Articles , Books and Media

The classification of political regimes—such as absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—has long been a subject of comparative political science. Currently, liberal democracy, which holds the governed accountable, is recognized as the international standard. Beyond studies of regime change, recent scholarship has focused on post-transition societies, examining how democratic governments address the legacies of past authoritarian regimes. This includes efforts to restore the honor of victims, provide redress, and heal societal rifts, leading to the emergence of the field of transitional justice.

Changes in domestic political systems significantly impact international order, as exemplified by the United Nations’ proactive stance on these issues. In 2004, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, reflecting on global democratization trends, defined the concept of “transitional justice” and emphasized the UN’s active involvement in this area. Transitional justice refers to the processes and mechanisms by which societies address legacies of large-scale past abuses to ensure accountability, serve justice, and achieve reconciliation. These mechanisms include both judicial and non-judicial approaches, such as prosecutions, truth-seeking initiatives, reparations, institutional reforms, and national dialogues.

The concept was particularly pertinent to regions experiencing democratization during the third wave, including South America in the 1970s, the Philippines after the 1986 revolution, and Eastern Europe post-1989. Under authoritarian regimes, freedoms of expression were suppressed, and political participation was met with severe repression. In such contexts, the UN highlighted the necessity of addressing the intertwined issues of justice and politics, especially concerning victims of political crimes like arbitrary detention, torture, and massacres.

The impact of Asia’s democratization on international relations continues to resonate in contemporary discussions on transitional justice. The scenes of demonstrations and elections in South Korea, broadcast on Japanese television during the 1980s, were not merely nostalgic images decorating the living rooms of that era. For the “victims” who had lived on the margins of society, burdened with unspoken pain, these events symbolized the realization of freedom—the ability to express their thoughts openly—and democratization, whereby governments are organized in response to the voices of the people. These movements became subjects of national empathy and drew sympathetic attention from the United Nations. In the context of Japanese society, they could be compared to the experiences of atomic bomb survivors (hibakusha), who have sought to link their wartime suffering to the postwar values of democracy and peace.

As Secretary-General Annan emphasized, transitional justice is not solely about pursuing justice but also about achieving reconciliation. The redress of victims and the restoration of their honor are vital for building a democratic society. However, these efforts require a framework of national reconciliation that fosters shared empathy among citizens. Without such a framework, victim redress may lack effectiveness.

However, the issue of transitional justice within South Korea becomes a destabilizing factor in Japan–South Korea relations precisely because the relationship between nations—that is, the issue of “national reconciliation,” to use the terminology introduced previously—exists separately from intergovernmental reconciliation, and because the modes of fostering national empathy essential for nation-building differ fundamentally between the two countries. Without recognition of this heterogeneity, reconciliation at the national level remains exceedingly difficult. Every modern individual carries, as a member of a given nation, a particular filter composed of shared memories and values. “Justice,” while possessing universal dimensions, is also deeply embedded in and inseparable from each nation’s collective memory, and this multilayered nature often goes unrecognized, causing public discourse to run in circles. For policymakers, conclusions drawn at the level of intergovernmental reconciliation may seem sufficient. Yet at the level of media and civil society, public opinion tends to become polarized—dividing between a lament over the failure to realize “universal” justice and a tendency to align with one’s own national government.

Without acknowledging the existence of deep fault lines within the processes of national formation—namely, the multilayered values and memories that compose each nation’s moral framework—effective responses to the political mobilization of national morality are unlikely. Instead, accusations concerning personality and morality escalate. Addressing such issues requires not only theories of transitional justice but also the analytical framework offered by reconciliation studies, which seeks to awaken awareness and facilitate more nuanced understanding.

Note: the UN Secretary-General’s report on transitional justice: S/2004/616.

This text was originally published in Toki no Hōrei. Minor editorial discrepancies may exist between this version and the published article.