The call and the need for reparations grows out of some of the worst abuses humans have inflicted upon one another. In the aftermath of past atrocities, societies often grapple to understand their identity. They routinely struggle to reconcile their contemporary moral standing with their past actions. Pressure from internal and external groups often force governments to publicly denounce past injustices and mistreatment to establish or sustain political legitimacy. Pursuing this brings them squarely into the world of reconciliation and redress. In less than a century, countries on every continent have confronted this issue. Their approaches and outcomes have varied just as widely but lessons from their experience should guide ongoing and future efforts to achieve success.

China’s sole nationality principle was formulated at the beginning of the People’s Republic of China. However, it was not officially adopted as a legal standard until 1980 when New China promulgated its first nationality act. Sole nationality, initiated as an expedient for foreign policy, was originally designed to help with neighbourliness. However, not only did it fail to achieve this goal, but it even resulted in more domestic institutional discrimination among Chinese people. Nowadays, in such a globalization and ‘humanrightization’ era, international law and domestic nationality laws in most countries throughout the world recognize an individual’s right to a nationality, and accept dual nationality so as to facilitate migrants’ returning to their homelands and help them reintegrate into local communities. Contemporary theory and practice of international law support the legitimacy of dual nationality. Also, China has experience in dealing with dual nationality. It would therefore be legitimate, beneficial and practical for China to restore dual nationality.

The Joint South Korea and United States Jeju 4.3 Task Force on Social Healing Through Justice, proposed here, focuses on potential next steps in view of the strong sense of many that 4.3 reconciliation is "unfinished business." It proposes a creative yet practical way for the United States, South Korea and Jeju people to engage in collaborative 4.3 social healing. Together as Part of the proposed Joint Task Force, they might more fully implement past recommendations and chart and oversee next steps toward comprehensive and enduring social healing “by doing justice." ’This proposal is based on the National Committee’s now-translated Report and the insights of scholars and the work of many of you here, along with others deeply interested in social justice. Those of us not from Jeju, or South Korea, who appreciate your invitation to participate, humbly and respectfully offer this proposal for your consideration with justice in mind.

The Jeju April Third Tragedy saw an estimated 14,000 and possibly many thousands more Jeju Islanders killed amid the political turmoil of a re-merging Korean stated after the Japanese occupation. US troops were stationed on the island province before and during the Tragedy which lasted from 1947 to 1954. The aim of this article is to present theoretical and practical issues of the unfnished business of reconciliation and social healing for the victims of the April Third Tragedy; for survivors, for family members, and for the memories of the decreased. This process requires the engagement of as many of the actors at that time, in order to conclude the story of April 3rd Tragedy. Based on 13 years of’ collaborative efforts setting up a vision of Jeju as World Peace Island, there is now formal recognition of the April 3rd Tragedy event. We have hoped for a future beyond the trauma and tragedy of the Mass-killing of Korea Jeju Islanders during and after the US Peacetime Occupation ( 1947-1954). Even though it has taken 10 years to translate the Jeju April 3 Incident Investigation Report of 2003 into an English edition in 2013, I believe, it provides a cornerstone for Jeju islanders to open a new Age of Social Healing for the Mass Killing of Korea Jeju Islanders ( the Tragedy) while under and then after US Military Peacetime Occupation (1947- 1954).

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.

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 history of correction depends heavily upon ‘how the people understand a crime and criminal offender’ in a society or country. The current criminal justice system overseas as well as domestically is fundamentally based on retribution or the justice model in its practice. Researches have pointed out that typical model has shown its limitations and problems including the lack of correctional effectiveness, astronomical amount of correctional expenses, overcrowding issues, and others. These issues and problems of the current justice system are the starting points to think differently about ways of dealing with criminal issues and the parties affected by crimes such as a crime victim, the offender, their families, and their community. Since the early 1970s, restorative justice has gained significant attention in North America, and now in many countries in Oceania, Europe, Africa, and Asia. In 2000, the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention developed a draft proposal for UN Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programs in Criminal Matters, which encourages the use of restorative justice by UN members. This international recognition is a huge step forward toward the international recognition of the new paradigm in criminal justice procedure. This article examines the background, developing process, and main programs, such as Victim Offender Mediation, Family Group Conferencing, and Circles. Some thoughts about advanced correctional welfare have also been presented.

