The paper examined empirically environmental beliefs among Jeju women in South Korea by analyzing survey data collected in 1999. The findings indicate that 58 per cent of Jeju women held pro-environmental beliefs that were measured with the Revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Environmental beliefs being structured with four dimensions in the mind of Jeju women educational attainment proved a significant determinant for the two belief dimensions: human’s excessive involvement in nature and human superiority over nature. Those with higher educational attainment agreed strongly with the belief in human’s excessive involvement in nature whereas rejecting the belief in human superiority over nature.

This essay explores the idea of insular peacefulness that is indicated based on the measurable premise of island communities in which killing is absent or statistically low. Insular peacefulness is explored in three sections. The first section presents the notion of a deep-rooted archetype of islands as places of freedom, wealth and peace which can be traced to mythological and historical constructions scattered through time and space. Ancient descriptions are followed by the late medieval and modern quest for lost insular paradises which are also depicted in fictional literary utopian accounts and contemporary libertarian seasteading projections and experiments. The concept of “Peace Island,” following Ko, is also introduced to contextualize the case study sections.Beyond utopian archetypes and realizations, the next section lays out three real insular communities that have been described as “peaceful” or “nonviolent”and that follow our criteria of being essentially killing-free islands. The three featured societies are Tristan da Cunha (British South Atlantic), Ifaluk (Micronesia) and Tahiti (Polynesia). Even if the strategies and structures of these remote and small communities are not necessarily applicable to larger insular populations, they certainly support the idea of the possibilities for realizing nonkilling societies through revised socio-cultural heuristic models.The final section offers another four examples of larger islands that have defined themselves—through collective social imagination and/or intentional constructions—as “islands of peace,” seeking to develop, position, and export their identity in the framework of insular cultures of peace, upon distinct bases within their historical, political, economic and cultural roots. The Åland Islands in Finland (one of the first demilitarized and neutralized territories in the world); the Islands of Hawaii (with a fragile “equilibrium” of heavy militarization and a deep-seated traditional culture of peace and aloha); Jeju Island in Korea (with one of the most active programs for Peace Island development, even if located in a country still technically at war for the past sixty years) and the Canary Island of Lanzarote in Spain (a new international initiative for the diffusion of human rights and a culture of peace). All four examples illustrate through their commonalities the modern attempts for the realization of peaceful and peace-making cultures, programs and experiments from the standpoint of insular societies.

I suggest a theory of World Peace Island of Jeju Island as Demilitarized Zone rather than Militarized Islands for Prosperity and Peace for Pacific Civilization upon Tolerance Philosophy of Islanders in this article. In order to reach a win-win policy for both Koreas as well as the other nations involved in the so-called “Six-Party Talks”, Korean leaders for a new age of Korean unification (including President, Lee Myung-bak, the 2012 leading Presidential candidates such as Congresswoman Park Geun-hye, Congressman, Sohn Hak-kyu,Chung Se-kyun and others) must recognize a new paradigm for Korean re- unification in the context of framework of peaceful coexistence of civilizations.Even though both President Lee Myung-bak and former President Roh Moo-hyun have emphasized the Swiss model for small nations to keep the peace (military armament) rather than the Costa Rican model (disarmament), the time has come for us to think seriously and incrementally about a new paradigm toward Jeju Island as Demilitarized World Peace Island. We should learn the lessons of non-militarized autonomous regions of Madeira of Portugal,Majorca of Spain, Spitz Bergen of Norway, Åland of Finland. We should create Jeju Island as World Peace Island for peaceful Pacific beyond trauma and ordeal of colonized or militarized fate of Pacific islands such as the Okinawa of Japan, the Hawaii of United States, the Sakhalin of Russia, the Hainan Dao of Mainland China. If Jeju Island will be designated as demilitarizedPeace Island through international treaty by the Six-Party Talks Countries (USA, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, and Russia) by an internationaltreaty of the United Nations, we should expect Jeju Island to play an important role not only in the prosperity of Pacific civilization but also peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas.

