Transitional justice, which emerged as a principle of settlement of the past history during the transition from dictatorship to democracy around the world, is a concept that is in line with the reality of Korea, where the task of settlement of the pas...
Transitional justice, which emerged as a principle of settlement of the past history during the transition from dictatorship to democracy around the world, is a concept that is in line with the reality of Korea, where the task of settlement of the past history of colonization, war, and dictatorship has been raised in earnest during the democratization process. This article provides a theoretical review of transitional justice and then analyzes the narratives on transitional justice in Korean history textbooks currently used in high schools from the perspectives of criminal justice, restorative justice, and reparative justice.
According to the results, the criminal justice has long dominated restorative and reparative justice in settlement of the past history since the failure to clear the pro-Japanese faction immediately after Liberation, and has also exerted great power in the early stages of settlement of past history after democratization. The detention and trial of Jeon Doo-hwan and Noh Tae-woo, the masterminds of the May 18 massacre, was a symbol of such impunity. However, as the process of settlement of the past history continued during the transition from dictatorship to democracy, the emphasis gradually shifted to restorative justice, which is based on truth and reconciliation, and reparative justice, which seeks to compensate victims.
If we look at the narratives of high school Korean history textbooks on the settlement of the past history from the perspective of restorative justice, they give more weight to the unsuccessful punishment of pro-Japanese elements immediately after Liberation than to the judicial punishment of Chun Doo-hwan and Noh Tae-woo, for whom criminal justice was realized after Liberation. The work of settlement of the past history, which began in earnest after the June 1987 uprising, is actively described from the perspective of restorative justice. However, there are fewer accounts of reparative justice, including reparations made to victims of the April 3 Incident and the May 18 Democratic Movement. The narrative of restorative justice is also heavily weighted towards the need to demand compensation from Japan for colonization, Japanese military “comfort women,” and forced mobilization. If we pursue past history education as civic education, we should pay more attention to reparative justice, which emphasizes the collective responsibility of social communities.