Earticle

본 연구는 한국전쟁기 대전 골령골 민간인학살 진상규명 운동에서 나타난 구술과 문헌, 유해의 수집과 관계를 검토하며 운동의 향후 과제를 고찰한다. 1990년대 후반, 대전⋅충청 시민사회는 구술과 문헌을 수집해 학살의 존재와 정황을 파악했다. 유가 족, 지역 주민, 학살가담자 등을 대상으로 증언이 채록되었고 사건 당시 현장을 기록한 미군이나 영국 기자의 문헌자료가 발견되었다. 이후 진실화해위의 공식적 사건조 사와 6차례에 걸친 유해발굴은 골령골 학살 경위에 관한 자료의 축적과 사실 규명을 진전시켰다. 이때 유해발굴은 기존 자료를 참조하는 동시에, 그 가치와 성격을 조정하는 계기가 되었다. 구술 및 문헌자료의 검토는 정확한 발굴의 위치를 지정해 작업을 시작하게 했다. 한편, 발굴로 드러난 유해와 유류품은 신뢰도 높은 물적 증거로 여겨 지며 선행자료의 정보를 보충하거나 간혹 부정하는 결과를 낳았다. 이처럼 유해발굴은 선행자료을 갱신하며 더욱 구체적인 역사적 사실 확인을 가능케 한다. 이와 더불어, 본고는 유해발굴이 ‘발굴장의 대화’ 혹은 ‘뼈를 경유한 말’을 생산한다는 점에 주 목한다. 언론 보도를 통해 발굴 현장을 방문한 희생자 유가족은 노출된 유해 앞에서 강렬한 정동과 기억이 응축된 신세타령의 말하기를 수행하곤 한다. 유해 찾기라는 공통의 목표를 바탕으로, 발굴장에서 유족은 전쟁의 기억과 전후의 내밀한 생애, 고인과 의 재회를 향한 열망을 서사화해 표현한다. 속내를 털어놓는 유족의 말하기와 이를 경청하는 발굴조사단 간의 협력적 대화는 향후 골령골 진상규명 운동이 ‘희생자 해원’ 과 기억 연구 발전의 측면에서 나아갈 하나의 방향을 제시한다. ‘발굴장의 대화’로 대 표되는 공감의 대화 조건 구축은 골령골 기억공동체의 윤리를 만들어 갈 단초가 될 수 있다.

This study examines the collection and relationships among oral data, literature, and human remains associated with the transitional justice movement regarding the civilian massacre in Golryeonggol during the Korean War. In the late 1990s, civil society groups in Daejeon and Chungcheong collected oral data and literature to uncover the existence and circumstances of the massacre. Testimonies were recorded from bereaved families, local residents, and perpetrators of the massacre. Additionally, reports from the U.S. military or British journalists who documented the scene at the time of the incident happened were discovered. Since then, official investigations conducted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and six rounds of exhumations have further accumulated data and clarified the background of the Golryeonggol massacre. These exhumations have provided opportunities to reference existing data and refine their contents and characteristics. The review of oral and literary data facilitated the precise identification of exhumation sites. Moreover, the remains and artifacts found during exhumations have served as highly reliable material evidence, either supplementing or occasionally challenging prior information. In this way, the excavation of human remains renews earlier data and enables a more detailed confirmation of historical facts. Furthermore, this study highlights how the exhumation process fosters a “dialogue at the excavation site” or “words through bones.” Bereaved families, who often visit excavation sites after hearing media reports, perform “Sinsetareong” speaking filled with intense affection and memories in front of the exposed human remains. United by the shared goal of recovering remains, bereaved families recount memories of the war, their lives in its aftermath, and their longing for reunification with the deceased. Their sincere narratives, coupled with the exhumation team's attentive listening and collaborative dialogue, suggest a path forward for the transitional justice movement in Golryeonggol in terms of the consolation for the victims and the development of memory research. The establishment of conditions for empathetic dialogue, represented by the “dialogue at the excavation site,” can serve as the starting point for creating the ethics of the Golryeonggol memory community.

이 논문은 ‘제노사이드 문학’ 개념을 통해서 ‘홀로코스트 문학’을 비교문학적 인 연구의 대상으로 재설정할 것을 주장한다. 홀로코스트 문학이라는 틀은 제노 사이드라는 20세기 역사의 보편적 폭력의 양식을 비가시화하고 유럽의 홀로코스 트를 재현과 인식의 표준으로 세우는 홀로코스트 패러다임을 강화한다. 그로 인 해서 가해자의 권력과 통제가 지속되는 검열과 환경 속에서 창작되어 온 한국문 학과 같은 탈식민·냉전의 제노사이드에 대한 재현 등을 유럽의 담론질서 속에 종 속시킬 수 있는 위험을 내재하고 있다. 이를 극복하기 위해서는 개별의 사건인 홀로코스트를 제노사이드라는 폭력의 구조 속에서 이해하고 분석하는 제노사이 드 문학의 비교문학적 분석을 시도하여 한다. 이 논문에서는 한국 제노사이드 문 학 연구의 이론적 도구와 기억과 재현의 조건을 홀로코스트 문학과 비교함으로 써 비교문학 연구방법론으로서의 제노사이드 문학의 가능성을 검토하고자 한다.

