Discourse of Historical Justice: Ethical-Political Foundations and Conceptual Contradictions

The article examines the use of the “historical justice” category as a public justification for political actions. Despite its frequent use in public discourse, the scientific legitimacy of the concept remains questionable, as its formal definition encounters a range of challenges. Firstly, the status of the main subjects of justice – perpetrators and victims – remains uncertain, since the assessment of their activities in the historical perspective may change over time. Secondly, the so-called non-identity problem is essential, as it complicates establishing the continuity between the victims of historical injustice and the modern communities claiming to represent them. The active use of appeals to historical justice rooted in the doctrine of “moral remembrance”, which arose as a result of World War II and consists of three main principles: the duty to remember, the duty to face the past, and the duty to ensure justice for victims. As the composition and number of leading political actors changed, there was a sharp increase in memorial narratives, and the automatic extension of demands for historical justice to these narratives resulted in an increase in memorial conflicts. In modern public space, the discourse of historical justice has become a crucial tool of symbolic struggle, often replacing moral attitudes towards the past with political manipulation. In this regard, it seems necessary to distinguish between historical justice as a political tool and as a category of historical ethics that allows determining and assessment of the relationship between historical facts and modern narratives. 

Keywords: historical justice, moral remembrance, discourse, collective memory, ethics, perpetrator, victim, cancelling