Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner For > 자유게시판

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

A memory regulation (transl. Erinnerungsgesetz in German, transl. In the method, competing interpretations may be downplayed, Memory Wave sidelined, and even prohibited. Varied forms of memory laws exist, in particular, in international locations that permit for the introduction of limitations to the liberty of expression to protect different values, such because the democratic character of the state, the rights and popularity of others, and historical truth. Eric Heinze argues that legislation can work equally powerfully through laws that makes no categorical reference to historical past, for example, when journalists, teachers, students, or different citizens face private or skilled hardship for dissenting from official histories. Memory legal guidelines might be either punitive or non-punitive. A non-punitive memory legislation doesn't suggest a criminal sanction. It has a declaratory or confirmatory character. Regardless, such a law might result in imposing a dominant interpretation of the previous and train a chilling effect on those who challenge the official interpretation. A punitive memory law features a sanction, usually of a criminal nature.

Memory laws typically lead to censorship. Even without a criminal sanction, memory laws should still produce a chilling effect and limit free expression on historic topics, particularly amongst historians and other researchers. Memory legal guidelines exist as both ‘hard' regulation and ‘soft' legislation instruments. An instance of a tough legislation is a criminal ban on the denial and gross trivialization of a genocide or crime towards humanity. A smooth regulation is an informal rule that incentivizes states or individuals to act in a sure method. For example, a European Parliament resolution on the European conscience and totalitarianism (CDL-Advert(2013)004) expresses strong condemnation for all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes and invitations 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 law) originally appeared in December 2005, in Françoise Chandernagor article in Le Monde journal. Chandernagor protested about the growing variety of laws enacted with the intention of "forc(ing) on historians the lens through which to think about the previous".

2005, which required French faculties to show the constructive points of French presence on the colonies, specifically in North Africa. Council of Europe and well beyond. The headings of "memory law" or "historic Memory Wave Method regulation" have been applied to diverse rules adopted world wide. Poland's 2018 law 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 laws to advertise the classification of sure events from the previous as genocides, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. This becomes especially related when there is no settlement inside a state, amongst states or among consultants (equivalent to worldwide legal professionals) in regards to the categorization of a historic crime. Incessantly, such historic events will not be acknowledged as genocides or Memory Wave crimes in opposition to humanity, respectively, under international law, since they predate the UN Genocide Convention. Memory laws adopted in nationwide jurisdictions do not at all times adjust to international legislation and, in particular, with worldwide human rights legislation requirements.

For example, a law adopted in Lithuania features a definition of genocide that is broader than the definition in international legislation. Such authorized acts are sometimes adopted in a form of political declarations and parliamentary resolutions. Laws against Holocaust denial and genocide denial bans entail a criminal sanction for denying and minimizing historical crimes. Initially Holocaust and genocide denial bans had been thought of part of hate speech. Yet the recent doctrine of comparative constitutional regulation separates the notion of hate speech from genocide denialism, particularly, and memory laws, in general. Denial of the historic violence towards minorities has been connected to the security of teams and individuals belonging to those minorities immediately. Due to this fact, the typically-invoked rationale for imposing bans on the denial of historic crimes is that doing so prevents xenophobic violence and protects the public order immediately. Bans on propagating fascism and totalitarian regimes prohibit the promotion and whitewashing of the legacy of historical totalitarianisms. Such bans limit the liberty of expression to forestall the circulation of views which will undermine democracy itself, akin to calls to abolish democracy or to deprive some individuals of human rights.

The bans are common in countries inside the Council of Europe, particularly in these with first-hand experience of twentieth century totalitarianism reminiscent of Nazism and Communism. This type of memory legislation additionally contains banning certain symbols linked to past totalitarian regimes, as well as bans on publishing certain literature. Laws defending historic figures prohibit disparaging the memory of nationwide heroes typically reinforce a cult of character. Turkish Legislation 5816 ("The Regulation Regarding Crimes Dedicated Against Atatürk") (see Atatürk's cult of personality) and Heroes and Martyrs Protection Act adopted in China are examples of these types of memory legal guidelines. These memory legal guidelines are punitive legal guidelines which prohibit the expression of historic narratives that diverge from, challenge or nuance the official interpretation of the previous. Such norms usually include a criminal sanction for challenging official accounts of the previous or for circulating competing interpretations. Legal guidelines prohibiting insult to the state and nation are devised to protect the state or nation from types of insult, including "historic insult".