In Germany, it is possible to complete a law degree without ever learning about the injustices of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) regime. Despite a legal requirement to address this topic, many law students graduate without knowledge of how the law was used as an instrument of power in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the role of SED injustice in courts, authorities, and procedures, and the responsibility of jurists involved.
The revised version of § 5a Abs. 2 Satz 3 of the German Judges Act, effective since January 1, 2022, mandates that compulsory subjects also be taught in conjunction with the National Socialist injustice and the SED dictatorship injustice. This joint mention obliges an examination of both histories of injustice but does not equate them, as ideologies, forms of rule, and crimes differ.
Uneven Implementation
The implementation of this mandate is still insufficient, as shown by the resolution of the 75th German Jurists’ Day, which unanimously demands the effective implementation of § 5a Abs. 2 Satz 3 Halbsatz 2 DRiG. A non-representative survey of students by the Federal Association of Law Faculty Associations in 2025 found that only 4.14% of respondents reported acquiring knowledge about SED injustice at their university, while 13.79% learned about National Socialist injustice.
Dealing with GDR law or SED injustice currently occurs sporadically, such as in a seminar at the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main in 2023, a series of events at the University of Leipzig in the summer semester of 2025, and an exhibition at the Humboldt University of Berlin in 2026.
A joint ring lecture by the University of Hamburg and the Bucerius Law School in the winter semester of 2026/27, titled “NS-Injustice and SED-Injustice,” aims to contribute to the implementation of § 5a DRiG but allocates only two out of 14 events specifically to SED injustice or GDR law, while eight events focus on National Socialist injustice.
In contrast, the legal history of National Socialism has been extensively researched for decades, is treated in compulsory lectures, and has been elaborated in numerous areas of law.
Delayed Engagement with SED Injustice
Those who wish to engage deeply with SED injustice often have to search longer or wait until the referendary period. The report by the Federal Commissioner for the Victims of the SED Dictatorship (2026) highlights Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine-Westphalia, Berlin, and Thuringia as exemplary in conveying this topic during the referendary period.
Overall, the engagement with SED injustice seems to be mainly deferred to the referendary period, although § 5a DRiG, headed “Study,” already prescribes it for university education. However, founded teaching requires corresponding research.
Related Post: German Judges Visit Schools to Discuss Democracy
The aforementioned report by the Federal Commissioner assesses research on the SED dictatorship at universities as underrepresented and hardly sustainably anchored. A west German-dominated university and teaching tradition likely contributes to the fact that this topic is still viewed as an “east German special topic” at many faculties and that SED injustice appears less frequently as part of a common German legal history.
The small number of law faculties in the east and the low proportion of east German professors likely exacerbate the research imbalance.
National Socialist injustice is more firmly anchored in the collective memory, also because dealing with it was already unavoidable before 2022.
Textbooks also facilitate the teaching of SED injustice for non-law lecturers, enabling the mandate of § 5a DRiG to finally take effect in lecture halls. For instance, the Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship could serve as a resource for such educational efforts.
Distinct Historical Processes Shaping NS and SED Legal Accountability
After 1945, many jurists who had served under National Socialism returned to positions in the Federal Republic’s courts and universities. In the German Democratic Republic, authorities also drew lessons from the Nazi period, but pursued them with a separate orientation and different outcomes.
The examination of SED-related injustice lacked the intense political pressure that followed the Nazi era. When the two German states reunified, the West German legal framework was applied throughout the former GDR, making a separate review appear unnecessary. Consequently, only a limited number of former East German judges were retained, with political liabilities and earlier rulings influencing those decisions.
Understanding law in the GDR requires viewing it as part of an integrated political system. The constitution could promise rights, yet party directives often constrained their practical effect. Scholars argue that a full analysis must combine legal study with sociology and political science, since no single principle comparable to the Führerprinzip guided legal interpretation. Apart from a few regularly examined cases such as the wall-shooters trials, assessing SED injustice demands attention to how courts and authorities operated, the influence of political orders, and the availability of effective legal protection. The legacy of the DDR continues to shape personal memories and interpretations, especially in eastern Germany.
Leave a Reply