The Road to Sorrow: From State Crime to State Apology

• Thesis title in Czech: Cesta k lítosti: Od zločinu státu k omluvě státu
• Thesis title in English: The Road to Sorrow: From State Crime to State Apology
• English key words: Appology, causes, USA, crimes
• Academic year of topic announcement: 2017/2018
• Thesis type: diploma thesis
• Thesis language: angličtina
• Department: Department of Political Science (23-KP)
• Supervisor: RNDr. Jan Kofroň, Ph.D.
• Author: hidden - assigned by the advisor
• Date of registration: 13.12.2017
• Date of assignment: 13.12.2017
• Date and time of defence: 09.02.2018 08:00
• Venue of defence: Jinonice - U Kříže 8, J3093, Jinonice - místn. č. 3093
• Date of electronic submission: 04.01.2018
• Date of proceeded defence: 09.02.2018
• Opponents: PhDr. Michael Romancov, Ph.D.

References

Balint, Jennifer (2011) Genocide, State Crime and the Law: In the Name of the State, Routledge
Beach, Derek and Brun Pedersen, Rasmus (2012) Case selection techniques in Processtracing
and the implications of taking the study of causal mechanisms seriously, University of
Arhus
Collier, David, Understanding Process Tracing; Science and Politics 44, No. 4, University of
Californya, Berkeley
Drulák, Petr (2006) Between Geopolitics and Anti-Geopolitics: Czech Political Thought,
Geopolitics
Mihai, Mihaela (2013) When the State Says “Sorry”: State Apologies as Exemplary Political
Judgments* The Journal of Political Philosophy
Vennesson, Pascal (2008), Case studies and process tracing: theories and practices,
Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, A pluralist perspective, Cambridge
University Press.
Winter, Stephen (2015), Theorising the Political Apology* The Journal of Political Philosophy
Ku, Yangmo (2015), National Interest or Transnational Alliances? Japanese Policy on the
Comfort Women Issue, Journal of East Asian Studies

