유시첸코 정권 시기 우크라이나국가기억연구소의 설립과 역사적 기억의 정치

Abstract

The Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINP) was established in 2006 under the Viktor Iushchenko administration, fundamentally restructuring Ukraine's official historical narrative and establishing precedents for memory-related legislation that would persist beyond Iushchenko's presidency. The establishment of the UINP encompassed broader implications that transcended Ukrainian domestic politics, incorporating issues of transitional justice, collective memory formation, and the historical politics of post-communist Europe. This paper examines three critical aspects of the UINP's development during the Iushchenko era. First, the political processes and institutional development surrounding the UINP's establishment in 2006. Second, the central role the Institute played in recognizing the 1932-1933 Ukrainian famine as genocide. Third, the UINP's influence in rehabilitating the activities of the OUN and UPA as national liberation movements and ultimately conferring the title of Hero of Ukraine upon Shukhevych and Bandera. Through detailed analysis of these domains, this paper illuminates how state institutions can serve as mediating agents in transforming collective memory and national identity in post-authoritarian contexts. The UINP's experience demonstrated both the potential efficacy and serious limitations of state-sponsored memory politics. While the institution successfully transformed official narratives and influenced public opinion, it could not eliminate historical complexity or resolve fundamental disagreements over contentious events. The UINP's systematic distortion of evidence, selective interpretation of historical materials, and failure to adequately address interethnic violence ultimately undermined the credibility of its rehabilitation efforts and created long-term problems for Ukrainian historical scholarship. The developmental trajectory of the UINP serves as a principal case study demonstrating the tensions between national identity formation and the politicization of historical memory in the post-Soviet space, as well as the complex relationship between scholarly rigor and nation-building.