This paper argues for the recontextualization of “Holocaust literature” as a subject of comparative literary study through the conceptual lens of “genocide literature.” The existing framework of Holocaust literature reinforces what may be called the “Holocaust paradigm,” which obscures genocide as a universal form of violence in 20th-century history, thereby establishing the European Holocaust as the absolute standard for representation and cognition. Consequently, this paradigm carries the inherent risk of subordinating the literary representations of postcolonial and Cold War genocides—such as Korean literature, which has been produced in environments of ongoing censorship and perpetrator control— to a European discursive order. To overcome this limitation, this study proposes a comparative literary analysis of genocide literature that comprehends and analyzes the Holocaust, a specific historical event, within the broader structural violence of genocide. By comparing the theoretical tools and the conditions of memory and representation in Korean genocide literature with those found in Holocaust literature, this paper aims to examine the potential of genocide literature as a methodology for comparative literary studies.

이 글은 이행기 정의와 구술사 아카이브의 선순환적 발전을 모색하기 위한 것이다. 한국의 구술사연구는 사회적 약자나 타자들의 경험에 기초하여 발전하였는데, 이는 이행기 정의를 추구하는 다양한 진실위원회의 활동에 영향을 주었고, 또 영향을 받았 지만, 양자의 관계가 충분히 검토된 것은 아니다. 2005년부터 2010년까지 활동한 진실·화해위원회의 사례에 기초해 볼 때, 구술사 연구의 성과들이 진실규명 작업에 상당한 도움을 주고 있지만, 구술사 연구의 더 큰 발전을 위해서는 진실화해위원회가 다루는 한국전쟁기 민간인 희생이나 권위주의 통치기 집단적 인권침해사건들에 주목 하면서 피해자의 진술이나 증언들을 직접적으로 또는 간접적으로 활용할 수 있는 방 안을 마련할 필요가 있다. 이런 맥락에서 ‘아카이브 정의’라는 개념은 많은 시사점을 주고 있는데, 이미 설립되어 있는 ‘민주화운동 아카이브’의 예를 따라, 인권 아카이브 의 설립을 위한 준비가 필요하다.

This article aims to explore the virtuous cycle of transitional justice and oral history archives. Oral history research in Korea has been developed based on the experiences of the socially disadvantaged or social others, which influenced the activities of various truth committees pursuing the truth and reconciliation, but the relationship between the two was not sufficiently reviewed. Based on the case of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 2005 to 2010, the results of oral history research are of considerable help in finding the truth, but for further development of oral history research, it is necessary to draw up direct or indirect use of victims' statements or testimonies, paying attention to the Korean War civilian casualties and collective human rights violations. In this context, the concept of 'archival justice' has many implications, and preparations for the establishment of a human rights archive are needed, following the example of the already established 'Democratic Movement Archive'.

1998년 이후 10년간 한국의 진실위원회를 통하여 본격적으로 전개된 과거청산 운동 과 역사바로세우기 정신은 거의 소멸되어가고 있는 듯하다. 또한 최근 일본군위안부 문제 를 비롯한 일본군 강제징용 문제나 제주 4·3사건 문제, 한국전쟁 전후 피학살 문제의 당사자들의 상당수는 80대 전후한 노인이므로 생물학적 수명의 한계로 인해 현대사를 제 대로 증언할 가능성은 희박해지고 있다. 이 글에서는 역사발굴과 진실규명을 위한 조사 작업 중에 경험하게 되었던 현장의 경 험을 중심으로 과거청산 운동에서 나타난 사회갈등의 양상을 살펴보았다. 즉 개인의 현장 조사에서 나타난 문제를 사회구조적, 거시적 맥락에서 분석했다. 이 글에서는 우선 한국에서의 과거청산 운동 약사를 정리하고, 다음으로는 역사발굴과 과거청산 작업에 참가하면서 현장에서 경험한 에피소드를 몇 가지 제시해보았다. 다음으 로는 미시적 경험과 거시적 구조의 만남 과정에서 나타난 사회갈등의 양상을 짚어내고, 마지막으로 향후 과거청산을 위한 과제를 제시했다.

