논문 상세보기
Social Healing Through Justice: Jeju 4.3 Case
The purpose of this article is to review the current stage of Korean transitional justice by focusing on the Jeju 4.3 Incidents and to consider some recurring key issues as they relate to past atrocities. As we shall see, there are a number of shared characteristics in the process of Korean transitional justice. First, Korean transitional justice did not exclude the option of prosecution and punishment of former wrongdoers, but it was more focused on the reconciliation by giving proper remedies to the victims. Second, the fact-finding activities were conducted in a relatively short time. Third, huge emphasis was placed on reinstating impaired reputations as part of the remedies for the victims. Fourth, transitional justice was made possible not by the judicial branch but by the legislation of special acts. In Jeju case, a couple of distinctive characteristics are also found: First the Jeju Special Act was a result of compromise among political parties in terms of defining the nature of the incidents; Second, in order to avoid ideological conflicts, the fact-finding and compensation activities were limited to “innocent civilians” in the Act; and (3) They did not take any measures against the wrongdoers who had been praised to be “national meritorious persons.”Transitional justice in Korea has always been closely related to the development of democracy and the rule of law. The remedies given to the victims of the Jeju 4.3 Incidents were closely tied to the political situation that prevailed in 2000, when the Special Act was legislated. The change of social climate under the Kim Dae-Jung government also played an important role in advancing transitional justice in Korea. As the iron wall of anti-communism weakened after military dictatorship collapsed, the Jeju victims gathered courage to approach the authorities to seek their redress. The lawmakers, likewise, found it easier to persuade the conservative public when they legislated the Special Act.
