"This mapping exercise seeks to provide a better understanding of national apologies by analysing the nuances associated with the term while studying examples of apologies made by states to their people."....Abstract: "The national apology is a phenomenon which can loosely be defined as a collective, political, intra-state apology, issued from one group to another through the use of appropriate representation. Broadly speaking the ?age of apology? started twenty years ago, yet even with age the term ?national apology? has remained one which is particularly analytically elusive. The bulk of the concerned literature has attempted to face up to this dilemma, to clarify the issues and fortify (or discredit) the utility of the practice. However what it has achieved is confusion over the points of suitable definition, purpose, form, delivery, target audience, and so on. This paper attempts to address these issues through analysing the nuances associated with the term, to contribute meaningfully to the topical discussion through a mapping exercise. As such this paper seeks to provide the knowledge for understanding both composition and critiques of national apologies. The process of mapping national apologies is started through mounting a discussion of its variables which are historical location (historic or recent), incidence (discrete or sustained) and significance (whether it remains relevant in the current context). It then continues to argue that the correct form for a national apology requires paying particular attention to the publicity, official character, and ceremony of the statement, as well as by choosing an appropriate speaker. Such contextual adequacies however are not enough to validate an apology. The statement must include within its content an acknowledgement of the injustices committed, an expression of remorse, a guarantee of non-repetition, and refrain from appealing for forgiveness. Finally complementing such an apology with further reparative action (measures of sincerity, National Apologies: Mapping the complexities of validity4 corrective action, and material compensation) give the best chance for a national apology to be considered valid and accepted. In conclusion the report affirms that although the mapping exercise has surely been informative to the reader, and may act as a resource for the analysis and correct construction of national apologies, the information put forward is clearly not intended to be indisputable. It is a current theory in the face of a lack of engagement with this under studied topic, and the author?s intention has been to inspire debate. When this field has a significant potential to contribute to reconciliation and peace efforts around the globe it seems inappropriate to accept it as unexplainable. Thus, the report finishes by suggesting it is only through persistent and constructive dialogue between academics and practitioners that we may hope to one day reach consensus on best practice of national apologies."