Source: (2014) Columbia Journal of Race and Law. 4(2):97-128.

Many scholars have criticiZed Congressional apology resolutions for slavery as inadequate and ineffective. Ironicaljy, Congress may look to China's apoogetic justice in intentional intellectual property infringements to learn valuable lessons about apologies and how to incorporate them into righting wrongs. China requires that the wrongdoer who intentionaly harms or infringes the intellectualproperty rights of another make a public apology in a newpaper or trade journal, in addition to stopping the harm and paing for compensatory damages and costs. If the wrongdoer does not time-y make the public apology, the infringed party will draft and publish the public apology in the wrongdoer's name and charge the associated expenses to the wrongdoer. Again, the public apology is in addition to, not in lieu of, injunctive relief and damages. If Congress approaches apology resolutions to slavery in a similar waj to what China has done for remedies in intentional intellectual property infringements, Congress will adequately addess scholars' criticisms. (author's abstract)