I was conversing with my partner on thethis question I am about to aska few hours ago. The conversation got me curious on the question 'does, "does a state have a moral obligation fortowards people that suffered from its crimesactions in the past?'." In particular, we came across the question of whether the UK's colonial past resulted in any moral obligations regarding its current immigration policy, and whether the "guilt" incurred by its leadership in colonial times was inherited by today's government. We also weren't clear about the question whether such a moral obligation could apply to an institution (like the sovereign state), or has to be eventually traced back to an individual (or a group of individuals). In this context we also touched upon the notion of guilt by association, which would seem to be required to justify holding today's leaders responsible for the actions of their predecessors.
Please note that I am not a philosophy student and I would appreciate any help any of you can provide.
Qualifications: I do not intend to problematise the word crimes here. Let's just accept the assumption that there are things that the state can do and bewhich are considered as a crime by all. My main contention here is with the moral obligationsquestion of a state, in that whether it hasthe state can have moral obligations or not (in this case for the supposed crimes it has committed. Another example is in admitting would-be immigrants into its borders: Does a state have a moral obligation to admit would be non-refugees immigrants?).