No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Symmetry of Hypocrisy in Czech-German Legal Conciliation, 1989–1997
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 September 2019
Abstract
Following the collapse of communism in 1989, the Czechoslovak and German governments entered a new phase of relations marked by reconciliatory goodwill. However, relations rapidly deteriorated in the face of mutual claims for material redress concerning the wartime Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia and the expulsion/transfer of the Sudeten German population in the immediate postwar period. The Czechoslovak (later Czech) and German governments disputed the legal status of the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the Beneš Decrees of 1945, and their differing interpretations had implications either strengthening or undermining the Sudeten German restitution claim. Comparing argumentative strategies reveals a striking symmetry of hypocrisy. Czech and German representatives selectively employed two opposing theories of legal legitimacy, reflecting the jurisprudential schools of legal positivism and natural law theory, either to defend or repudiate the abovementioned instruments. This article argues that reciprocal inconsistency critically undermined attempts by Czech and German representatives to achieve a legal resolution in the 1990s.
Nach dem Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus im Jahr 1989 traten die tschechoslowakische und die deutsche Regierung in eine neue Beziehungsphase ein, die zunächst vom Willen zur Aussöhnung geprägt war. Doch verschlechterte sich das Verhältnis rasch angesichts wechselseitiger Entschädigungsansprüche in Bezug auf die nationalsozialistische Okkupation der Tschechoslowakei im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Vertreibung/Aussiedlung der sudetendeutschen Bevölkerung in der unmittelbaren Nachkriegszeit. Umstritten waren zwischen der tschechoslowakischen (später tschechischen) und der deutschen Regierung die rechtliche Geltung des Münchner Abkommens von 1938 und der Beneš-Dekrete von 1945, wobei die abweichenden Deutungen eine Stärkung oder Schwächung sudetendeutscher Restitutionsforderungen implizierten. Ein Vergleich argumentativer Strategien zeigt eine auffallende Symmetrie der Scheinheiligkeit. Tschechische und deutsche Vertreter*innen bedienten sich selektiv zweier entgegengesetzter Theorien der rechtlichen Legitimität, welche den juristischen Denkschulen des Rechtspositivismus respektive der Naturrechtslehre entsprachen, um die genannten Rechtsinstrumente zu verteidigen oder zurückzuweisen. Der Aufsatz stellt heraus, dass die beiderseitige Inkonsequenz entscheidend dazu beitrug, die Bemühungen tschechischer und deutscher Vertreter*innen um eine rechtliche Lösung in den 1990er Jahren zu vereiteln.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Central European History Society of the American Historical Association 2019
Footnotes
I wish to thank the Joint Research Committee of Victoria University of Wellington for its support, and my supervisor, Dr. Alexander Maxwell, for his excellent guidance and mentorship.
References
1 Havel quoted in Žantovský, Michael, Havel: A Life (London: Atlantic Books, 2014), 373Google Scholar.
2 Ibid.
3 von Weizsäcker, Richard, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, trans. Hein, Ruth (New York: Broadway Books, 1999), 315Google Scholar.
4 Renner, Judith, “Germany – Czech Republic: Negotiating Apologies,” in Apology and Reconciliation in International Relations: The Importance of Being Sorry, eds. Daase, Christopher et al. (London: Routledge, 2016), 92Google Scholar.
5 Interview with Richard Schäfers, Foreign Policy Adviser (East Central Europe) in the chancellor's office in Bonn, June 8, 1994, quoted in Nagengast, Emil, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity’: The Sudeten Germans between Bonn and Prague,” German Politics 5, no. 1 (1996): 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Czech-German Joint Historians’ Commission, Konfliktgemeinschaft, Katastrophe, Entspannung: Skizze einer Darstellung der deutsch-tschechischen Geschichte seit dem 19. Jahrhundert (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996).
6 The term Sudeten Germans appeared in German-language journalism and literature in the early twentieth century to describe the German-speaking peoples of the Czech lands. Dejmek, J., “Historické kořeny tzv. Sudetoněmenkého problému v českých zemích do roku 1938,” in Kauza tzv. Benešovy dekrety: Historické ko eny a souvislosti, eds. Dejmek, J., Kuklík, J., and Němeček, J. (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 1999), 7Google Scholar, cited in Bałon, Krzysztof et al. , “The Beneš Decrees: A Review of Positions,” The Polish Foreign Affairs Digest 2, no. 3 (2002): 14Google Scholar.
