Jeju Island provides a unique context for exploring remedies to mass harm. As a site of horrific historical human rights abuses and also ongoing present environmental degradation, Jeju offers a setting for exploring environmental justice as reparations. This Article argues for democratic, community-led environmental justice reparations prioritizing sustainable economic development and capacity building, aimed at benefiting Jeju residents rather than outside military, tourist, or other colonial interests.

In theory, reparations provide redress for past injustices. They reflect political attempts to seek to balance the scales of justice in the wake of crimes against humanity, gross human rights abuses, and other tortious state action. As one of the more politically salient legal academic subjects, however, it is clear that the sociopolitical processes within and between states greatly influence when, why, and how reparations are used. Reparations theorists have done an excellent job developing vital models for use by states to provide warranted redress. Roy L. Brooks and Eric Yamamoto, both of whom have contributed to this journal in the past, have developed the Atonement and Social Healing models of reparations respectively.

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.

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.

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 paper, the Jeju April 3rd massacre 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.

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.