ABSTRACT
The previous chapter explained the concept of contrition and also raised concerns about its application to international relations. Perhaps one of the largest concerns is that it just plain does not make sense for a state to show contrition when good relations can go forth without it. Bury the hatchet and get on, let bygones be bygones, sweep it under the rug. Of course this argument is harder to make within a state where victims live side by side with perpetrators. The body politic is damaged and must be healed. Yet, even within nations there is debate about how much to let go and how much to dig backwards in an attempt to remedy the past. The transitional justice literature is concerned with this: how much to let go to focus on the future and how much to dwell in the past to “fix” old wounds. The debate centers around two logics: the “logic of appropriateness” and the “logic of consequences”. These two present a false dichotomy, but let us flesh out their distinctions.