7 See McDermott, Kevin, Communist Czechoslovakia, 1945–89: A Political and Social History (London: Palgrave, 2015)Google Scholar.
8 Tampke, Jürgen, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe: From Bohemia to the EU (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)Google Scholar; Phillips, Ann L., “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited: Germany and East-Central Europe,” World Affairs 163, no. 4 (2001): 171–91Google Scholar; and Phillips, Ann L., Power and Influence after the Cold War: Germany in East-Central Europe (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)Google Scholar.
9 Cordell, Karl and Wolff, Stefan, Germany's Foreign Policy Towards Poland and the Czech Republic: Ostpolitik Revisited (New York: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar; Hofhansel, Claus, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe (New York: Routledge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feldman, Lily Gardner, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012)Google Scholar; Houžvička, Václav, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004: The Sudeten Question and the Transformation of Central Europe, trans. Bryson-Gustová, Anna Clare (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2015)Google Scholar.
10 Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 177; Phillips, Power and Influence After the Cold War, 82; Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 91–92; Ryback, Timothy W., “Dateline Sudetenland: Hostages to History,” Foreign Policy 104 (1996–97): 172Google Scholar; Tesser, Lynn, “European Integration and the Legacy of the Post–World War II German Expulsions in East-Central Europe,” Geopolitics 4, no. 3 (1999): 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maria Cornelia Raue, “Doppelpunkt hinter der Geschichte: Die Prager Deutschlandpolitik 1990–1997” (PhD diss., Humboldt University of Berlin, 2001), 96–98.
11 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 153.
12 Pauer, Jan, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” Czech Sociological Review 6, no. 2 (1998): 175Google Scholar.
13 See for example, Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004; Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 173–86; Pauer, Jan, “The Problem of Ethical Norms and Values in the Czech-German Discussion,” Perspectives 12 (1999): 65–82Google Scholar; Nagengast, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity,’ ” 81–100; Gardner Feldman, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation; Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 87–105; Cordell and Wolff, Germany's Foreign Policy Towards Poland and the Czech Republic; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe; Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War; Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 171–91; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe; Kunštát, Miroslav, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” Czech Sociological Review 6, no. 2 (1998): 149–72Google Scholar.
14 D'Amato, Anthony, “The Relation of Jurisprudential Theories to International Politics and Law,” Washington & Lee Law Review 27 (1970): 257–77Google Scholar; Hall, Stephen, “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism,” European Journal of International Law 12, no. 2 (2001): 269–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kunz, Josef L., “Natural-Law Thinking in the Modern Science of International Law,” The American Journal of International Law 55, no. 4 (1961): 951–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans J., “Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law,” The American Journal of International Law 34, no. 2 (1940): 260–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 See for example, Reus-Smit, Christian, ed., The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hu, Henan, “The Doctrine of Occupation: An Analysis of Its Invalidity under the Framework of International Legal Positivism,” Chinese Journal of International Law 15, no. 1 (2016): 75–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 See Tesser, “European Integration and the Legacy of the Post–World War II German Expulsions in East-Central Europe,” 98.
17 Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 177.
18 Handl, Vladimir, “Comparative Czech and Polish Perspectives and Policies on the Eastern Enlargement of the EU and the Prominence of the German Factor,” Open Society Support Foundation (Prague: Research Support Scheme, 2000), 7Google Scholar; Tesser, “European Integration and the Legacy of the Post–World War II German Expulsions in East-Central Europe,” 92–93.
19 Gardner Feldman, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation, 206.
20 Ibid; Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 177.
21 Gardner Feldman, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation, 213.
22 See Jan Barcz and Jochen A. Frowein, “Gutachten zu Anspruchen aus Deutschland gegen Polen in Zusammenhang mit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,” erstattet im Auftrag der Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Republik Polen, Heidelberg, November 2, 2004; Gardner Feldman, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation, 213.
23 Tyszka, Stanisław, “Two Concepts of Victimhood: Property Restitution in the Czech Republic and Poland after 1989,” in Memory and Change in Europe: Eastern Perspectives, eds. Pakier, Małgorzata and Wawrzyniak, Joanna (Oxford: Berghahn, 2016)Google Scholar, 155, 160.
24 D'Amato, “The Relation of Jurisprudential Theories to International Politics and Law,” 274.
25 See Reus-Smit, Christian, “Introduction,” in The Politics of International Law, ed. Reus-Smit, Christian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Kunz described “the ultimate foundation of the validity of international law” as one of the “three great problems of international law.” See Kunz, “Natural-Law Thinking in the Modern Science of International Law,” 958.