There haves been a lot of limitation to solve the problem of daily increasing crime and recidivism with the ideology and the method of conventional criminal justice and corrections. This study is to introduce the Restorative Justice as new paradigm in criminal justice, which to focus on recovering the Victims and attempt to make correction Social Work approach prominent for the substantial correction and rehabilitation. Although the Restorative Justice is classified into Purist Model and Maximalist Model, the restorative balancing process is acquired to overcome the limitation of two models, especially when the offenders and victims can't make any conciliation. And correction Social Work is specialized supporting activities to help inmates to adapt themselves to the living condition of correctional facilities, and to rehabilitate and to educate them to be reborn as decent citizens. 'The Restorative correction Social Work' is contrived in the result of complementing the ideology of the correction Social Work with the Restorative Justice. 'The restorative correction Social Work' is community-based total activities to mediate and reconciliate between victims and offenders to restore mutual conflicting relationship, and to recover the damage during procedure in trials and correction. Many programs should be deviced and put in operation through joining together the approach of the Restorative Justice and the correction Social Work.

This study verified the influence of socioeconomic status on the subjective well-being of the elderly and the mediating effect of social justice. A statistical analysis of 4257 data in the China CGSS 2017 database was carried out. The analysis results show that socioeconomic status and social justice have a positive impact on the subjective well-being of the elderly, and the social justice plays an incomplete intermediary role. Based on the results of the analysis, this study puts forward several suggestions in terms of policy and practice. First, government may gradually increase the level of pension benefits of the elderly, and provide minimum living security. Second, the community should provide amenities for the elderly to settle their life inconveniences. This research will help improve the subjective well-being of the elderly

This study aims to explore the relationship between organizational justice and social loafing of organizations in Ho Chi Minh City through quantitative analysis from the survey data for the 228 employees are working at the Organizations in Ho Chi Minh City. The instrument of collecting data was a questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 22 and employing exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach's alpha, multiple regression analysis. The results showed that only two factors are Distributive justice and Procedural justice is to have the reverse effect on social loafing of employee. From the results of the study showed, Distributive justice and Procedural justice has the opposite effect of social loafing, which demonstrates that when individuals feel that their work is spent on Perform tasks in a clearly divided and they will receive a worthwhile result in the group when performing the task then the individual's collective indifference to the organization will decrease. And motivate the employee to make more efforts to work and contribute for the organization. In addition, the factor of Procedural justice also has the opposite effect of collective redundancy, which demonstrates that employees are more concerned about fairness in official policies and organizational procedures.

Purpose – Past research has not given much attention to the roles of consumers’ social relationship type in the effects of justice type of service failure recovery alternatives on their satisfaction to the alternative exposed to them. Current research aimed at exploring the moderation role of consumers’ social relationship central versus peripheral in the effects of justice types of service failure recovery alternatives on the recovery satisfaction, and this research also explored whether the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative are significantly different between the two, their social relationship central and peripheral relationship. Research design, data, and methodology – 2(social relationship central versus peripheral) between-subjects design was employed. 50 participants for each experimental group there were. Participants of each group took forceful steps in choosing one between the procedural justice-focused alternative and the distribution justice-focused alternative. χ2-analysis was used to verify that the number of choosing each alternative becomes different between the two experimental groups, and a one way ANOVA was used to verify that the extent to which participants are satisfied to the alternative chosen by them becomes different between the two groups. Results – The number of participants choosing procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was larger than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the number of participants choosing distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was larger than that at the group of social relationship central. And the level of satisfaction to procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was higher than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the level of satisfaction to distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was higher than that at the group of social relationship central. In addition, the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions – Marketers should give attention to the type of justice when developing alternatives by which consumers’ service failure can be recovered. They should suggest procedural justice-focused alternative to consumers under social relationship central, whereas they should develop distribution justice-focused alternative for consumers under social relationship peripheral. And in the process of recovering service failure they also should focus on interaction justice.

The main task of landscape architecture is to create a higher quality of the environment by utilizing resources or to provide effective stewardship for the preserved environment. These outcomes enhance the correlation between humans and the environment. Landscape architect deals with direct use of market economic goods in private property resources such as capital, land, plant, structure. But it also has indirect use of non-market economic goods in public resources like scenic view from the forest, sea, urbanscape, and refreshing atmosphere. At this point, landscaping products should have a role of public goods, and even these attribute to individuals or certain group. From the results of neo-liberalism regime in modern era such as guarantee of private property, deregulation for free market, and reduction of social welfare, minority has getting less opportunity to enjoy the quality life in ecotop and social welfare. With all future, landscape architecture should have the role of social infrastructure through planning concept that ensures public interests first. The virtuous functions of Green Infrastructure is a proper tool in realizing environmental justice in that it efficiently protects environment, and distributes fair benefits to all people.