In 1998, the Truth Commissions took up the movement for the purge of the past and built the spirit for the liquidation of history in South Korea. During the last decade, however, the movement spirit seems to have disappeared. At the same time, most victims of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, Japanese draft of Korean men, Jeju 4·3 Incident, the massacre of innocent civilians in the Korean War, etc. are now in their late eighties and it is becoming less and less possible for them to provide their official historical testimonies during their lifetime. This article investigates and clarifies the discovery and truth of the forgotten, miswritten, or distorted history and examines from the viewpoint of the field worker the facets of the conflicts that emerged in the process of the movement for transitional/historical justice. It also reflects on the meaning of my own research experiences from a social structural or macro context. The paper firstly examines the history of transitional justice in South Korea, and secondly relays the events that I have heard or experienced in my field research on historical truth. Third, it analyzes social conflicts between micro experience and macro structure. And lastly, it proposes the vision and tasks for transitional justice in the coming future.

2000년 이후 지금까지 국제형사재판제도가 실현되는 포럼의 발전 동향을 살펴보면, 체제 전환기에 범죄발생지국의 국내 사법체계에 바탕을 두거나 이로부터 협조를 받으면서도 국제적 인력이 참여하는 형태의, 국내·국제혼합 특별형사법원이 대안적 모델로 등장·발전하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 한반도에 도래할 수 있는 체제 전환기에도, 남북한의 역사적·지정학적 특수한 배경에 대한 이해에 바탕을 두면서도 국제사회가 수용 가능한 보편적 책임규명의 장으로서 국내적·국제적 요소가 혼합된 특별형사법원이 대안이 될 수 있다는 것이 전문가들의 의견이다. 그런데 레바논이나 시에라리온, 캄보디아 등 세계 각국에서 설립·운영되어온 대표적인 혼합법원의 사례를 비교·검토해보면, 설립의 배경이 된 범죄의 성격과 법원이 설계되던 때의 정치적 환경에 따라 혼합법원이 다양한 방식으로 설립될 수 있음을 알 수 있다. 즉 ‘레바논 특별재판소’(Special Tribunal for Lebanon, STL)처럼 유엔 안전보장이사회가 결의를 채택하여 혼합법원을 설립할 수 있고, ‘시에라리온 특별법원’(Special Court for Sierra Leone, SCSL)처럼 범죄발생지국과 유엔이 조약을 체결하여 설립할 수도 있으며, 캄보디아 특별재판부(Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, ECCC)처럼 범죄발생지국이 국내법을 제·개정하여 국내법상 사법기구로 설립할 수도 있다. 그리고 각 사례들은 설립방식이 어떠한가에 따라 설립근거법의 성격이나 설립과정의 적법성에 관하여 상이한 법적 쟁점이 제기될 수 있음을 보여주고 있다. 이에 이 글은 설립방식별로 제기될 수 있는 법적 쟁점을 잘 보여주는 대표 사례인 STL, SCSL, ECCC를 검토하여, 이로부터 미래에 혼합법원을 설립할 때를 대비하여 시사점을 얻고자 한다.

In the early days of the development of international criminal justice system in 1990s, an international court/tribunal model was preferred to ensure independence and fairness from the political influence of territorial states. However, the international court model revealed some problems of causing political tensions with the sovereignty of the territorial states and conflicts with the values of peaceful settlement and regional integration. In addition, the limited jurisdiction and resources of the International Criminal Court was criticized for failing to address cases appropriately in all regions around the world. As a result, a hybrid court/tribunal model, which is based on cooperation with the domestic judicial system of the territorial states and engagement of international judges and personnel, began to emerge and develop as a popular model. Experts in international criminal law have argued that a hybrid court/tribunal model that has both national and international elements could be an alternative for the forum for accountability in preparation for the possible transition (e.g., unification) on the Korean peninsula as well. With this background in mind, this research is intended to examine legal issues and agendas that arose from various cases of existing hybrid special criminal courts in Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia, and draws lessons that may shed light on what legal issues and agendas policy makers and designers of the similar hybrid courts should address in the future. In particular, issues that may arise when establishing and designing the hybrid courts regarding the legal bases and legality of establishment processes have been examined. The differences in establishment processes in different cases demonstrate that context matters and how differently the hybrid courts could be established and designed in response to different contexts. This will serve as a basic reference for designers of hybrid courts to refer to in the event of a consensus on the need to establish such courts. This research, which examines what considerations should be contemplated to establish hybrid courts as a desirable accountability model, will hopefully pave the way for laying the groundwork for achieving peace and promoting human rights in the possible future transition scenario.