27 See Innes, Abby, “The Breakup of Czechoslovakia: The Impact of Party Development on the Separation of the State,” East European Politics and Societies 11, no. 3 (1997): 393–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pavlínek, Petr, “Regional Development and the Disintegration of Czechoslovakia,” Geoforum 26, no. 4 (1995): 351–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cox, Robert and Frankland, Erich, “The Federal State and the Breakup of Czechoslovakia: An Institutional Analysis,” Publius 25, no. 1 (1995): 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pehe, Jiří, “Czechs and Slovaks Define Postdivorce Relations,” Politics 1, no. 45 (1992): 7–11Google Scholar.
28 Interestingly, by the end of 1990, only three political parties supported Václav Havel's reconciliatory gestures toward the Sudeten Germans: the Slovak Christian Democratic Movement, the Slovak Democratic Party, and the Beer Lovers’ Party. The satirical Beer Lovers’ aside, both parties were notably Slovak. Czech political parties unanimously disapproved. Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 144; Nagengast, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity,’ ” 89; Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 159–60; Gehring, Hubert, Delinic, Tomislav and Zeller, Andrea, “Proven Partnerships with Development Potential: Germany's Relations with the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” Konrad Adenauer Stiftung International Reports 9 (2010): 46–59Google Scholar.
29 Tyszka, “Two Concepts of Victimhood,” 160.
30 Bruegel, J. W., Czechoslovakia before Munich: The German Minority Problem and British Appeasement Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 176Google Scholar.
31 Eubank, Keith, “Munich,” in A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1948, eds. Mamatey, Victor S. and Luža, Radomír (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 247–49Google Scholar.
32 Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 234; Eubank, “Munich,” 249–50.
33 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 58; Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 246; Marek, Krystyna, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1968), 284–85Google Scholar; Bałon et al., “The Beneš Decrees,” 18 (who put the number a bit lower at 700,000 Czechs).
34 Prochazka, Theodor, “The Second Republic, 1938–1939,” in A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1948, eds. Mamatey, Victor S. and Luža, Radomír (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 270Google Scholar; Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 168.
35 Hitler's “table conversations” on May 16 and 20 and July 4, 1942, quoted in Ritter, Gerhard, ed., Hitler's Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, 1941/1942 (Bonn: Athenäum, 1951), 85, 91, 176–77Google Scholar, 288, and Rhode, Gotthold, “The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 1939–1945,” in A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1948, eds. Mamatey, Victor S. and Luža, Radomír (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 298Google Scholar.
36 Rhode, “The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 298; Hauner, Milan, Czechs and Germans: Yesterday and Today (Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, 1991), 23Google Scholar.
37 Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 138–39.
38 “Memorandum on a Method for the Solution of the Czech Problem and the Future Ordering of Bohemian-Moravian Territory, prepared by K. von Neurath and K. H. Frank,” in Chtěli nás vyhubit (dokumenty o nacistické vyhlazovací a germanizační politice v českých zemích v letech druhé světové války) (Prague: Naše vojsko/SPB, 1961), 29–40, reproduced in Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 557–69.
39 Frumkin, Gregory, Population Changes in Europe since 1939 (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1951)Google Scholar, 50, cited in Rhode, “The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 319.
40 Tartakower, Arieh and Grossmann, Kurt R., The Jewish Refugee (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1944), 37Google Scholar; Moskowitz, Moses, “The Jewish Situation in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia,” Jewish Social Studies 4, no. 1 (1942): 26Google Scholar; Gruner, Wolf, “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” in The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi Persecution Policies in the Annexed Territories, 1935–1945, eds. Gruner, Wolf and Osterloh, Jörg, trans. Heise, Bernard (New York: Berghahn, 2015)Google Scholar, 110, 113; Rothkirchen, Livia, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), 81Google Scholar.
41 Gruner, “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 118–19; Rothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia, 123–28.
42 Gruner, “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 120.
43 Kárný, Miroslav, “Die tschechischen Opfer der deutschen Okkupation,” in Der Weg in die Katastrophe: Deutsch-tschechoslowakische Beziehungen, 1938–1947, eds. Brandes, Detlef and Kural, Václav (Munich: Klartext, 1994), 151–64Google Scholar, cited in Gruner, “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 121.
