惩罚性记忆法的困惑:对惩罚性记忆法的起源和范围的新认识

K. Bachmann, Igor Lyubashenko, Christian Garuka, Grażyna Baranowska, Vjeran Pavlaković
{"title":"惩罚性记忆法的困惑:对惩罚性记忆法的起源和范围的新认识","authors":"K. Bachmann, Igor Lyubashenko, Christian Garuka, Grażyna Baranowska, Vjeran Pavlaković","doi":"10.1177/0888325420941093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years and decades, authoritarian regimes and illiberal democracies have passed and enforced punitive memory laws, intending to ban certain interpretations of past events or sheltering official versions of history against challenges. This comes as no surprise in countries whose governments undermine pluralism and assume the existence of a historical truth that is stable over time, invariable, and self-explanatory. But why do liberal democracies, committed to political pluralism and open debate, pass laws that penalize challenges to certain interpretations of the past and restrict freedom of speech? This article argues that liberal democracies may do so yielding to bottom–up pressure by courts and to regulate civil law disputes for which existing legislation and jurisprudence may not suffice. Based on case studies from Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, we also found punitive memory laws in liberal democracies narrower and more precise than in nonliberal states.","PeriodicalId":403488,"journal":{"name":"East European Politics & Societies and Cultures","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Puzzle of Punitive Memory Laws: New Insights into the Origins and Scope of Punitive Memory Laws\",\"authors\":\"K. Bachmann, Igor Lyubashenko, Christian Garuka, Grażyna Baranowska, Vjeran Pavlaković\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0888325420941093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years and decades, authoritarian regimes and illiberal democracies have passed and enforced punitive memory laws, intending to ban certain interpretations of past events or sheltering official versions of history against challenges. This comes as no surprise in countries whose governments undermine pluralism and assume the existence of a historical truth that is stable over time, invariable, and self-explanatory. But why do liberal democracies, committed to political pluralism and open debate, pass laws that penalize challenges to certain interpretations of the past and restrict freedom of speech? This article argues that liberal democracies may do so yielding to bottom–up pressure by courts and to regulate civil law disputes for which existing legislation and jurisprudence may not suffice. Based on case studies from Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, we also found punitive memory laws in liberal democracies narrower and more precise than in nonliberal states.\",\"PeriodicalId\":403488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East European Politics & Societies and Cultures\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East European Politics & Societies and Cultures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325420941093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East European Politics & Societies and Cultures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325420941093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近几年和几十年来,专制政权和不自由的民主国家通过并实施了惩罚性的记忆法,旨在禁止对过去事件的某些解释,或保护官方版本的历史不受挑战。对于那些政府破坏多元主义、认为历史真理随时间稳定、不变、不言自明的国家来说,这并不奇怪。但是,为什么致力于政治多元化和公开辩论的自由民主国家会通过法律,惩罚对历史的某些解释的挑战,并限制言论自由?本文认为,自由民主国家可能会屈服于法院自下而上的压力,并规范现有立法和判例可能不足以解决的民事法律纠纷。基于对德国、法国、瑞士、波兰、乌克兰、俄罗斯、土耳其、卢旺达和前南斯拉夫的案例研究,我们还发现,与非自由国家相比,自由民主国家的惩罚性记忆法范围更窄,也更精确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Puzzle of Punitive Memory Laws: New Insights into the Origins and Scope of Punitive Memory Laws
In recent years and decades, authoritarian regimes and illiberal democracies have passed and enforced punitive memory laws, intending to ban certain interpretations of past events or sheltering official versions of history against challenges. This comes as no surprise in countries whose governments undermine pluralism and assume the existence of a historical truth that is stable over time, invariable, and self-explanatory. But why do liberal democracies, committed to political pluralism and open debate, pass laws that penalize challenges to certain interpretations of the past and restrict freedom of speech? This article argues that liberal democracies may do so yielding to bottom–up pressure by courts and to regulate civil law disputes for which existing legislation and jurisprudence may not suffice. Based on case studies from Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, we also found punitive memory laws in liberal democracies narrower and more precise than in nonliberal states.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信