How does an institutionalized permanent truth commission influence the social discourse? The unspeakable truth of the April 3 Events had long been buried under South Korea’s authoritarian regimes, but the state’s democratization brought momentum for a new socio-political environment. This paper provides empirical findings of the truth commission’s contribution to promoting an open discussion of the April 3 Events in society by capturing the overall discourse transformation of the events through content analysis of newspapers, dated between 1997 and 2020 at the national and local level. It argues that the long-term transitional justice process, mainly led by the Truth Commission, was effective in promoting the open discussion of diverse aspects of the April 3 Events, a previously unspeakable topic to the speakable. However, the social discourses eventually developed into distinctive patterns at each level: the local level demonstrated a narrow approach and institutionalized aspect of transitional justice, taking up 88 percent of the entire newspaper coverage, while the national level displayed a broader approach.

몽골의 성공적 “민주혁명”에도 불구하고, “과거청산”은 그렇게 성공적이지 못하다. “정치적 탄압 희생자들 복권 및 보상 법”에 따라 약 31,000명의 희생자들에게 명예회복을 해주었고, 소수의 희생자 본인들이나 유족들에게 보상을 해주었다. 그러나 구 사회주의체제 하의 반인도적 범죄들에 대해 가해자들과 창안자(創案者)들에 대한 규명이나 처벌은 이루어지지 않고 있다. 북한 김정은의 공격적이고 가학적인 통치행태는 장기간의 왕조(王朝)적 생존을 예상하기 어렵게 한다. 따라서 북한의 급격한 정치변동 뿐만 아니라 완만한 정치변동에 대해서도 한민족의 통일에 초점을 두면서 대비(對備)해야 된다. “전환기 정의”는 통일된 한국사회에 정체성과 정통성을 세우는 데 핵심적 내용이 될 것이며, 사회주의체제-김 씨 왕조 하에서 자행된 반인도적 범죄들에 대한 조사와 가해자들 규명 및 처벌, 많은 희생자들에 대한 배상을 요청하게 될 것이다. 그래서 본 연구는 유형적 연계성과 후기공산사회에서의 정치변동의 관점에서 몽골 사례를 통해 준거를 얻고자 한다. 전환기 정의를 세우기 위해서는 현재의 인권유린을 억제하는 것이 필수조건이다. 불법체제의 경우, 모든 관련 문서들이 결정적 증거가 된다. 따라서 그 문서들이 통일과정에서 파괴되거나 유실되지 않도록 해야 된다. 통일된 한국사회에서는 전환기 정의, 정체성, 정통성의 전체적 영향이 핵심적인 고려사항이 될 것이다. 따라서 “과거청산”이 새로운 갈등을 야기하지 않도록 해야 된다.

Despite Mongolia’s successful "Democratic Revolution," the "settling of past accounts" has not be so successful. "The Law on Rehabilitation and Granting of Compensation to Victims of Political Repression" has restored the impaired reputation of about 31,000 victims and compensated rare survivors or remaining family members. However, there has been no identification or punishment of the perpetrators and originators of such crimes against humanity from the previous socialist regime. The aggressive and sadistic ruling behavior of Kim Jung-un in North Korea does not bode well for long-term dynastic survival. Thus, preparations are needed for radical or gradual political change in North Korea, including a focus on the national reunification of Korea. "Transitional justice" will be an essential component for establishing the identity and legitimacy of a unified Korean society, and will require investigating the crimes against humanity committed under the socialist regime and Kim dynasty, identifying and punishing the perpetrators, and providing reparation for the many victims. Accordingly, the current research identifies references from the Mongolian case as regards the typical connectivity and political change in a late-communist society. Restraining actual human rights violations is a prerequisite for instituting transitional justice. In the case of an illegal system, all related documents will be crucial evidence. Therefore, such documents should not be destroyed or lost during the reunification process. In a unified Korean society, the general impact of transitional justice, identity, and legitimacy will be key considerations. Thus, “settling past accounts” should not cause new conflicts.

이 논문의 목적은 이행기 정의(transitional justice)의 인과 효과 분석을 위한이론적, 경험적 틀을 제시하는 것이다. 이행기 정의 효과에 관한 기존의 문헌들은많은 성과를 이루어냈음에도 불구하고 대부분 특정지역에 한정된 조치들에만 집중함으로써, 이행 이후의 인권에 미치는 영향에 대한 과학적 검증을 위한 분석틀을 제시하지 못하는 한계가 있었다. 또한 대부분의 이행기 정의의 효과를 다룬 문헌에서이행기 정의는 사법 처리나 진실위원회 등의 효과를 독립적으로 측정함으로써, 최근의 이행기 정의를 전체로서 파악해야 한다는 이론적 주장을 반영하지 못한다. 이논문은 이행기 정의의 이론적 쟁점 및 경험적 패턴을 제시하고, 이행기 정의 효과분석을 위한 미시적 기반을 마련하며, 이행기 정의를 조합(combination)으로 파악함으로써 보다 현실에 가까운 이행기 정의 연구의 발판을 마련하는 것을 목적으로 한다.