44 See Rothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia; Láníček, Jan, Czechs, Slovaks and the Jews, 1938–48: Beyond Idealisation and Condemnation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Osterloh, Jörg, “Sudetenland,” in The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi Persecution Policies in the Annexed Territories, 1935–1945, eds. Gruner, Wolf and Osterloh, Jörg, trans. Heise, Bernard (New York: Berghahn, 2015), 68–98Google Scholar; Gruner, “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” 99–135; Friedman, Saul S., “Wannsee: The Saga of Czech Jewry,” in A History of the Holocaust (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2004), 191–205Google Scholar; Wein, Martin, The History of the Jews in the Bohemian Lands (Leiden: Brill, 2015)Google Scholar; Moskowitz, “The Jewish Situation in the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia,” 17–44; Jacoby, Gerhard, Racial State: The German Nationalities Policy in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress, 1944)Google Scholar.
45 Bałon et al., “The Beneš Decrees,” 19–20; Raška, Francis Dostál, The Czechoslovak Exile Government in London and the Sudeten German Issue (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2002), 49Google Scholar.
46 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 79; Dostál Raška, The Czechoslovak Exile Government in London and the Sudeten German Issue, 59, 64.
47 Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 295.
48 Bałon et al., “The Beneš Decrees,” 24; Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 268.
49 The Berlin-Potsdam Conference, July 17–August 2, 1945, “XII. Orderly Transfer of German Populations,” The Avalon Project, accessed August 10, 2016, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade17.asp.
50 “Decree of the President of the Republic on 2 August 1945 concerning regulating the national status of individuals of German and Hungarian nationality (No. 33/1945) (Dekret presidenta republiky ze dne 2. srpen 1945 o úpravě československého státního občanství osob národnosti německé a maďarské),” Parliament Česke republiky, Poslanecká sněmovna, accessed July 17, 2016, http://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/dek/331945.html.
51 Pavel Winkler maintained that the term Beneš Decrees is deliberately misleading, implying individual autocracy on the part of Beneš when the Decrees were in fact executed by a National Council and merely carried the formal title “Presidential Decree.” However, mainstream scholarship since the 1990s as well as official legal bodies use the term and it has entered common usage. Winkler, Pavel, “The Czechoslovak Presidential Decrees, 1940–1945,” Perspectives 4 (1994/95): 14–15Google Scholar; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 91.
52 “Decree of the President of the Republic of 19 May 1945 on the invalidity of certain property rights from the time of oppression and the national administration of property of Germans, Hungarians, traitors and collaborators and certain organisations and institutes (No. 5/1945) (Dekret presidenta republiky ze dne 19. května 1945 o neplatnosti některých majetkově-právních jednání z doby nesvobody a o národní správě majetkových hodnot Němců, Maďarů, zrádců a kolaborantů a některých organisací a ústavů),” Parliament Česke republiky, Poslanecká sněmovna, July 17, 2016, http://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/dek/51945.html; “Decree of the President of the Republic of 19 May 1945,” Parliament Česke republiky, Poslanecká sněmovna; Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 320–21.
53 “Decree of the President of the Republic of 25 October, 1945, on the confiscation of enemy property and the funds for national renewal (No. 108/1945) (dekret presidenta republiky ze dne 25. říjen 1945 o konfiskaci nepřátelského majetku a Fondech národní obnovy),” Parliament Česke republiky, Poslanecká sněmovna, July 17, 2016, http://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/dek/1081945.html.
54 Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 180.
55 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 73; Salzborn, Samuel, “The German Myth of a Victim Nation: (Re-)presenting Germans as Victims in the New Debate on Their Flight and Expulsion from Eastern Europe,” in A Nation of Victims? Representations of German Wartime Suffering from 1945 to the Present, ed. Schmitz, Helmut (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), 98–100Google Scholar. See also, Eckersley, Susannah, “Walking the Tightrope between Memory and Diplomacy? Addressing the Post-Second World War Expulsions of Germans in German Museums,” in Museums, Migration and Identity in Europe, eds. Whitehead, Christopher et al. (London: Routledge, 2015), 101–02Google Scholar.
56 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 73; Salzborn, “The German Myth of a Victim Nation,” 98–100.
