Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  memory law
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This article analyses the amendments of January 2018 to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (INR) of 1998, which has raised doubts in light of international law and provoked diplomatic tensions between Poland on one side and Germany, Ukraine, United States of America and Israel on the other. The INR is a national institution whose role is, among others, to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes committed between 1917­1990. The article proves that the wording of the amendments is inconsistent with international law, as it ignores the principles of international responsibility, definitions of international crimes, and disproportionately limits freedom of expression. In consequence, it cannot be expected that third states will cooperate with Poland in the execution of responsibility for violation of the newly adopted norms.
EN
This article provides an overview of “memory laws” in Europe, reflecting upon what may be called the “asymmetry” of such laws. It then looks at the special case of Poland and its troubled experience with memory laws; it considers the question of whether, in the eyes of the law – genocide, and in particular the Holocaust – is so “special” that its public denials warrant legal intervention. It also looks at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and its (not necessarily coherent) “doctrine” on memory laws and their consistency, or otherwise, with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (and in particular with freedom of expression as laid down in Art. 10). The article concludes by asserting that even if we take the law as an indicator of European public memory, there is no consensus on the past, except perhaps for the special case of the Holocaust. The main challenge lies in determining whether memory laws, defined by some as social engineering and the imposition of “imperative” versions of memory, are consistent with the principles inherent in open, democratic and free societies in Europe. This challenge remains unmet.
EN
Relations between the Holocaust, memory, and law are constantly reconceptualized. In the second decade of the 21st century there is no clear consensus on the way the Holocaust, memory, and law are or should be interconnected, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. A striking example of the new dynamics of those tensions is an amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which in January 2018 inserted Articles 55a and 55b. The paper states that these controversial provisions (later withdrawn) should be understood as specific memory laws in response to the transnational memory of the Holocaust and the non-consensual dialogue on the Jedwabne pogrom in Polish society. The paper shows the law as a result of a certain dialogue, a voice in the dialogue, and an attempt to limit this dialogue – as well as the effects of such limitation. The paper adopts Leszek Koczanowicz’s conception of dialogue, Natan Sznaider’s description of the transnational Holocaust memory, as well as the idea of the future-oriented ethics of never again, and Eviatar Zerubavel’s concept of a conspiracy of silence in order to frame the context and meaning of the emergence, short life, disappearance, and traces of the law. Although these articles “refract” criminalization of the Holocaust and genocide negationism, understood in the context of Polish historical politics, they are themselves close to a specific form of denial, i.e. denial of the Jedwabne massacre. A recollection of the Polish memory law casts a shadow on the future, as a threat exists that the law might appear again.
PL
Relacje miedzy Zagładą, pamięcią, a prawem są nieustannie rekonceptualizowane. W drugiej dekadzie XXI w. nadal nie ma wyraźnego konsensusu co do tego, w jaki sposób Zagłada, pamięć i prawo są lub powinny być powiązane, zwłaszcza w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. Uderzającym przykładem nowej dynamiki tych napięć jest pojawienie się artykułu 55a i 55b ustawy o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej w styczniu 2018 roku. Niniejszy tekst rozwija tezę, że owe kontrowersyjne artykuły należy rozumieć jako szczególnego rodzaju prawa pamięci w odpowiedzi na transnarodową pamięć Zagłady oraz w odpowiedzi na niekonsensualny dialog w polskim społeczeństwie na temat pogromu w Jedwabnem. W artykule tym adaptuje Natana Sznaidera charakterystykę transnarodowej pamięci o Zagładzie i koncepcję zorientowanej przyszłościowo etyki nigdy więcej; Leszka Koczanowicza koncepcje dialogu, czasu politycznego i społecznego oraz Eviatara Zerubavela socjologiczną analizy zmowy milczenia, by rozpoznać kontekst i znaczenie pojawienia się, krótkiego życia, zniknięcia i śladów owego prawa. Mimo że artykuły 55a i 55b są swego rodzaju odbiciem praw kryminalizujących negacjonizm Zagłady i ludobójstwa, w kontekście polskiej polityki historycznej mogą być rozumiane jako zaprzeczenie zbrodni w Jedwabnem. Wspomnienie polskiego prawa pamięci rzuca na przyszłość cień groźby jego ponownego pojawienia się.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.