The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical and empirical frameworks for analyzing transitional justice’s effects on the desiderata such as human rights. Although the extant literature has made significant progress in analyzing transitional justice’s effects across the world, it has paid little attention to microfoundation for a fine-grained analysis of transitional justice game and to mechanisms for empirical testing for the causal relationship between transitional justice and the desiderata. Furthermore, the existing studies tend to consider transitional justice mechanism as separate ones, rather than combinations, which does not correspond with the emerging consensus that transitional justice should be considered as a coherent whole. This paper attempts to pave the way for provision of micro-foundation for causal analysis of transitional justice and for considering the transional justice as a whole.

한국의 전환기 정의 연구는 미래의 한반도 통일체제 전환을 가정하고 진행되어왔다. 그러나 전환기 정의는 과거에 발생한 구체제의 불법과 국가폭력에 대한 신체제의 대응—즉 과거청산 행위를 포함하는 것이다. 이 논문은 과거에 발생한 북한인권 문제인 전시 납북자 문제에 주목하여 전환기 정의가 어떻게 작동하였는지 분석하고 성과와 한계를 밝히는 것을 연구 목적으로 삼는다. 전시 납북자 문제를 해결하려는 노력은 1950년대 정부와 가족회, 2000년대 진실위원회 활동 및 2010년대 이후 북한인권 문제와의 연계 시도 등으로 정리할 수 있다. 북한인권 및 미래 통일체제에 대한 전환기 정의 적용도 2010년대부터 활발하게 이루어졌다. 2장에서는 전환기 정의 이론 정리, 3장에서는 전시 납북자 문제 특징 및 한국 정부의 노력을 파악한다. 4장에서는 독일, 아르헨티나 사례와 비교해보며 5장에서는 한국의 전환기 정의 실현의 성과 및 한계를 고찰한다. 6장은 결론이다.

Studies on transitional justice in South Korea have assumed the future transformation of the Korean peninsula’s unification system. However, transitional justice means the new system’s response to the illegality of the old system and state violence that occurred in the past?that is, the act of repairing the past. The purpose of this study is to analyze how transitional justice worked by paying attention to the Korean War Abductees issue, North Korea human rights issues that occurred in the past, and to discuss its implications and limitations. Efforts to resolve the Korean War Abductees’ issue included the activities of South Korean government and family unions in the 1950s, the Truth Committee in the 2000s, and the endeavors to link North Korean human rights issues since the 2010s. The frame work for transitional justice has been applied to North Korea human rights and the future unification system since the 2010s. Chapter 2 of the study reviewed theories of transitional justice, and Chapter 3 explained the characteristics of the Korean War Abductees’ problem and the efforts of the South Korean government. Chapter 4 compared the cases of Germany and Argentina, and Chapter 5 examined the implications and limitations of Korea’s realization of transitional justice. Chapter 6 concludes the study.

전환기의 의사결정은 그 사회의 정체성과 미래를 결정하는 중요한 가치들과 직결되므로, 근본적 지향점을 가지고 체계적으로 이루어져야 한다. 그러나 예측이 어렵고 큰 혼란을 수반하는 전환기의 특성상 개별 현안 대응에 급급할 우려가 있으므로, 평상시 전환기 정의(Transitional Justice)의 특성과 주요 메커니즘에 대한 분석을 통해 제도적 대응 모델을 어느 정도 구축할 필요가 있다. 이러한 관점에서 각국의 사례를 살펴 본 결과, 몇 가지 시사점을 발견하였다. 첫째, 전환기 정의의 성공을 위해서는 정의 실현과 사회통합을 조화롭게 도모하여야 하고, 그 사회의 특성에 대한 분석을 전제로 중점을 둘 근본 가치를 선택하여야 한다. 둘째, 정의 구현 과정에서는 1) 사법･행정, 국제재판소‧국내법원 등 어떠한 시스템을 선택할 것인지 결정하여야 하며, 2) 사면 등 화해․통합을 위한 장치와의 관계 및 그 영향에 대한 고려, 죄형법정주의 등 법적 쟁점에 대한 검토가 선행되어야 한다. 또한 3) 사법기관의 독립성 보장 등을 통해 책임 세력의 부당한 영향을 차단하여야 하며, 4) 정화(lustration)의 활용 여부는 기본권 제한 등의 관점에서 신중히 검토하여야 한다. 셋째, 화해와 사회통합을 위해 1) 충실한 진실 규명을 전제로 가해자의 인정과 사과, 정보공유가 이루어져야 하며, 2) 사면의 실효성‧정당성에 대한 신중한 고찰도 필요하다. 3) 진실위원회를 활용할 경우 그 권한의 범위와 다른 기관과의 관계에 대한 종합적 검토를 요하며, 4) 적극적인 정부의 노력이 시민사회의 참여‧지지로 뒷받침되어야 한다. 넷째, 피해 배상의 대상‧방법 등에 대한 세밀한 검토가 있어야 하고, 피해자의 참여를 보장하여야 한다. 다섯째, 사회의 특성에 맞는 메커니즘을 개발하여 구체적 타당성을 확보해야 한다. 이러한 문제의식을 가지고 향후 우리 사회 고유의 특성에 대한 분석을 진행하여 우리에게 맞는 전환기 정의의 기준을 세운다면, 예기치 못한 전환기에 유연하게 대응하여 사회의 근본 가치를 지키면서 전환기 정의를 이룩할 수 있을 것이다.

