About the project
Abstract of the project Historical injustice and changed circumstances
Duration 2.10.2017 - 1.10.2022
Confronting the past remains an important problem. Past injustices often leave clear traces in the present; many individuals and groups suffer disadvantages due to the ongoing effects of historical injustice. In many cases, compensation has been granted neither to the victims of injustice nor to their descendants. Injustice persists when exile, traumatic experiences, damage to the collective self-image, mistrust and disputes over so-called sacred places are the result.
For what reasons should we address past injustices and are justice considerations relevant? For reasons of justice, should we be concerned with harm that a group or person has suffered in the past as a result of injustice, even if the group or person is doing well today, or should justice be future-oriented and only concern itself with present disadvantages? From the perspective of justice, how important are the relationships between the victims and perpetrators and their descendants and is reconciliation a goal? If in some circumstances a past orientation is appropriate and in other circumstances a future orientation, according to which principles should we choose these orientations and, if necessary, switch when the circumstances are relevantly different?
To answer these questions, we examine and develop the thesis that historical injustice can be undone. For example, if it was unjust to expel indigenous peoples from their land in 1865, then it might be unjust to return the land and resources to the indigenous peoples in 2016 due to changed circumstances - think of population development and changed environmental conditions. The abrogation thesis, as it is called by legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron, is extremely influential among theorists, whether they support or oppose reparations for historical injustice. But what are possible plausible interpretations of the abrogation thesis? How can injustice be considered to have been abolished in different contexts and with regard to specific cases? Four different types of abrogation are examined in the project, namely with reference to (1) property, (2) special relationship to a country in cases of displacement, genocide and occupation, (3) group identity and (4) sovereignty. The principles we develop and our judgments with regard to specific cases may not be in agreement. Then we need to change the principles and the judgments so that we achieve a balance of reasoning in which the principles can explain and justify the judgments.
One of our working hypotheses is that the abrogation thesis is subject to the problem of moral temptation. If changed circumstances alter justice claims, then there is a perverse incentive to change circumstances by unjust means. Moreover, we assume that group rights are to be recognized when reconciliation is not really possible. Our aim is to develop a theory of abolition that takes account of present needs and historical claims as well as structural justice in the relationships of people living today and in the future.
Final report
The main aim of the FWF project "The Abrogation of Historical Injustice and Changed Circumstances" was to critically develop the abrogation thesis (formulated by Jeremy Waldron) and to examine its relevance for the understanding of certain cases of historical injustice. The structure of the abrogation thesis is as follows: When a historical injustice occurs that leads to an unjust situation, morally relevant changes in circumstances may occur over time such that justice does not require a return to the previous situation. In our project proposal, we distinguished between two ways of understanding and investigating the abrogation thesis: First, we asked about the temporal orientation of justice. Second, we examined Jeremy Waldron's particular conception of abrogation. At the beginning of this project, we examined a classical version of the abrogation thesis, according to which situations of need can shift the temporal orientation of justice: from a backward to a forward orientation. In the course of the project, however, we found that the claim that backward-looking grounds of retributive justice are no longer morally relevant in contemporary situations of need is incorrect. We have also highlighted that Jeremy Waldron's work on annulment focuses primarily on restitution, which requires the return of the thing originally taken. We have extended its application to issues of compensation, group identity, sovereignty, the rights of future people, linguistic injustice, climate justice and its relationship to structural injustices. The main theoretical contributions of this research project to this area are as follows: Meyer and Waligore distinguish between cases in which historical claims carry no weight in determining what should be the case and those in which, while it may be unjust to return to the state of affairs before the injustice, this does not mean that the effects of the historical injustice are completely undone. They also distinguish between cases in which claims for redress of historical wrongs are dormant at a particular point in time but may become relevant in the future, and cases in which the annulment is final. They extend the analysis of the annulment thesis from restitution claims to compensation claims. They also point to two further areas of research: symbolic compensation for deceased victims of historical injustice and the relationship between the nullification thesis and the structural nature of historical injustice. In this sense, Lukas Meyer has analyzed contemporary claims for the restitution of cultural colonial goods. Timothy Waligore also argued that the structural injustice approach could have a more backward-looking temporal orientation of justice. Santiago Truccone-Borgogno distinguished between cases in which duties arising from past injustices lose their moral weight and those in which rights (but not duties) cease to exist. He also showed that groups do not cease to exist when circumstances affect their identity, and that the rights of future people can be abrogated. Seung Hyun Song extended the abrogation thesis to issues of linguistic injustice.