Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner For > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

A memory law (transl. Erinnerungsgesetz in German, Memory Wave transl. In the method, competing interpretations may be downplayed, sidelined, or even prohibited. Varied sorts of memory laws exist, in particular, in countries that enable for the introduction of limitations to the freedom of expression to guard different values, such because the democratic character of the state, the rights and status of others, and historical reality. Eric Heinze argues that regulation can work equally powerfully by means of laws that makes no categorical reference to historical past, for instance, when journalists, teachers, students, or different residents face private or skilled hardship for dissenting from official histories. Memory legal guidelines will be either punitive or non-punitive. A non-punitive Memory Wave Protocol legislation doesn't imply a criminal sanction. It has a declaratory or confirmatory character. Regardless, such a regulation may result in imposing a dominant interpretation of the previous and exercise a chilling impact on those who challenge the official interpretation. A punitive memory regulation includes a sanction, often of a criminal nature.

Memory legal guidelines usually result in censorship. Even with out a criminal sanction, memory laws may still produce a chilling effect and restrict free expression on historic subjects, especially amongst historians and different researchers. Memory laws exist as each ‘hard' regulation and ‘soft' regulation devices. An instance of a hard legislation is a criminal ban on the denial and gross trivialization of a genocide or crime in opposition to humanity. A mushy regulation is an informal rule that incentivizes states or people to act in a certain approach. For instance, a European Parliament decision on the European conscience and Memory Wave Protocol totalitarianism (CDL-Ad(2013)004) expresses strong condemnation for all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes and invites EU citizens, that is, citizens of all member states of the European Union, to commemorate victims of the 2 twentieth century totalitarianisms, Nazism and communism. The time period "loi mémorielle" (memory regulation) originally appeared in December 2005, in Françoise Chandernagor article in Le Monde magazine. Chandernagor protested concerning the rising variety of laws enacted with the intention of "forc(ing) on historians the lens by means of which to think about the previous".

2005, which required French schools to show the constructive points of French presence on the colonies, in particular in North Africa. Council of Europe and well beyond. The headings of "memory regulation" or "historical memory regulation" have been applied to various regulations adopted around the world. Poland's 2018 legislation prohibiting the attribution of accountability for the atrocities of the Second World Battle to the Polish state or nation. States have a tendency to use memory legal guidelines to advertise the classification of certain occasions from the past as genocides, crimes towards humanity and other atrocities. This becomes particularly relevant when there is no settlement inside a state, among states or amongst consultants (akin to worldwide lawyers) about the categorization of a historic crime. Incessantly, such historic events will not be recognized as genocides or crimes against humanity, respectively, under international legislation, since they predate the UN Genocide Convention. Memory legal guidelines adopted in nationwide jurisdictions do not at all times comply with international law and, specifically, with international human rights regulation requirements.

For instance, a regulation adopted in Lithuania features a definition of genocide that's broader than the definition in international law. Such authorized acts are sometimes adopted in a type of political declarations and parliamentary resolutions. Legal guidelines in opposition to Holocaust denial and genocide denial bans entail a criminal sanction for denying and minimizing historical crimes. Initially Holocaust and genocide denial bans were thought-about a part of hate speech. But the recent doctrine of comparative constitutional regulation separates the notion of hate speech from genocide denialism, specifically, and memory legal guidelines, in general. Denial of the historic violence against minorities has been connected to the safety of groups and individuals belonging to those minorities at the moment. Therefore, the usually-invoked rationale for imposing bans on the denial of historical crimes is that doing so prevents xenophobic violence and protects the general public order right this moment. Bans on propagating fascism and totalitarian regimes prohibit the promotion and whitewashing of the legacy of historic totalitarianisms. Such bans restrict the freedom of expression to stop the circulation of views which will undermine democracy itself, comparable to calls to abolish democracy or to deprive some people of human rights.

The bans are fashionable in international locations inside the Council of Europe, Memory Wave particularly in these with first-hand expertise of twentieth century totalitarianism such as Nazism and Communism. This kind of memory legislation additionally includes banning certain symbols linked to previous totalitarian regimes, in addition to bans on publishing certain literature. Laws protecting historic figures prohibit disparaging the memory of national heroes often reinforce a cult of character. Turkish Legislation 5816 ("The Legislation Concerning Crimes Committed Against Atatürk") (see Atatürk's cult of persona) and Heroes and Martyrs Safety Act adopted in China are examples of these types of memory laws. These memory laws are punitive laws which prohibit the expression of historical narratives that diverge from, problem or nuance the official interpretation of the past. Such norms often embody a criminal sanction for challenging official accounts of the previous or for circulating competing interpretations. Laws prohibiting insult to the state and nation are devised to protect the state or nation from forms of insult, including "historical insult".