Since the decisions made during the transitional period would be closely related to the core values of the society which reflect its identity and future, those policy decisions should be made consistently on the basis of in-depth examination of the fundamental goals and orientations of the society. Societies in transition are usually more likely to be engrossed in solving the urgent issues and ignore the core values, due to the unpredictable and chaotic situation of the transitional period. It would, therefore, be useful to build a model for institutional approach by analyzing the characteristics and major mechanisms of Transitional Justice. In this respect, some lessons learned from analysis of the experiences of other countries are presented here. First, it is important to find a balance between justice and peace or social integration, and the society should decide which is to be weighted on the basis of analysis of the character of the society. Second, in pursuing justice, the society should decide which system it would use, judicial or administrative, and which type of court it would establish, domestic or international. It is also important to consider the influence of and relationship with the methods for reconciliation, such as amnesty. Thorough review is to be made of legal issues, such as those related to the principle of legality or specifying the range of responsible people. Measures are necessary to insure protection of autonomy of the judicial institutions and to prevent inappropriate influence of responsible groups of human right violations. Careful consideration should be made as to whether to take lustration from the viewpoint of restriction on fundamental rights. Third, in order to achieve the reconciliation and integration, recognition and apology of the accused based on sufficient effort in seeking truth and sharing information with the victims are necessary. Efficacy and legitimacy of amnesty also need be examined. The question of whether to establish truth commission as a measure of reconciliation and the range of its authority and interaction with other mechanisms are important as well. The government's commitment and strong will should be supported by the victims and civil society. Fourth, detailed analysis of identifying victims and the measures of compensation, as well as guaranteeing participation of the victims, is important. Fifth, it would be also useful to develop mechanisms unique to each society to insure concrete validity. It would be possible to achieve transitional justice by applying the appropriate mechanism available immediately while still pursuing our core values at the same time, if our society establishes the criteria and strategies based on detailed analysis of the unique characteristics of our society and above-mentioned issues in combination.

전환기 정의(Transitional Justice)는 과거 잘못된 행위에 대한 청산, 이를 통한 이질적인 국민들 간의 통합, 그리고 미래 국가발전의 청사진을 제시하는데 있어서 매우 중요한 역할을 한다. 우리나라의 경우 통일에 대한 논의에 있어서 전환기 정의는 핵심적인 역할을 할 것으로 예상이 된다. 그러나 전환기 정의의 개념은 매우 복잡하며 각 나라가 처한 환경에 따라서 그 의미가 변하기도 한다. 우리나라에서는 학문적 논의가 부족하여 아직까지 용의의 통일도 이루지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 보다 체계적이고 심도 있는 논의가 필요한 시점이라고 할 수 있다. 전환기 정의는 제2차 대전 직후 등장하기 시작하였으며, 2차 대전 직후부터 1960년대까지는 첫 번째 시대, 1970년대부터 20세기말까지는 두 번째 시대, 그 이후부터 현재까지는 세 번째 시대로 구분되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 현재 진행되고 있는 전환기 정의의 구체적 적용 사례를 살펴봄으로써 향후 통일에 대비하여 우리가 어떻게 대응해야 할지 그 방향을 제시하고자 한다. 구체적으로 설명하면 보스니아에서 1990년대에 대량 학살이 발생하였으며, 현재 이에 대해 전환기 정의의 적용이 되고 있다. 본 연구는 보스니아 사태에 있어서 형사처벌 및 진실규명, 피해자 구제 및 기관개혁 등의 측면에서 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 향후 통일에 대비한 우리나라의 대응방향에 대해 제시하고자 하였다.

The transitional justice has played an important role in liquidating wrong-doings in the past, but it is very difficult to define the concept of the transitional justice. Moreover, the unification of terms in Korean language has not done yet. However, the transitional justice will be crucial when the Korean peninsula is reunified. The transitional justice is the significant factor for the liquidation of the past, reintegration of heterogeneous society, and establishment of the blueprint for national development in the future. The transitional justice emerged after the World War II, it has entered into the third phase. It is meaningful to review the recent case of transitional justice and it enables us to make decisions on the re-unification. This research discussed the genocide occurred in 1990s in Bosnia because the transitional justice has been applied. The aspects of prosecution, truth-seeking, reparations to victims, and institutional reforms were reviewed. The government's responses to the re-unification were also provided.

