With fourteen commissions, South Korea is leading a global trend of addressing past human rights violations using truth commissions. Two commissions, the Jeju Commission and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea, stand out. Both commissions worked efficiently, but their paths diverged under two consecutive conservative regimes. What accounts for this difference? Six factors were studied: international involvement, the nature of renewed suppression, the power of the commission, the characteristics of the killings, the role of advocacy, and the differences in the victims’ demand. The first three factors were less relevant while the last three, in conjunction, determined the different outcome of the two commissions.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2018S1A5A8027615] and a Korea University Grant[K2009411].
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
- South Korea
- Truth commission
- human rights
- mass killings
- transitional justice
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Safety Research
- Political Science and International Relations