State Apologies and International Law

Abstract

Abstract This article explores whether transnational state apologies—apologies from one state to another, but invariably apologies from “strong” states to “weak” ones—have any real meaning under international law. Without the force of law, states could continue to pursue the same or similar policies to those things for which they now apologize. One of the more remarkable aspects of transnational state apologies is the way in which they challenge the dominant “territorial” interpretation of international law. Through these apologies, states are committing themselves to protect not only their own citizens, but foreign nationals as well. Moreover, these principles are reflected in things like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative as well as the Arms Trade Treaty. On the other hand, there is also evidence of a fissure between (apologetic) words, on the one hand, and international law and state practice, most notably the law on state responsibility as well as the legal apartheid now institutionalized in both the United States and in Europe—the two largest purveyors of state apologies.