The International Struggle of Post-colonial Claims for Reparation and Atonement

• In Event: Resistance and Reconsideration

Abstract

Max Goetz, Ph.D. Candidate, Conflict Management and Mediation, Tel Aviv University

The 1952 Luxembourg Agreement between Germany, Israel, and the JCC constitutes a paradigm shift in history toward the emergence of a norm of reparations. It changed the conceptualization of reparations from victor-imposed war compensations to moral expectations for atonement. The diffusion of Transitional Justice (TJ) instruments with the waves of democratization in South America and post-Cold War Eastern Europe, alongside the 2005 UN "Basic Principles and Guidelines" institutionalized these expectations. This significant rise of various TJ norms and practices, evident from the 1990s on, set the backdrop for a similar increase of non-domestic reparation claims. Alongside the domestic successes, an international norm of reparations became part of the TJ regime of accountability. However, despite the growing expectations, successful international cases remain the outlier. The paper unravels the factors entailing the rarity of sincere acknowledgment and successful claims in non-domestic claims processes.
Literature usually focuses on domestic reparation movements and the few successful international agreements. Thereby leading to a biased understanding of the extent of their success. Correspondingly, the few accessible databases focus on other Transitional Justice instruments, domestic cases, or international agreements. This research contributes to filling the significant gap in large-n comparative studies on non-domestic claims processes. It sheds light on the specific dynamics of post-colonial claims for atonement.
The paper employs an innovative three-step model to theorize victim claiming, government acknowledgment, and negotiations on remedies. The hypothesis indicates that defendant states try to avoid crossing a threshold of acknowledgment to not induce liability. The relative success and the diffusion of norms we see in other areas of Transitional Justice therefore does not coherently lead to agreements on reparations. Common predictors for domestic reparations cases differ significantly from explanatory variables of non-domestic cases. The proposed variables comprise individual, societal, and structural factors. The study emphasizes norms strength, economic interdependency, security considerations, level of democracy, public opinion, and application of the term “Genocide”, as well as the impact of global ruptures. A central obstacle to atonement remains the reluctance to set a precedent.
The paper’s methodology builds on an original dataset comprising 57 cases in the period from 1945 – 2023. The dataset is part of the broader Ph.D. project "Non-Domestic Repa-rations for Gross Violations of Human Rights in Comparative Perspective". This paper focuses first on 14 cases related to colonial gross violations of human rights, including Namibia v. Germany and UK v. Mau Mau. The data collection incorporates qualitative content analysis of major newspapers, scientific papers, and official documents. An estimated amount of at least five scientific papers and primary sources per case is envisioned. The extracted and qualitatively analyzed data is then coded with the help of the software Atlas.ti. The cases, sources, and the final codebook will be accessible as a digital appendix.
A set of refraining factors such as setting a precedent and particular domestic public opinion keeps defendants’ incentives to acknowledge responsibility for historical injustices low. It is to be expected that the success of non-domestic claims will remain rare and will not become a strong international norm soon.
This study underscores the necessity of large-n comparative research to fill the gap in understanding the complexities of non-domestic reparations claims, contributing valuable insights to the field of post-colonial atonement as well as Transitional Justice as such. The complete dataset will furthermore shed light on the complex processes of post-conflict politics, rapprochement, and reconciliation.

Author

• Max Goetz, Tel Aviv University