During the past decades, the island city of Jeju, through considerable multi- sectoral efforts, has grown to be a shining example of an environmental hub model. The origin of Jeju’s growth as a global environmental hub can be traced primarily to two major characteristics: 1. The willingness of the people of Jeju to share their island’s vibrant cultural heritage and unique natural beauty with the rest of the world, and 2. The tireless endeavors of Jeju Special Self-GoverningProvince to manage Jeju’s environment, and share its environmental best practices to urban centers across the world. These endeavors are expressed as the principal of policy that conservation is prior to development. In order to achieve its goal of a World Environmental Hub status, Jeju Special Self- Governing Province is promoting 1) institutional strategies, 2) supplementation of its existing master plan, and 3) restructuration of existing social system. The first includes the promotion of this project on a joint base with IUCN and the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea, establishment of head office of world environmental hub promotion in Jeju Governmental organization, and enactment of world environmental hub special law by the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. The second is considering collaborations with the members of IUCN commissions, domestic experts, and consultants who will be recruited from overseas. The third is for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the master plan through the restructuring of exiting socio-economic system to a new one focusing on maximizing the eco-efficiency and environ- mentally friendly behavior.

We would like to present three aspects of Jeju global governance of World Heritages in Jeju Island. To accomplish its international designations, including the UNESCO triple crown, intangible cultural heritages, and RAMSAR wetlands sites, the Jeju Government has created a GIS system where 5 types of land-use have been successfully designated and managed for the preservation of the Environment: 1) Absolutely Preserved Zone, 2) Relatively Preserved Zone, 3) City Planning District, 4) Preserved Eco-System District, 5) Preserved Scenery District. Through these 5 land-use categories, we can see how as a whole, the land is managed, protected, and kept pristine.Jeju must embody the three goals of the Jeju Declaration: “Scaling up Conservation,” “Nature-based Solutions,” and “Sustainability in Action.” Jeju has the ability to mobilize communities to work for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Jeju also has the ability to halt biodiversity loss and apply nature-based solutions to conserve biodiversity, enhance resilience, and so improve the well-being of the people on the island and in turn to improve the well-being of the people on the planet. To actualize practices of 4 Jeju Motions (M067; Establishment of an Integrated Management System for UNESCO Protected Areas, M 108 : Supporting the Sustainability of Jeju Haenyeos as a Unique Marine Ecology Stewardship, M 162 : The Development of an Evaluation and Certification System for World Environment Hubs and unapproved motion, M 181 : Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village), Jeju National University opens Peace Island Leadership School. We also need to involve in an initiativeto integrate each component into a framework of a World Environment University grounded in the Island province of Jeju in South Korea. Within that framework the establishment of a Green Growth and Travelism Institute is a priority element. As a torchbearer of the green growth 2050 vision, this is envisaged as the centre of a virtual global network of related organizations and institutions.

Healing for the Jeju 4.3 survivors and families progressed significantly after the work of the 2000 National 4.3 Committee and the 2005 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Acting on these investigatory organizations’ recommendations and the expressed desires of the Jeju people, the Korean government began a healing process that included a presidential apology, a government-sponsored museum and an extensive public memorial and gravesite for known victims—albeit without individual reparations. American and Korean scholars also point to the United States’ partial responsibility for Jeju 4.3 and its lack of participation in redress efforts. Acknowledgment of the United States’ historical role in Jeju 4.3 by the Korean and U.S. governments today may be one of the crucial next steps toward genuine reparatory justice for the Jeju people and for Korean society. It may also bolster U.S. legitimacy globally as a democracy actually (and not just professedly) committed to humanrights.The United States grounds its global moral authority as a democracy in its stated commitment to human rights. But a genuine commitment entails acknowledging and actively repairing the damage caused by its participation in human rights atrocities—even decades ago. Its legitimacy as a democracy depends upon doing so—and after two damaging wars the United States needs to bolster its moral authority internationally. If America under President Obama, with its security pivot toward Asia, is to reclaim full legitimacy as a democracy committed to human rights, if there is to be complete social healing for the Jeju 4.3 survivors and families and for the Korean government and people—if the “han,” the deep sense of suffering from injustice, is to be lightened—then the United States needs to mutually and actively engage in the reconciliation process. The time is now.

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.

There are many reparations cases in East Asia, especially relating to Japanese invasion and colonization, such as those on forced slave labor, comfort women, Chinese massacres; and a number of related lawsuits have to date been filed. However, most of these legal cases have been turned down, even though a limited number of cases (e.g., the Hanaoka and Nishimatsu Chinese forced labor cases) have been resolved outside of the courts.In this symposium, the Jeju April 3rd tragedy has been taken close up as one of the Asian reparations cases. Thus I’ll try to discuss how to deal with this past injustice compared to other related reparations cases and point out the challenges we are facing relating to this horrifying historical injustice in the 1940s-50s in this peaceful Jeju island.First, international as well as domestic reparation cases will be surveyed in depth. Second we’ll deal with why the legal cases have been unsuccessful so far in Japan, and the ways to overcome legal obstacles.Then we will discuss the mechanism of reparations and its goal: reconciliation and a change of the international and racial relationship. The important role of an apology will also be considered.