Preliminary scope of work

State Apologies seem to be having a moment. They are more frequent now than ever in
history. As noted by Mihai (2013) a “sharp rise of public apologies for past abuses by state
representatives” has been notable and a clear trend in recent years. These apologies can be traced
back to an anti-geopolitical school of thought that stresses the need to pay attention to, and
emphasize, ideas, values and human agency (See: Drulak, 2006). When before it was through
coercion and force that states were lead to express regret and made reparations (think Germany
after World War II), it seems now that some states are eager to apologize, opening up the path to
this gestures to be used not as reactive but as proactive, that is to say, a political tool to achieve a
goal. But this drives us to the question of what leads to a declaration of a state apology, and why
apologies are issued in some cases and are not on others. Is it the gravity of the crime? Is it the
societal pressure for the state to apologize? Are there other factors that authors have ignored or
bypassed? It is my opinion that no apology is produced out of thin air, and that every one of them
can be traced back and mapped to discover and analyze the concrete reasons for why it
happened. This thesis, then, will try to elucidate the reasoning behind state apologies, mapping
their road from the acceptance of a state crime to the final expression of regret. By answering the
question What are the main factors that influence the issuing of an State Apology? I hope to
drive and work towards a deeper understanding of the practice and its theoretical, political and
historical effects on geopolitics around the world.
For the development of this Master’s Thesis, two concepts are key: State Crime and State
Apology. State crimes will be considered and conceptualized from two perspectives: the crimes
(or violations) have to be internationally recognized as such, and I will limit myself to crimes
committed against by state-sanctioned institutions on/to other states/foreign powers. Domestic
crimes and subsequent apologies will not be considered: not because they don’t matter, but
because it will give the research more focus and a deeper connection to the Geopolitical/
International Relations theories and practices.
State Crimes, Balint (2011) points out, “are state orchestrated, harnessing institutions and
expressing state policy”. She also points out to the precondition of the state crime to be
something of enormity, of big importance. But what does this mean? She opines that state crimes
cause “mass harm and destruction” and are part of the “institutionalized policy of the state”
concept proposed by Chambliss (1988) and used as a sustained, long term national building tool.
What constitutes a ‘state apology’? A cursory review of literature would point out to a
state apology being a expression of regret, remorse of ‘contrition’, as Ku (2015) calls it, made by
a representative of the state. While some authors like Ku (ibid) have developed levels of
apologies that go from “shallow contrition” to “deep contrition”, in my research I wouldn’t focus
on analyzing the deepness or value of the apology. In its stead, I would focus on establishing the
existence of the ‘state apology’ as such, which as Winter (2015) argues, can be simply
recognized –and further legitimized- when a ‘true’ representative of the political authority of a
state issues it. That is, when a national figure recognized as the leader of the nation is the one that
expressed the contrition, and when that national figure is perceived as representing the nation
and the content of the apology connects and reflects the people’s feelings. To this end, he points
out to the collective nature of a state apology, which is not limited to an individual but to the
expression of national regret that “works to restructure the collective identity by repudiating the
wrongful act”. It comes into full circle then, that a crime that was used as ‘nation building tool’
should come to a metaphorical end by issuing ‘national’ expression of remorse. In that sense, it
helps me focus my research and consider state apologies that have (1) been issued and expressed
by the main political leader of the state, (1) garnered strong support from all sides of the state’s
actors (public, political, private) (2) are considered legitimate by all political institutions and
representatives (3) have garnered support in the public sphere (citizens). I would theorise that
those are the most genuine apologies, the ones that are not made our of pressure, but out of
collective will.
Methodology considerations
Case study and process tracing seem to me the logic methodological course of action for
this master’s thesis work. I would identify six cases of State Crimes in total; dividing them into
two columns or categories. The first one is the “Full Crime-Apology Cycle”, cases that have state
apologies recorded that commit to the criteria pointed in the first section of this proposal. The
second category is the “Incomplete Crime-Apology Cycle”, those cases where a state apology is
not present yet. A process tracing then would be developed for each of these cases and by
contrasting the steps and ‘road’ of each category, I hope to present a clear idea of how state
apologies do or do not originate.
Case Selection Criteria
• Noted historical relevance
• Deep international effects
• Scholarly agreement on the ‘state crime’ status of the actions taken by the government
• Ideally, cases should be ones that so far have been overlooked by researchers.
It’s also worth noting that in terms of access to information, language barriers will have
to be considered. Case selection will therefore be limited to the ones which main data and
research has been done in languages the author of this Master Thesis is proficient in, which will
reduce the amount of cases available for analysis but not necessarily hinder the effectiveness or
value of the research.
A full comparison and analysis of both Complete and Incomplete Apology Cycles would
be the meat of the research, so to speak, and by the end of my research I hope to contribute to the
recent but very rich area of study of state apologies. This proposal feels ambitious in scope but
I’m confident that it can be done and that it will be of some value and contribute to the field. It
should be of interest not only to researchers and the general public interested in international
relations/geopolitical thinking, but also to political actors that will be the guiding voices of the
issuing –or not- of state apologies in the future.

