The legal governance of historical memory and the rule of law

The thesis demonstrates that state-based instrumentalizations of history through law and ostensibly legal measures have an impact on the rule of law. Ever since memory laws were adopted in Europe during the early 1990s to stem Holocaust denialism, their breadth has expanded considerably. Increasingly, they have been resorted to by governments to impose interpretations of historical events, that impact minorities, influence history education and even shape citizenship on the basis of historical values and legacies. Since the 2010s, some governments have taken near complete control over the legal governance of historical memory and have used pervasive memory laws to disseminate historically inaccurate and revisionist narratives about past events.
Until now, academic scholarship has assessed the memory laws of the last three decades through the lens of fundamental rights. However, as nationalist, populist and authoritarian regimes increasingly engage in the legal governance of historical memory, many areas of governance have become affected by mnemonic. To understand and analyze the full implications of memory laws and their use, this dissertation employs the broader lens of the rule of law.
The analysis shows a correlation between states’ treatment of their past and rule of law decline. The thesis illustrates these processes through case studies on France and Hungary, to show the range of positive and negative effects of memory laws on the rule of law. Ultimately, the thesis intends to illustrate how the legal governance of historical memory is a neglected area where rule of law deterioration can and should be traced.