Examining the complex nature of state apologies for past injustices, this probes the various functions they fulfil within contemporary democracies. Cutting-edge theoretical and empirical research and insightful philosophical analyses are supplemented by real-life case studies, providing a normative and balanced account of states saying 'sorry'.

Examining the complex nature of state apologies for past injustices, this probes the various functions they fulfil within contemporary democracies. Cutting-edge theoretical and empirical research and insightful philosophical analyses are supplemented by real-life case studies, providing a normative and balanced account of states saying 'sorry'.

Governments increasingly offer or demand apologies for past human rights abuses, and it is widely believed that such expressions of contrition are necessary to promote reconciliation between former adversaries. The post-World War II experiences of Japan and Germany suggest that international apologies have powerful healing effects when they are offered, and poisonous effects when withheld. West Germany made extensive efforts to atone for wartime crimes-formal apologies, monuments to victims of the Nazis, and candid history textbooks; Bonn successfully reconciled with its wartime enemies. By contrast, Tokyo has made few and unsatisfying apologies and approves school textbooks that whitewash wartime atrocities. Japanese leaders worship at the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors war criminals among Japan's war dead. Relations between Japan and its neighbors remain tense. Examining the cases of South Korean relations with Japan and of French relations with Germany, Jennifer Lind demonstrates that denials of past atrocities fuel distrust and inhibit international reconciliation. In Sorry States, she argues that a country's acknowledgment of past misdeeds is essential for promoting trust and reconciliation after war. However, Lind challenges the conventional wisdom by showing that many countries have been able to reconcile without much in the way of apologies or reparations. Contrition can be highly controversial and is likely to cause a domestic backlash that alarms—rather than assuages—outside observers. Apologies and other such polarizing gestures are thus unlikely to soothe relations after conflict, Lind finds, and remembrance that is less accusatory-conducted bilaterally or in multilateral settings-holds the most promise for international reconciliation.

The past is capricious enough to support every stance - no matter how questionable. In 2002, the Bush administration decided that dealing with Saddam Hussein was like appeasing Hitler or Mussolini, and promptly invaded Iraq. Were they wrong to look to history for guidance? No; their mistake was to exaggerate one of its lessons while suppressing others of equal importance. History is often hijacked through suppression, manipulation, and, sometimes, even outright deception. MacMillan's book is packed full of examples of the abuses of history. In response, she urges us to treat the past with care and respect.

In The Age of Apology twenty-two law, politics, and human rights scholars explore the legal, political, social, historical, moral, religious, and anthropological aspects of Western apologies.

Intense interest in past injustice lies at the centre of contemporary world politics. Most scholarly and public attention has focused on truth commissions, trials, lustration, and other related decisions, following political transitions. This book examines the political uses of official apologies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. It explores why minority groups demand such apologies and why governments do or do not offer them. Nobles argues that apologies can help to alter the terms and meanings of national membership. Minority groups demand apologies in order to focus attention on historical injustices. Similarly, state actors support apologies for ideological and moral reasons, driven by their support of group rights, responsiveness to group demands, and belief that acknowledgment is due. Apologies, as employed by political actors, play an important, if underappreciated, role in bringing certain views about history and moral obligation to bear in public life.

This book provides a much-needed gendered reading to the increasingly important practice of political apology. Engaging in depth with two cases of interstate apologies for conflict-related sexual violence – Japan’s apologies for the South Korean "comfort women" and US apologies for the Abu Ghraib scandal – the author argues that political apologies are particularly "excitable" or uncontrollable forms of speech which are composed of and rearticulate historically constituted gender norms. In doing so, political apologies work to recognise and make visible particular gendered victims whilst simultaneously obscuring others. Through the concept of "legitimate victimhood", the author examines the performative ways in which political apologies (re)negotiate and (re)make embodied gendered identities. Ultimately, she argues that the ambivalent form of recognition offered by the performance of official apologies in these cases resulted in numerous unintended consequences, including opportunities for victims to demonstrate linguistic agencies. Political apologies for conflict-related sexual violence can therefore — indirectly — empower the gendered victims addressed. This book will be of great interest to students, academics, and researchers in the fields of politics and international relations, women’s and gender studies, memory studies, victimology, transitional justice, human rights, and peace and conflict studies. It will also interest policymakers, practitioners, and campaign groups involved in such areas as justice for gender-based violence.