Making Rights After Injustice: Citizenship Restitution in Germany and Austria from Law to Practice

In recent years, several European states have opened new (or broadened) pathways to ancestral citizenship, framing these reforms as measures of restitution for historical injustice. Germany and Austria offer interesting cases for comparative analysis, as both address the legacy of National Socialist persecution but thereby build on distinct legal foundations and precedents. In Germany, the right to citizenship restitution for victims of Nazi persecution and their descendants has been constitutionally enshrined since 1949 but remained narrowly interpreted and administratively restrictive (Courtman, 2025) until a far-reaching reform in 2021 broadened the application of citizenship restitution through a new pathway in German citizenship law. Austrian victims of the Nazi regime could get their (own) Austrian citizenship restored since 1993 (Kolonovits, 2009) but only in 2019/2020 has this right been extended to their direct descendants including children who were adopted as minors. This contribution develops the first comparative analysis of contemporary policies and practices of citizenship restitution in Germany and Austria: In a first step, we trace the political enactment and making of the two legal reforms, drawing on a systematic analysis of policy documents, parliamentary debates, and interviews with politicians of all relevant political parties. We identify competing understandings of “Wiedergutmachung”, rights and fairness and their relation to moral concepts of membership more generally, which we also relate to the accounts and perceptions of those applying for German or Austrian citizenship under these provisions. Second, we analyze the ongoing implementation of these two reforms and their immediate effects based on additional in-depth interviews with applicants as well as implementing actors and independent “brokers”. We thereby pay particular attention to documentary gatekeeping, access barriers and processing, and the burden of proof, while also discerning the emotional stir and negotiation processes on the side of the applicants. Overall, the analysis traces how similar legal frameworks and justifications have been politically negotiated and translated into partially different implementation practices, and how individual beneficiaries perceive and ultimately use the resulting opportunities. We thereby contribute to a better understanding of the multi-actor production of rights, justice, and procedural fairness in formerly entrenched legal regimes of citizenship restitution.