57 Eckersley, “Walking the Tightrope between Memory and Diplomacy,” 101–02.
58 Kaplan, Karel, The Short March: The Communist Takeover in Czechoslovakia: 1945–1948 (London: C. Hurst and Company, 1987)Google Scholar, vii; Stone, Norman, “Introductory Essay,” in Czechoslovakia: Crossroads and Crises, 1918–88, eds. Stone, Norman and Strouhal, Eduard (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 6; Heimann, Mary, Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 173–74Google Scholar.
59 Ulc, Otto, “Czechoslovakia,” in Communism in Eastern Europe, ed. Rakowska-Harmstone, Teresa, 2nd ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 117Google Scholar; Heimann, Czechoslovakia, 180, 183.
60 Kaplan, The Short March, ix.
61 “The Treaty of Prague (11 December 1973),” US Department of State Publication 9446, Documents on Germany 1944–1985, March 20, 2016, http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_treaty_of_prague_11_december_1973-en-0714c937-28b6-452a-86d2-ed164f64fcae.html.
62 Havel quoted in Hauner, Czechs and Germans, 1.
63 Ibid.
64 Scholars have misreported the chronology of events, placing Havel's letter shortly after his election to the presidency. In Tampke's study, for example, “Shortly after his election to the Presidency, Havel wrote a letter to the German President, Richard von Weizsäcker …” Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 142.
65 Žantovský, Havel: A Life, 447; Havel, Václav, To the Castle and Back, trans. Wilson, Paul (London: Portobello Books, 2008), 113Google Scholar.
66 Ibid.
67 Hauner, Czechs and Germans, 3.
68 Havel, Václav, The Art of the Impossible: Politics as Morality in Practice, Speeches and Writings, 1990–1996, trans. Wilson, Paul (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 22Google Scholar.
69 Richard von Weizsäcker, “Ein Zeichen des Vertrauens: Ansprache aus Anlaß des 15. März 1939 im Wladislaw-Saal der Prager Burg (15. März 1990),” Deutsche Botschaft Prag, April 5, 2016, http://www.prag.diplo.de/Vertretung/prag/de/03/Seite__Weizsaecker.html.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 91; Raue, “Doppelpunkt hinter der Geschichte,” 126–30.
73 Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 176, 189; Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 74–79; Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 91, 102–03; Fisch, Jörg, “From Weakening an Enemy to Strengthening an Ally: The United States and German Reparations,” in The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945–1990: 1945–1968, ed. Junker, Detlef, Vol. 1 (Washington D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2004), 274Google Scholar.
74 Bren, Paulina, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” RFE/RL Research Report 3, no. 2 (14 January 1994): 17Google Scholar; Pogony, Istvan, Righting Wrongs in Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 151Google Scholar; “Speech by President Richard von Weizsäcker during the Ceremony Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the End of War in Europe and of National Socialist Tyranny, on 8 May 1985 at the Bundestag, Bonn,” Der Bundespräsident, March 23, 2016, http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Richard-von-Weizsaecker/Reden/1985/05/19850508_Rede.html.
75 Pogony, Righting Wrongs in Eastern Europe, 151.
76 Pehe, Jiří, “Legal Difficulties Beset the Czech Restitution Process,” RFE/RL Research Report 3, no. 28 (15 July 1994): 7Google Scholar; Barkan, Elazar, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 149Google Scholar.
77 Pehe, “Legal Difficulties Beset the Czech Restitution Process,” 7, 9.
78 Ibid., 9.
79 Ibid., 7, 9.
80 Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 186–87; Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 331, 348–49.
81 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 171.
82 Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 44; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 171; Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in Czech-German Relations,” 174.
83 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 144; William Drozdiak, “A New Rift over an Old Exodus,” The Washington Post, December 8, 1996.
84 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 144.
85 Martin, Peter, “New Law on Land Privatization Passed,” Report on Eastern Europe 29 (19 July 1991): 12Google Scholar; Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 21.
86 Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 43; Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 82; Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 186–87; Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 91; Nagengast, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity,’ ” 87; Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 172; Raue, “Doppelpunkt hinter der Geschichte,” 96–98.
87 Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 22; Pehe, “Legal Difficulties Beset the Czech Restitution Process,” 11; Walter Becher, “Letter from Walter Becher (President of the Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft) to the President of the United States, regarding Czechoslovakia's gold deposits in the USA as indemnification for refugees and expellees from Czechoslovakia,” Auswärtiges Amt, Politisches Archiv (PA AA), B 42 (ZA), 132791, January 27, 1978.
88 Agreement on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Cooperation, Czechoslovakia–Germany 1900 UNITS 27 (signed 27 February 1992); Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 91.
