Superseding historical injustice? New critical assessments

Abstract

This article proposes that debates over historical injustice and Jeremy Waldron’s supersession thesis are helpfully framed by distinguishing between (a) the abstract supersession thesis proper, (b) the temporal orientation of justice, (c) various conceptions of supersession, and (d) arguments against using supersession discourse. This introduction and contributors to this volume advance the debate by discussing Waldron’s later, less examined writings on supersession of sovereignty, group identity, and treaties, as well as public dimensions of supersession and critiques drawn from settler colonial theory and Indigenous perspectives, among others. We discuss the contributions by Gordon Christie, Burke Hendrix, Julio Montero, Esme Murdock, Seunghyun Song, Jeff Spinner-Halev, and Santiago Truccone-Borgogno, and Jeremy Waldron’s reply.