The main topic of discussion at the 2019 meeting of the Japan Association for Asian Studies (JAAS) was the issue of the movement of “wartime laborers” from the Korean peninsula to Japan proper. Professor Kiyoshi Aoki and Professor Hideki Okuzono gave presentations on this topic, with Professor Tetsuya Yamada, Professor Mie Oba, and the author posing questions and offering comments to the presenters. This paper summarizes the author’s comments and questions at that JAAS meeting, which focused on the importance of considering the connections, commonalities, and differences that exist in how history problems are handled across East Asia.

First, China, Korea, and Vietnam were divided during the Cold War, and each one came to rely on the use of history in order to provide it with some form of legitimacy. History problems in this region were often related to how competing factions in these divided polities sought to justify their rule based on the past. On the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait, this historical legitimacy was often connected to resistance activities carried out against Japanese aggression and colonial occupation. However, though both Koreas have continued to assert their relative “historical legitimacy” on this basis through the present day, the Republic of China government on Taiwan began shifting its source of “historical legitimacy” from being based on the creation of a unified China to the creation of an autonomous/independent Taiwan in the 1990s.

Second, the cases of South Korea-Japan and Taiwan-Japan relations share the fact that the dissolution of the Japanese Empire and the manner in which Korea and Taiwan were subsequently decolonized had a significant impact on the construction of their history problems. In both cases, authoritarian governments negotiated with Japan to conclude peace treaties. Their broader populaces, however, were not allowed to play a significant role in such negotiations. This led to the emergence of critiques of these treaties after their democratization, with the appearance of subsequent calls to revisit the postwar settlements that their authoritarian regimes had reached.

Third, democratization in South Korea and the expansion of freedoms in China led to the emergence of new developments in how history problems were handled, with a shift toward a greater focus on individual claims for reparations against Japanese entities. The governments of neighboring countries had abandoned their ability to seek state reparations from Japan as part of the peace treaties they signed in the decades following the end of the war. However, individuals were able to seek private compensation through the Japanese judicial system from the 1980s through the 2000s, which played an important role in the resolution of a number of history problems. In Taiwan, democratization led to “Taiwanization,” creating a historical identity that included aspects of history problems that were different from South Korea’s case. Beginning around 2005, however, the Japanese Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the segment of the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration that dealt with reparations, ultimately ruling that private citizens did not have the right to seek compensation from Japanese companies on an individual basis. This marked a significant shift in the role that Japan’s legal system played in resolving history problems.

View PDF for the rest of the abstract

Transitional justice frameworks have been developed through the various attempts of the societies coming out from conflicts. Emerging practices of transitional justice includes informal local justice systems, which could be categorized as “new” mechanisms to foster peace at the grass roots level.

These innovative approaches, however, face greater pressure to conform to standards of international human rights and due process. There have been different lines of argument over the manner and extent to which local justice and reconciliation systems should be made compatible with global norms. This article examines the institution-building and implementation process of transitional justice in East Timor, by focusing on the Community Reconciliation Process (CRP) based on local customs and rituals. It explores, specifically, the roles played both by domestic and transnational agents who have attempted to build congruence between transnational norms and local ideas and practices.

The prime purpose of the CRP was to encourage the former members of militia to return home and to reintegrate themselves into their communities. The idea of utilizing local mechanisms originated from the strong needs of the local people. The idea of the CRP was first conceptualized at the workshop in 2000 where the local political elites, NGOs, UN staff, and the specialists from ICTJ, an advocacy network to promote transitional justice, met and discussed the justice and reconciliation issue in East Timor. The CRP programme was finalized through numerous consultations with the local people.

The analysis here shows how this process manifested a phenomenon called norm localization. The local and transnational agents translated “reconciliation” in their local context and restructured a truth commission with the CRP which modified their local justice system. This localization process enhanced the reception of international human rights standards as well. This article takes account of the fact that the norm localization could be initiated by not only local, but also transnational agents. Finally, this paper argues that their interaction was vital in the case of East Timor.

Transitional justice frameworks have been developed through the various attempts of the societies coming out from conflicts. Emerging practices of transitional justice includes informal local justice systems, which could be categorized as “new” mechanisms to foster peace at the grass roots level.

These innovative approaches, however, face greater pressure to conform to standards of international human rights and due process. There have been different lines of argument over the manner and extent to which local justice and reconciliation systems should be made compatible with global norms. This article examines the institution-building and implementation process of transitional justice in East Timor, by focusing on the Community Reconciliation Process (CRP) based on local customs and rituals. It explores, specifically, the roles played both by domestic and transnational agents who have attempted to build congruence between transnational norms and local ideas and practices.

The prime purpose of the CRP was to encourage the former members of militia to return home and to reintegrate themselves into their communities. The idea of utilizing local mechanisms originated from the strong needs of the local people. The idea of the CRP was first conceptualized at the workshop in 2000 where the local political elites, NGOs, UN staff, and the specialists from ICTJ, an advocacy network to promote transitional justice, met and discussed the justice and reconciliation issue in East Timor. The CRP programme wasfinalized through numerous consultations with the local people.

The analysis here shows how this process manifested a phenomenon called norm localization. The local and transnational agents translated “reconciliation” in their local context and restructured a truth commission with the CRP which modified their local justice system. This localization process enhanced the reception of international human rights standards as well. This article takes account of the fact that the norm localization could be initiated by not only local, but also transnational agents. Finally, this paper argues that their interaction was vital in the case of East Timor.