Preliminary scope of work in English

State Apologies seem to be having a moment. They are more frequent now than ever in
history. As noted by Mihai (2013) a “sharp rise of public apologies for past abuses by state
representatives” has been notable and a clear trend in recent years. These apologies can be traced
back to an anti-geopolitical school of thought that stresses the need to pay attention to, and
emphasize, ideas, values and human agency (See: Drulak, 2006). When before it was through
coercion and force that states were lead to express regret and made reparations (think Germany
after World War II), it seems now that some states are eager to apologize, opening up the path to
this gestures to be used not as reactive but as proactive, that is to say, a political tool to achieve a
goal. But this drives us to the question of what leads to a declaration of a state apology, and why
apologies are issued in some cases and are not on others. Is it the gravity of the crime? Is it the
societal pressure for the state to apologize? Are there other factors that authors have ignored or
bypassed? It is my opinion that no apology is produced out of thin air, and that every one of them
can be traced back and mapped to discover and analyze the concrete reasons for why it
happened. This thesis, then, will try to elucidate the reasoning behind state apologies, mapping
their road from the acceptance of a state crime to the final expression of regret. By answering the
question What are the main factors that influence the issuing of an State Apology? I hope to
drive and work towards a deeper understanding of the practice and its theoretical, political and
historical effects on geopolitics around the world.
For the development of this Master’s Thesis, two concepts are key: State Crime and State
Apology. State crimes will be considered and conceptualized from two perspectives: the crimes
(or violations) have to be internationally recognized as such, and I will limit myself to crimes
committed against by state-sanctioned institutions on/to other states/foreign powers. Domestic
crimes and subsequent apologies will not be considered: not because they don’t matter, but
because it will give the research more focus and a deeper connection to the Geopolitical/
International Relations theories and practices.
State Crimes, Balint (2011) points out, “are state orchestrated, harnessing institutions and
expressing state policy”. She also points out to the precondition of the state crime to be
something of enormity, of big importance. But what does this mean? She opines that state crimes
cause “mass harm and destruction” and are part of the “institutionalized policy of the state”
concept proposed by Chambliss (1988) and used as a sustained, long term national building tool.
What constitutes a ‘state apology’? A cursory review of literature would point out to a
state apology being a expression of regret, remorse of ‘contrition’, as Ku (2015) calls it, made by
a representative of the state. While some authors like Ku (ibid) have developed levels of
apologies that go from “shallow contrition” to “deep contrition”, in my research I wouldn’t focus
on analyzing the deepness or value of the apology. In its stead, I would focus on establishing the
existence of the ‘state apology’ as such, which as Winter (2015) argues, can be simply
recognized –and further legitimized- when a ‘true’ representative of the political authority of a
state issues it. That is, when a national figure recognized as the leader of the nation is the one that
expressed the contrition, and when that national figure is perceived as representing the nation
and the content of the apology connects and reflects the people’s feelings. To this end, he points
out to the collective nature of a state apology, which is not limited to an individual but to the
expression of national regret that “works to restructure the collective identity by repudiating the
wrongful act”. It comes into full circle then, that a crime that was used as ‘nation building tool’
should come to a metaphorical end by issuing ‘national’ expression of remorse. In that sense, it
helps me focus my research and consider state apologies that have (1) been issued and expressed
by the main political leader of the state, (1) garnered strong support from all sides of the state’s
actors (public, political, private) (2) are considered legitimate by all political institutions and
representatives (3) have garnered support in the public sphere (citizens). I would theorise that
those are the most genuine apologies, the ones that are not made our of pressure, but out of
collective will.
Methodology considerations
Case study and process tracing seem to me the logic methodological course of action for
this master’s thesis work. I would identify six cases of State Crimes in total; dividing them into
two columns or categories. The first one is the “Full Crime-Apology Cycle”, cases that have state
apologies recorded that commit to the criteria pointed in the first section of this proposal. The
second category is the “Incomplete Crime-Apology Cycle”, those cases where a state apology is
not present yet. A process tracing then would be developed for each of these cases and by
contrasting the steps and ‘road’ of each category, I hope to present a clear idea of how state
apologies do or do not originate.
Case Selection Criteria
• Noted historical relevance
• Deep international effects
• Scholarly agreement on the ‘state crime’ status of the actions taken by the government
• Ideally, cases should be ones that so far have been overlooked by researchers.
It’s also worth noting that in terms of access to information, language barriers will have
to be considered. Case selection will therefore be limited to the ones which main data and
research has been done in languages the author of this Master Thesis is proficient in, which will
reduce the amount of cases available for analysis but not necessarily hinder the effectiveness or
value of the research.
A full comparison and analysis of both Complete and Incomplete Apology Cycles would
be the meat of the research, so to speak, and by the end of my research I hope to contribute to the
recent but very rich area of study of state apologies. This proposal feels ambitious in scope but
I’m confident that it can be done and that it will be of some value and contribute to the field. It
should be of interest not only to researchers and the general public interested in international
relations/geopolitical thinking, but also to political actors that will be the guiding voices of the
issuing –or not- of state apologies in the future.