According to conventional wisdom, the age of empire is over, and the global community exists now in an era of post-colonialism characterized in part by a peaceful relationship of nation-sates and peoples. However, this view is grounded in a wishful historicism. It might be more accurate to say that remnants of colonialism still exist social, political and economic relationships, especially in the current period between Korean and Japanese because of the war crimes of Japan during the World War Ⅱ. The intent of this article is to provide a quasi-judicial institution, the truth commission of two-state parties, on the basis of transitional justice. This kind of hybrid tribunals may offer real potential as a means to facilitate recovery from national feud between Korea and Japan based on the grave violation of human rights such as an act of sexual slavery toward Korean women by Japanese army before and during World War Ⅱ. This argument proceeds in part two with a evolution of the notion of transitional justice and its grounds of legal philosophy. Part three describes the limits of Tokyo International Military Tribunal for the realization of justice. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal failed to throughly address Japanese war crimes in terms of the failure of punishment of the Japanese King Hirohito. As a conclusion, this article suggests to introduce the Truth and Reconciliation Commission between Korea and Japan for the Japanese War Crimes(TRC Korea-Japan) as a transitional justice mechanism. The TRC Korea-Japan will contributes to rebuild the relationship between the two countries and can offer victims the opportunity to share their experience during the war and to recognize the accountability of war crimes toward Japanese Government. This kind of hybrid tribunal has been preceeded by East Timor and Indonesia as a form of the Commission of Truth and Friendship Indonesia-Timor-Leste.

The transitional justice policies employed in Timor-Leste are among the mostmultifaceted and comprehensive ever attempted. However, what these mechanismshave collectively accomplished has not been adequately evaluated. The long-termeffectiveness of transitional justice should be judged in terms of the multidimensionalrelationships between the many policies and programs relevant to redressingthe legacy of the past. The impunity of those most responsible for human rightsviolations casts a sizable shadow over the transitional justice efforts; however, analysisof the establishment of the Chega! National Centre (CNC) shows that the gradualdevelopment of transitional justice in Timor-Leste has broken through a structuralbottleneck. This is due to persistent calls for transitional justice from civil society andthe slow but steady implementation of relevant programs.

This paper introduces the dynamic treatment regime framework to the study of transitional justice, estimating the causal effects of human rights trials, truth commissions, and amnesties on human rights outcomes under time-varying confounding. While existing studies treat transitional justice mechanisms as single-shot treatments, governments in practice adopt, adjust, and discontinue these mechanisms sequentially in response to evolving political conditions ? precisely the problem the dynamic treatment regime framework was designed to address. Using data from the Transitional Justice Evaluation Tool and V-Dem (1970?2020, 94 countries), we implement three complementary estimators: marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, structural nested mean models with g-estimation, and doubly robust augmented inverse probability weighted estimation. The most robust finding is that cumulative domestic trials improve human rights, while the immediate effect is negative ? a decomposition that static approaches cannot produce. The cumulative amnesty effect, though negative in standard specifications, is not robust to proper within-country inference via GEE, highlighting the importance of clustering structure for substantive conclusions.

This article addresses the underexplored question of why some state violence cases in Asia are not followed by transitional justice even during a democratic transition. It explicates the two factors that obstruct or delay seeking truth and accountability and thus bring impunity for perpetrators. One is the context in which the violence took place, and the other is longevity of the violent regime. If the violence occurs during a period of conflation of state construction and regime building, and if the perpetrators' power persists long enough to be institutionalized, transitional justice is least likely to take place. Five cases of violence violence which were committed by anticommunist regimes during the Cold War in four Asian countries are explored.

The current study examines the transitional justice experience in Mongolia and identifies possible points of reference for the North Korean situation. As transitional justice is a process with various potential features at different time points, the case of Mongolia is examined from a typological perspective, which is also useful to overcome the lack of comprehensive and systematic information. In terms of the implementation type of transitional justice, the Mongolian case was centered on victim relief, as the social atmosphere was regrettably complicit in ignoring or denying the wrongdoings of the past. Moreover, most of the variables for successful transitional justice were weak or disadvantageous, as determined by the rapport de force and weak civil society after the passive, so?called “Democratic Revolution” in 1990. Albeit, the case of Mongolia represents a positive reference for a potential transition to democracy and transitional justice in North Korea, even though the current conditions do not satisfy the necessary requirements. Furthermore, the probability and mode of North Korea's transitional justice will unavoidably depend on its “transition to democracy” based on its civil society and dichotomous social differentiation in the late?communist stage. Therefore, this paper contradistinguishes the situations in Mongolia and North Korea to determine the likelihood of political change in North Korea and then identify the absent and distorted elements for any related transitional justice.