89 Klaus Kinkel, “Regierungserklärung zu den deutsche-tschechischen Beziehungen, abgegeben von Bundesaußenminister Klaus Kinkel vor dem Deutschen Bundestag in Bonn am 17. März 1995,” Auswärtiges Amt, Mitteilungen für die Presse Nr. 1016/95, June 11, 2016, www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19950317-1.pdf.
90 Pithart quoted in Martin, “New Law on Land Privatization Passed,” 12.
91 Václav Havel, “Czechs and Germans on the Way to Good Neighbourship,” Perspectives 4 (1994/95): 9–10.
92 Ibid., 10.
93 Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 154; Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 396.
94 Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 396.
95 Ibid., 398; Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 156; Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 21.
96 Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 21.
97 Havel, To the Castle and Back, 139–40.
98 “Bittere Gefühle,” Der Spiegel, May 1, 1995, cited in Phillips, “The Politics of Reconciliation Revisited,” 185. See also Nagengast, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity,’ ” 91; Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 175.
99 Nagengast, “Coming to Terms with a ‘European Identity,’ ” 92.
100 Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 396.
101 Quint, Peter E., The Imperfect Union: Constitutional Structures of German Unification (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 284Google Scholar; Cottey, Andrew, East-Central Europe after the Cold War: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary in Search of Security (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1995), 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
102 Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 83; Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 174; Quint, The Imperfect Union, 284.
103 Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 174.
104 Fisch, “From Weakening an Enemy to Strengthening an Ally,” 274.
105 Ibid.
106 Nagengast, Emil, “The Beneš Decrees and EU Enlargement,” Journal of European Integration 25, no. 4 (2003): 336CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
107 Roland Eggleston, “Germany: The Sudeten Problem Lingers,” RFE/RL Research Report (August 10, 1998), cited in Nagengast, “The Beneš Decrees and EU Enlargement,” 336.
108 Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 160.
109 Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 175.
110 Ibid.
111 Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 171.
112 Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 176; Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 21.
113 Nagengast, “The Beneš Decrees and EU Enlargement,” 338; Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 83.
114 The extra “of law” qualification distinguishes natural law theories as they pertain to law from natural law theories of morality generally.
115 See Hart's, H. L. A. famous defense and qualification of Austin's legal positivism, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 593–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other definitions of positivism's general tenets, see Mark Bennett, “Legal Positivism and the Rule of Law: the Hartian Response to Fuller's Challenge,” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2013), 3–4; Himma, Kenneth Einar, “Positivism, Naturalism, and the Obligation to Obey Law,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36 (1998): 145–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, “The Persistent Spectre,” 279–81; Honoré, Tony, “The Necessary Connection between Law and Morality,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, no. 3 (2002): 489–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgenthau, “Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law,” 267.
116 Austin, John, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), ed. Rumble, W. E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
117 The modern natural law theory of law, insofar as it asserts that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law, has much of its intellectual foundation in the works of Thomas Aquinus: see ST I-11, Q. 95, Obj. 4, On Law, Morality, and Politics, eds. William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1988), 59. Prominent seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English jurists Edward Coke and William Blackstone developed the concept within the common law; see Sir Coke, Edward, The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed. Sheppard, Steve, Vol. 1 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003), 195–97Google Scholar and Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Law of England (1899) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 41Google Scholar. In his recent treatise on the historic influence of natural law theory, Helmholz argued that early English, continental European and American jurisprudence understood and applied natural law theory remarkably consistently: see Helmholz, R. H., Natural Law in Court: A History of Legal Theory in Practice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Consider, for example, Article 7 of the Austrian Civil Code of 1811 (applicable to the Bohemian lands) and Lücke, Horst Klaus, “The European Natural Law Codes: The Age of Reason and the Powers of Government,” University of Queensland Law Journal 31, no. 1 (2012): 30Google Scholar. For a twentieth-century discussion of the natural law theory of law, see Fuller, Lon L., The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar and Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)Google Scholar.
118 Decision of the Czech Constitutional Court, “1995/03/08 - Pl. ÚS 14/94: Beneš Decrees,” Ústavní soud České republiky, June 24, 2016, http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/19950308-pl-us-1494-benes-decrees-1/.
119 Archiv des Liberalismus, Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, Federal Democratic Party (FDP) Holdings, N89-84, 68, Klaus Kinkel, “Rede des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen, Dr. Klaus Kinkel, 04. September 1993,” September 4, 1993.
