventive restitution can mean in practice:
recognize value, document it, create institutions around it, and act before irreversible loss occurs.
Restitution as a law of the future
Restitution has never been static.
It began in Roman private law and developed into one of the core mechanisms of modern international legal responsibility.
It has been applied to property, territory, cultural objects and human rights.
It continues to evolve because international law continues to confront new forms of loss.
For me, this forthcoming article is one step in a broader research direction that I intend to continue developing during my doctoral work.
I am especially interested in restitution as it relates to historical injustice, post-totalitarian legal systems, cultural heritage, Jewish communal property and the preservation of living heritage.
And I wanted to share this research with The Times of Israel because the subject belongs not only in legal journals.
It belongs in a wider public discussion.
Israel, Ukraine, the United States and Europe all have different experiences with restitution, memory and historical injustice. Those experiences can now contribute to a more forward-looking international legal approach.
Restitution should not remain only a doctrine of repair after tragedy.
It can also become part of a broader legal culture of preservation, responsibility and foresight.
The task before scholars, governments, international institutions and civil society is to identify what is still at risk, strengthen legal mechanisms before loss becomes irreversible, preserve evidence and heritage, and build frameworks that allow justice to act earlier rather than later.
My hope is that preventive restitution will become part of that discussion — not as a replacement for traditional restitution, but as its natural development.
The future of restitution should not be limited to restoring what was lost. It should also help ensure that what can still be preserved is not lost at all.
