Introduction - History and memory, History and justice

This theme aims to illustrate how conflicts become ingrained in the memories of communities, and to explore the importance of historical understanding and justice in rebuilding societies and nations in the aftermath of conflicts.

According to historian Pierre Nora, there exists a fundamental opposition between memory and history.

History, as a discipline, is a social science that meticulously examines past events with a commitment to objectivity. It relies on critical analysis and the cross-examination of various sources, including archaeological findings, archival records, and firsthand accounts. The primary goal of history is to provide a neutral and dispassionate understanding of the past, devoid of moral judgements or considerations of justice. Although complete objectivity may be challenging to achieve, historians strive to approach it by considering multiple perspectives and interpretations.

In contrast, memory encompasses the subjective recollection of events, intertwined with emotions and personal experiences. It is inherently selective and prone to distortions, omissions, and individual interpretations. Moreover, collective memories within different groups can diverge, leading to diverse understandings and representations of historical events.

#1. History and memory synergy

The relationship between history and memory is complex and multifaceted. Historians often rely on memory as a crucial source of information, but they must approach it critically, recognising its subjective and selective nature. Memory, shaped by individual experiences and emotions, can offer valuable insights into past events, yet it may also contain biases or distortions.

Conversely, history provides a framework for understanding and contextualising collective memories, helping to validate, challenge, or refine them. Moreover, the study of memory itself has become a subject of historical inquiry, as historians explore how memories of events evolve over time and how they are constructed, contested, and transmitted within societies.

Thus, while history and memory are distinct concepts, they are deeply interconnected, each influencing and enriching the other in our understanding of the past.

#A. History of memory? The example of memories of World War II in France

In France, memories of World War II underwent a significant evolution until the 1970s. During this period, an “official memory” prevailed, shaped by the State's narrative, which largely downplayed collaboration and emphasised a widespread spirit of resistance among the French populace, a concept often referred to as résistancialisme.

However, as the 1970s unfolded, previously suppressed memories, including those of deported Jews, began to emerge. This shift was facilitated by various factors, including the efforts of historians such as Robert Paxton, whose work about Vichy highlighted the active role of the French government in the deportation of Jews.

Additionally, trials of individuals like Maurice Papon, accused of crimes against humanity for his actions during the war, further brought attention to these suppressed narratives.

Despite these developments, the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed conflicts arising from differing interpretations of wartime events, with the emergence of denialists seeking to deny or downplay the Jewish genocide. Historical negationism, or denialism, which entails denying the Holocaust by rejecting the existence of gas chambers and the Nazi extermination agenda, emerged as a significant conflict in the 1980s.

This controversy helped popularise the concept of “duty of remembrance” during this period. This duty entails a moral and civic obligation for individuals and groups to remember past events to prevent their recurrence. In response to this duty, memorial laws were enacted, such as the Gayssot Law of 1990, which criminalises Holocaust denial. However, the imposition of this duty has led to tensions among historians. Pierre Nora established the association Liberté pour l'Histoire in 2005 to advocate for historical freedom.

#B. Vectors for memory

Monuments and memorials serve as public sites for the enactment of memory. Commemorative events, such as ceremonies and rituals, commemorate specific events, places, or individuals deemed worthy of remembrance. Testimonies, films, songs, political speeches also contribute to the collective memory, shaping the identity of a group. Overall, collective memory is a constructed social product that defines the identity of a community.

At the end of World War II, the Allies initiated denazification, particularly by prosecuting the highest Nazi officials during the Nuremberg trials (1945-46).

#a) Crime against humanity

Established in 1945 by Hersh Lauterpacht, a legal advisor at the Nuremberg trials, the concept encompasses a range of egregious acts perpetrated against civilians during times of conflict, including murder, extermination, slavery, deportation, and persecution. What distinguishes this category of crimes is its recognition as being beyond the statute of limitations, allowing for the prosecution of perpetrators regardless of the time elapsed since the commission of the offenses.

Over time, the definition has evolved, notably with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. Here, the criteria for identifying such crimes were broadened to include acts like torture, rape, and imprisonment, even in the absence of armed conflict, reinforcing the imperative to hold individuals accountable for grave violations of human rights.

#b) Genocide

The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a US law professor of Polish Jewish descent. It represents a specific form of crime against humanity distinguished by three criteria:

  • the systematic physical destruction of all or part of a human group;
  • the underlying motives (often racial or religious) driving this intent;
  • the programming of such annihilation. This designation acknowledges the deliberate and targeted nature of genocidal acts, aimed at eradicating a particular group based on identity markers such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.

#B. The emergence of international criminal justice

International criminal justice encompasses a collection of principles and institutions aimed at ensuring accountability for individuals implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Its origins trace back to the aftermath of World War II, with the establishment of the International Military Tribunal that conducted trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo, comprising judges from the victorious Allied powers.

During the 1990s, in response to atrocities like those in Rwanda, ad hoc international tribunals were convened to address crimes against humanity. Notably, the International Criminal Court (ICC) emerged in 2002 as a permanent institution headquartered in The Hague, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of global justice. The ICC, the first enduring international tribunal operating under the auspices of the United Nations, signifies a fundamental shift towards a system of justice that transcends national boundaries and endures beyond specific conflicts.

#C. The of historians in trials for crimes against humanity

As crimes against humanity are not subject to statutes of limitations, they can be prosecuted long after the events. This requires the involvement of historians to understand the context of the facts. For example, Robert Paxton, an expert on Vichy France, testified in 1997 during the trial of Maurice Papon, the former secretary general of the Gironde Prefecture from 1942 to 1944, who was prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

However, some historians refuse to participate for various reasons. For instance, Henry Rousso argues that historians:

  1. Discuss events they did not experience firsthand, and thus are not “witnesses.”
  2. Are not “experts” in the legal sense; while their expertise may be valuable in assembling evidence before a trial, they are not trained in legal rhetoric during the trial itself.
  3. Emphasise that History is not a legal matter. In a free State, it is not the role of a Parliament or the judiciary power to define historical truth.