This article addresses the historic evolution and recent proliferation of memory laws that prohibit symbolic speech in Eastern Europe. A phenomenon of the latter part of the twentieth century, these laws traditionally enabled democracies to defend themselves against extreme ideologies by restricting symbols of totalitarian regimes. An analysis of recently adopted laws in Ukraine and Russia, however, demonstrates a shift away from these aims to restrictions on the use of symbolic speech as measures to counteract external security threats and competing historical narratives. In the climate of ‘memory wars’ in Eastern Europe, these laws are increasingly employed for the politics of memory and are likely to be misused for expedient political gains while running afoul of international human rights law, including freedom of expression and other norms embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights. The article concludes that drafting these types of laws narrowly and derogating from freedom of expression obligations in times of emergency might help to ensure their compliance with international law.
In this article I argue that Russia’s use of memory laws has facilitated the armed conflict in Ukraine, bolstering the rhetorical justification for Russia’s latest aggression. The use of memory laws is hardly new for various legal systems around the world. Most of the early European memory laws have focused on the protection of victim groups from harmful ideologies, however the last two decades have seen a shift away from victim-centric to state-centric laws, especially in Eastern Europe. These laws protect the state’s honour and reputation and have serious ramifications domestically, in terms of human rights violations, but also in international relations. I argue that due to the relationship between identity-building and collective memory, the use of the most nefarious types of memory laws that exculpate the state from earlier crimes has enabled Russia to amplify its propaganda around Ukraine’s so-called ‘denazification’, justifying its aggression against Ukraine. The case study constitutes an example of the many reasons why memory laws should be used sparingly.
Principle 6 is concerned with the establishment and role of truth commissions, outlined in two paragraphs. The Principle recommends criteria that can be applied ‘to the greatest extent possible’. The first paragraph encompasses three different aspects of the issue: the preliminary ‘decision to establish a truth commission’, the subsequent creation of its ‘terms of reference’, and the related determination of its ‘composition’. In the second paragraph, the term ‘role’ refers to the functional end-goal that a commission is expected to serve: ‘securing recognition of such parts of the truth as were formerly denied’. After providing a historical and contextual background on Principle 6, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and the ways in which the Principle is exercised in practice.
Principle 7 deals with guarantees of three separate but interrelated aspects of commissions of inquiry: independence, impartiality and competence. This principle emphasizes the need for guarantees of independence, impartiality and competence in two different realms: the process leading to a commission’s establishment, and the commission’s ultimate terms of reference. As such, the scope of Principle 7 overlaps with Principle 6, which deals with the establishment of truth commissions, and Principle 8, which deals with the mandates of commissions of inquiry. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 7 before discussing its theoretical framework and the ways in which the values espoused in Principle 7 are exercised by states in practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.