120 Kinkel, “Regierungserklärung zu den deutsche-tschechischen Beziehungen, abgegeben von Bundesaußenminister Klaus Kinkel vor dem Deutschen Bundestag in Bonn am 17. März 1995.”
121 von Weizsäcker, Richard, “Verständigung in der Mitte Europas. Vortrag von Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker,” in Gespräche mit dem Nachbarn, ed. Klener, Pavel (Prague: Karls Universität, 1997), 235Google Scholar.
122 Ibid.
123 Waigel quoted in Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 162–63.
124 Decision of the Czech Constitutional Court, “1995/03/08 - Pl. ÚS 14/94: Beneš Decrees.”
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.
127 Ibid.
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid.
131 Ryback, “Dateline Sudetenland,” 174.
132 Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 183.
133 Ibid., 182.
134 Ibid., 185.
135 Havel, The Art of the Impossible, 23.
136 Ibid., 23, 26.
137 Havel, “Czechs and Germans on the Way to Good Neighborship,” 7, 10.
138 Ibid., 10.
139 Zieleniec, Josef, “Tschechen und Deutsche–Nachbarn im sich einigenden Europa. Vortrag von Josef Zieleniec, Minister für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten der Tschechischen Republik,” in Gespräche mit dem Nachbarn, ed. Klener, Pavel (Prague: Karls Universität, 1997), 213Google Scholar.
140 See Sellars, Kirsten, “Imperfect Justice at Nuremberg and Tokyo,” European Journal of International Law 21, no. 4 (2010): 1085–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
141 Petr Pithard cited in Martin, “New Law on Land Privatization Passed,” 12.
142 Pehe, “Legal Difficulties Beset the Czech Restitution Process,” 12; Winkler, “The Czechoslovak Presidential Decrees, 1940–1945,” 14.
143 Havel quoted in Winkler, “The Czechoslovak Presidential Decrees, 1940–1945,” 21; Havel, “Czechs and Germans on the Way to Good Neighborship,” 9.
144 Interview with Václav Kural, Institute for International Relations, Prague, June 19, 1995, cited in Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 84.
145 Havel, “Czechs and Germans on the Way to Good Neighborship,” 10.
146 Deutscher Bundestag, Wahlperiode 12, Plenarprotokoll 12/93, May 22, 1992, 7686.
147 In legal terms, ex nunc (invalid from now on). Mosler, Hermann, The International Society as a Legal Community (Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1980), 103Google Scholar; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 134; Schiller, Charles A., “Closing a Chapter of History: Germany's Right to Compensation for the Sudetenland,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 26, no. 2 (1994): 411Google Scholar; Baade, Hans W., “Nullity and Avoidance in Public International Law: A Preliminary Survey and a Theoretical Orientation,” Indiana Law Journal 39, no. 3 (1964): 507Google Scholar. Dean, Robert W., “Bonn-Prague Relations: The Politics of Reconciliation,” The World Today 29, no. 4 (1973): 154Google Scholar.
148 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 153.
149 Dean, “Bonn-Prague Relations,” 154.
150 Gardner Feldman, Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation, 269; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 37; Dean, “Bonn-Prague Relations,” 154–55; Raue, “Doppelpunkt hinter der Geschichte,” 61.
151 In legal terms, ex tunc (invalid from the outset). Dean, “Bonn-Prague Relations,” 154; Mosler, The International Society as a Legal Community, 103; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 133–34.
152 Winkler, “The Czechoslovak Presidential Decrees, 1940–1945,” 18–20.
153 Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 149–50; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 29; Wheeler-Bennett, John and Nicholls, Anthony, The Semblance of Peace: The Political Settlement after the Second World War (London: Macmillan, 1972), 612CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 134; Hughes, R. Gerald, “The Ghosts of Appeasement: Britain and the Legacy of the Munich Agreement,” Journal of Contemporary History 48, no. 4 (2013): 704CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
154 Kunštát, “Czech-German Relations after the Fall of the Iron Curtain,” 149–50; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 29; Wheeler-Bennett and Nicholls, The Semblance of Peace, 612; Hughes, “The Ghosts of Appeasement,” 704; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 134; Schiller, “Closing a Chapter of History,” 412–13.
155 Ibid.
156 Malawer, Stuart S., Imposed Treaties and International Law (New York: Hein Publishers, 1977), 101Google Scholar; Schiller, “Closing a Chapter of History,” 411; Mosler, The International Society as a Legal Community, 103; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 36.