In this paper, I examine research on the Jeju 4.3 events, published in English outside South Korea since the 1940s in the field of social science (e.g. politics, international relations, and sociology), law, and history. I thenaddress how to internationalize the Jeju 4.3 events by asking three questions:first, which aspects of the Jeju 4.3 events should be internationalized? Second, why do we have to internationalize the Jeju 4.3 events? Third, should the localization of the Jeju 4.3 event come before the internationalization? I conclude the paper with three practical way to the internationalization of the Jeju 4.3 events: first, to translate and distribute materials that are already available domestically; second, to secure enough manpower to internationalize the Jeju 4.3 events and provide continuously supports; and finally, to facilitate the networks and communicate with international governmental and nongovernmental organizations and to affiliate with other domestic and international institutions.

The twentieth-century history of the ROK (Republic of Korea) is arguably the story of a people’s long struggle for freedom from authoritarian rule. This essay will explore the struggle waged by the people between 1980 and 1987 in ROK to secure civil and political rights denied by military dictatorship. This essay will critique the organisational platform of the movement and use the Spiral Model of human rights norm socialisation (Risse et al, 1999) to understand the regime response to the advocacy movement. This will be contextualised alongside the role of the US (United States of America) as the hegemonic power in ROK in either supporting or denouncing ROK human rights violations. Central will be the role of discourse[1] in enabling the construction of counter-hegemonic resistance ‘from below,’ drawing from Gramscian concepts of a constructed public realm in which discursive forces battle with challenges to hegemony[2]. The essay will conclude by suggesting the successes of the movement, in moving ROK towards norm internalisation, were facilitated by the subversive discourses of the minjung ('people') resulting in an irresistible counter-hegemonic discourse against the Chun Doo Hwan regime.

This paper seeks to present, discuss, and analyze the differences as well as the similarities between English and Korean. It is generally agreed that the categories of culture differ across different types of societies and cultures. It is also believed that Western culture differs from Eastern culture. So we tend to think that people in a different culture speak differently, eat differently, wear differently, and interact differently from those in another culture. But it is not necessarily and not always true. I prove this by focusing on how people in a different culture speak a different language without knowing that they actually use the same expressions as those in another culture use. I will deal not only with cultural barriers due to the differences between English and Korean but also with how to work out the problems through the similarities between the two languages.

This study assessed the Jeju Provincial Government's investment promotion Jeju Free International City (JFIC) website in comparison to Hong Kong’s best practicesubnational Investment Promotion Agency’s (IPA), InvestHK, and Prince EdwardIsland’s IPA, Invest PEI. The study assessed four website dimensions that are recommended for information dissemination to potential investors: information architecture, design, content, and promotional effective- ness. This study is basedon Theodore Moran’s promotional development work, and the Multilateral Invest-ment Guarantee Agency’s (MIGA) recent IPA performance study.The JFIC website exhibited a low overall website performance score of 44%, compared to PEI (68.8%) and InvestHK (90.2%). Jeju’s Content performance (16%)was far lower than the Invest PEI and InvestHK (28% and 47% respectively) IPA scores, and this is what provides investors crucial information such as the IPA’s purpose, core (location) information, and credible, sector specific infor- mation. The JFIC site results also show weak promotional effectiveness of the website in terms of IPA branding, contact information and being easily found in basic Internet searches. The results of this assessment are consistent with MIGA’s findings between best practice IPA’s and developing IPA websites (2006).Recommendations include that Jeju Special Self-governing Province (JSSP) revisethe JFIC website entirely, or remove it and provide its full support to enhance theJeju Development Center’s website. The same website evaluation could provide useful feedback to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the JDC website as well.A true ‘one stop shop’ to service investors would be the most effective solution.Finally, it is recommended that the Investment Climate Survey be undertaken to clearlyidentify what sector specific information can be promoted to investors on the website.The information for investors will then match Jeju’s impressive progress forwardin its development.