The paper contains remarks concerning Robert Pilat's paper 'The Ontology of Reconciliation', mainly on the concepts of reconciliation's effectiveness and the difference between the notions of forgiveness and reconciliation. The main claim of the paper is that it is impossible to transfer the notion of forgiveness directly from the sphere of individuals into the sphere of politics. In the first part, the authoress claims that we can only analyze reconciliation's effectiveness in the context of political, and not moral action. In the second part, the authoress claims that it is reconciliation and not forgiveness that supports good relations between states with a difficult mutual past.
According to the authoress, modern declarations of forgiveness and repentance are based on two assumptions: assumption of the collective responsibility, and assumption of the continuity of the national community. She argues for the claim that these declarations, these assumptions notwithstanding, are not contradictory with the liberal state but are complementary to it. She identifies, at the same time, numerous moral problems that follow from accepting this claim.