157 Such as the Czechoslovak government desired in negotiations preceding the 1973 Treaty of Prague. Malawer, Imposed Treaties and International Law, 101; Schiller, “Closing a Chapter of History,” 411; Mosler, The International Society as a Legal Community, 103; Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 36.
158 Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 36; Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, 321–22; Cabada, Ladislav and Waisová, Šárka, Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic in World Politics (New York: Lexington Books, 2011), 43Google Scholar; Whiteman, Marjorie M., ed., “The Munich Agreement and Teschen,” Department of State Publication 7737, Digest of International Law 3 (1964): 159Google Scholar.
159 P. Webster, “Major and Havel bury Munich Pact,” The Times, May 28, 1992, and P. Webster, “Munich Agreement torn up by Major,” The Independent, May 28, 1992, cited in Hughes, “The Ghosts of Appeasement,” 715.
160 Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 398; Bren, “Czech Restitution Laws Rekindle Sudeten Germans’ Grievances,” 21.
161 Chancellor Willy Brandt quoted in Hughes, “The Ghosts of Appeasement,” 707–08; “Rede von Bundeskanzler Brandt am. 15 Februar 1973 (Auszüge),” in 40 Jahre Aussenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Eine Dokumentation (Bonn: Auswärtiges Amt, 1989), 272, quoted in Hughes, “The Ghosts of Appeasement,” 709.
162 “The Treaty of Prague (11 December 1973),” US Department of State Publications; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 135.
163 Weizsäcker, “Verständigung in der Mitte Europas,” 235; “German-Czech Declaration on Mutual Relations and Their Future Development,” Deutscher Bundestag, March, 22, 2016, www.bundestag.de/kulturundgeschichte/geschichte/gastredner/havel/havel2/244732.
164 Herzog, Roman, “Europa ist eine Gemeinschaft des Friedens, der Freiheit und der Demokratie: Rede vor dem Tschechischen Parlament auf der Prager Burg am 29. April 1997,” in Demokratie als Friedensstrategie: Reden und Beiträge des Bundespräsidenten, ed. Lutz, Dieter S. (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1997), 127Google Scholar.
165 Havel, “Czechs and Germans on the Way to Good Neighborship,” 8.
166 Professors Vošta, L. and Hobza, A. in Zajíček, Karel, ed., Český národ soudí: K. H. Franka (Prague: Ministerstvo informatiky, 1947), 185Google Scholar.
167 Decision of the Czech Constitutional Court, “1995/03/08 - Pl. ÚS 14/94: Beneš Decrees.”
168 See notes 153–55. Czech officials also repudiated the Munich Agreement on the grounds that it had been a pact of detriment to a third party and therefore inadmissible in international law, had failed to implement border changes in the constitutionally sanctioned manner, and had been imposed in contravention of customary international law and treaties to which all parties had been signatories.
169 “The Treaty of Prague (11 December 1973),” US Department of State Publications.
170 Ibid.; Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 135; Mosler, The International Society as a Legal Community, 104.
171 Tampke, Czech-German Relations and the Politics of Central Europe, 153.
172 For discussion of the provision, see Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 83; Pauer, “Moral Political Dissent in German-Czech Relations,” 174; Quint, The Imperfect Union, 284.
173 Frank quoted in Houžvička, Czechs and Germans, 1848–2004, 357.
174 “German-Czech Declaration on Mutual Relations and Their Future Development, 21 January 1997,” Deutscher Bundestag.
175 Phillips, Power and Influence after the Cold War, 75; Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 97.
176 “German-Czech Declaration on Mutual Relations and Their Future Development, 21 January 1997,” Deutscher Bundestag.
177 Renner, “Germany – Czech Republic,” 96–97.
178 Pauer, “The Problem of Ethical Norms and Values in the Czech-German Discussion,” 67.
179 Hofhansel, Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe, 63.
180 Ibid.; for a discussion of Jewish restitution in post-communist Czechoslovakia, see Barkan, The Guilt of Nations, 148–56.
181 Hall, “The Persistent Spectre,” 302; Morgenthau, “Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law,” 269.
182 D'Amato, “The Relation of Jurisprudential Theories to International Politics and Law,” 274.
183 Ibid., 264.
184 Ibid.
185 D'Amato, “The Relation of Jurisprudential Theories to International Politics and Law,” 274–75.