No one knows when unification between the two Koreas will occur. But this paper argues that when it happens, undertaking a fair and transparent process of transitional justice will be the key element that will help achieve successful peace-building and reconciliation in unified Korea. Given the complexity of the legal, social, political, and economic issues involved, this paper maintains that the future of peace, human rights, and ultimately, reconciliation in post-unification Korea is directly linked to how people in this society understand and accommodate the past in the present. A multi-faceted analytical approach is applied to outline the aspects of transitional justice that could apply in the Korean context. While primarily based on a legal framework, the analysis seeks to incorporate an interdisciplinary approach, opening up possibilities for collaboration from several different vantage points by examining the problem within the parameters of a transitional justice lens.

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the effects of transitional justice measures on human rights using Inverse Probability Treatment Weight (IPTW) and Inverse Probability Censoring Weight (IPCW). Existing literature on causal inference tends to focus on the estimation of causal effects in the case of binary treatment (treatment and control) with propensity score matching. In this paper, the use of propensity score is expanded from matching to weighting, and from binary treatment to ordinal multiple-level treatment and the methods are applied to the estimation of causal effect of transitional justice on human rights. IPTW and IPCW are extended to the case of multiple treatments, and applied to the estimation of the causal effects of human rights trials on human rights using the collected data on transitional justice, 1970-2017, for more than 100 countries. Using the newly applied methods and the new data, this paper finds that, although the effect of transitional justice measures on human rights is significant and positive, the size of the effect is more modest than the existing literature suggests.

On December 28 2015, South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers abruptly reached an agreement (hereinafter “the 2015 Agreement”) to settle the Korean “comfort women” issue. This agreement evoked strong opposition among the victims and civic groups due to the lack of participation by the victims in reaching it; consequently the agreement appeared to result in unjust reparations for these victims. In addition, two conflicting judgments were reached in the South Korean court in relation to compensating Korean “comfort women” in 2021; namely, (i) the judgment on January 8 2021 and (ii) the judgment on April 21 2021. In terms of the former, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on January 8 2021, that the victims’ right to claim reparations for damages against the Japanese government was not included within the scope of application of the 2015 Agreement. On the contrary, in its April 21 2021 ruling, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground of state immunity filed by other victims of Japanese military sexual slavery against the Japanese government. Besides, the court ruled that an “alternative remedy” was provided by the 2015 Agreement. This raises the question of if the 2015 Agreement provided adequate just reparations to be considered an “alternative remedy” for the victims. This article argues that the reparations the Japanese government provided to Korean “comfort women” cannot be regarded as just since it does not met the international standards of just reparations, especially from the perspective of transitional justice and international law. For this purpose, Section 2 discusses the background of the so-called “comfort women” and confirms the legal responsibility of the Japanese government. Section 3 explores the international standards on providing a remedy and reparations for victims of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Then, it outlines what just reparation should be from the perspective of transitional justice. Section 4 examines whether the reparations the Japanese government offered these women, including those set out in the 2015 Agreement, constitute just reparations for the victims. Section 5 discusses the relationship between justice and politics in reparations for these victims and finds that justice in reparations for these women was determined by political considerations between the two countries. The implementation of the 2015 Agreement shows how difficult it is to achieve reconciliation between these two countries without just reparations.

Under the premise that the Korean peninsula is unified as the "Republic of Korea" that upholds the rule of law and liberal democracy, transitional justice is one of the most imperative issues that must be dealt with for the justice of the oppressed North Koreans and for a peaceful future of unified Korea. Peace-building and reconciliation efforts post-Korean unification are essential. However, how to achieve this remains a challenge. This article aims to answer the question on achieving peace and reconciliation post-Korean unification through the use of plea bargaining in the international legal context. Plea bargaining has been used in international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY and the ICTR. The question is not about whether plea bargaining can be used in international criminal cases but it is about whether plea bargaining is an effective means transitional justice Under the premise that the Korean peninsula is unified as the "Republic of Korea" that upholds the rule of law and liberal democracy, transitional justice is one of the most imperative issues that must be dealt with for the justice of the oppressed North Koreans and for a peaceful future of unified Korea. Peace-building and reconciliation efforts post-Korean unification are essential. However, how to achieve this remains a challenge. This article aims to answer the question on achieving peace and reconciliation post-Korean unification through the use of plea bargaining in the international legal context. Plea bargaining has been used in international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY and the ICTR. The question is not about whether plea bargaining can be used in international criminal cases but it is about whether plea bargaining is an effective means transitional justice to bring about peace and reconciliation. This article will discuss cases of transitional justice and cases of plea bargaining in the international legal context and apply how the implementation of plea bargaining will play a role in peace-building and reconciliation on the Korean peninsula post-Korean unification.