This paper explores the field of reparations for historical injustices as an expression of the juridification of international affairs. Following Michael Mann, it examines the ideological, military, political, and economic reasons for the spread of reparations politics and the different meanings that the notion of reparations may have. This is explicated on the basis of the UN’s Basic Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Gross Violations of Human Rights, a crucial foundation for the pursuit of reparations in contemporary life.

The joint international educational project has been developing between Hokkaido University and Jeju University based on reparations cases in both islands of tragedies. There are many reasons why I as a Japanese civil law/ reparations scholar have got interested in the Jeju tragedy: the need for building peace-making network, the historically- strong relationship between Jeju and Japan, and the continuity of violence between the Korean right-wing soldiers at the Jeju mass killing and the Japanese soldiers in the colonization era. The challenges of Jeju reparations are still immense: including most importantly, unfinished individual symbolic and economic reparations and the US responsibility. To attain true reconciliation, more Americans should know these past injustices in accordance with the theoretical framework/ process of reconciliation: (1) fact findings of past injustice and their recognition, (2) the admittance of historical responsibility (3) sincere apologies and supplementary reparations from perpetrators’ sides, and then (4) forgiveness from victims’ sides. As for the Jeju tragedy, international efforts towards this direction is imminently required.

Territorial Disputes proceed basically based on the “power”, and in the process various “logics” are mobilized by both sides. By the way, those logics are “political”, in the sense that their conclusions are not drawn out through sound reasoning, but decided in advance and then necessary logics are mobilized. People showing this kind of attitude most vividly are politicians representing their country. By the way, ordinary people living in each country engaged in a territorial dispute usually, consciously or unconsciously, adopt the patriotic logics that their politicians and intelligentsia offer. It seems that two factors are influential in this phenomenon. One is the “ontological” aspect, that is, each person is a component of the nation engaged in the win-or-lose territorial dispute. The other is the “epistemological” aspect, that is, he is situated in the limited information. We need to pay attention that logics offered in the process of territorial disputes by this kind of patriotic politicians and intelligentsia are not constructed from the fair viewpoint, but “edited” intending to lead to the conclusion favorable to their country. So the people of the relevant country who live in the situation where they are exposed to and accept the patriotic logics often think that the position of his own country is “vividly” right. Then, they easily think the opponent is a “bad” country which purports unreasonable logics. In the territorial dispute, if both countries try to secure momentum by uniting each people to be prepared to fight to the death, the dispute is easily escalated to the limit. Of course, this kind of phenomenon works towards the direction of worsening their mutual relationship. The position each country takes in a territorial dispute, from the viewpoint of each country, is “patriotic”. But from a wider viewpoint, we can say that it is based on “national egotism”. The alternative to this kind of vicious cycle is that more and more people will escape from the “political” viewpoint and take the “critical” viewpoint and then try to dissuade the government and the ordinary people of each country from behaving excessively obsessed with its national egotism respectively.

In establishing and overseeing ASIAPARC Federation in March of 2016 in Jeju Island Korea, it will be essential for us to learn aspiration, network, purpose, values, goals and strategies from 42 years experiences of EUROPARC Federation as our partnership organization such as practicing exchange programs and joint conferences. We also believe we can add one more principle, ‘Initiating Island Resilience’, into the three principles of the Jeju Declaration of 1) Scaling up Conservation, 2) Nature-based Solutions, and 3) Sustainability in Action through the opening of a "Green Growth Organization" of the Jeju Declaration of WCC 2012.

I will suggest a meta-ideology which encompasses two aspects: development and conservation. It will deal with sustainable, sound, and healthy development, environmental conservation, and promotion of culture and art. The ideology can be summarized as “Jeju, island of selective reception for protecting people and environment.” The problems regarding development on Jeju include 1) lifting designation of greenbelt areas and carrying out indiscriminate development, 2) damage from stream maintenance and coverage of rivers, 3) increase in land prices after foreign capital attraction, 4) development which heavily depends on casinos and dutyfree shops, 5) inconvenience with high traffic volume, 6) imbalance in development caused by growth pole strategy. The future strategies of conserving Jeju for making all the people happy include 1) selective closed system or selective choice system, 2) eco-systemic thinking and policies focusing on management, 3) reinvestment and circulation of development profits within the region, 4) sharing development profits, 5) embracing diversity through fostering art and culture, 6) returning to a healthy city by restoring the old downtown area, 7) limiting facilities damaging urban communities and culture, 8) decision making based on cooperation and companionship.