1

Political Change and Human Rights Policy in South Korea:

From "Tactical Concession" to "Prescriptive Status" Phase

Dashdavaa Oyungerel (Ph.D Candidate, Kyungpook National University)

Man-ho HEO (Professor, Kyungpook National University)1

[Contents]

I. Introduction

1. Problematics

2. Scopes and Method

II. Specific Feature of South Korean Third Phase, "Tactical Concession"

1. Society

2. State

3. International / Transnational Networks

III. Democratization and Policy Change:

1. Dominant actors moving process to next phase

2. Dominant mode of interaction

IV. Prescriptive Status

1. Society

2. State

3. International / Transnational Networks

V. Conclusion

1 This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea, BK21 Plus “Political

Methodology for Regional and International Development.”

2

I. Introduction

1. Problematics

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on December 10, 1948 became the

inspiration for many people who were seeking for justice, freedom and equal rights. The

Declaration of Human Rights presented the human rights standards which show the universal

values of being free and equal in rights and in dignity. Most countries started to adopt the

Declaration and to apply the principles and the standards.

Following the Declaration many treaties and agreements embodied. It was a significant

change not only in the history of human rights but also in international community. Moreover,

the enhancement of human rights has been more internationalized and also international

agreements between countries have been raised in numbers intensely.2

South Korea also adopted the Declaration of Human Rights and embodied the international

treaties and agreements. However, Korea had been through the debate over the universality of

international human rights standards over years. Confucian values and authoritarian regime

and its policy had been influential factors to South Korean human rights situation.3However,

South Korea has shown the successful case of the improvement of human rights situation and

policy change after having long struggles and anti-government protests for almost 30 years and

with the replacement of the democratic government. Through his research, Thomas Risse

elaborates the condition under which international norms affect domestic institutional change.

The diffusion of international norms crucially depends on the establishment and the

improvement of domestic and transnational human rights networks which cooperate with

international regime. These advocacy networks serve to constitute necessary condition for

successful domestic change through socialization process of domestic implementation and

institutionalization of international norms. This process leads the repressive government or

state to make liberalization or regime change.4In case of South Korea, such socialization

process of international norms by domestic and transnational networks showed similar

backgrounds with the research of Thomas Risse and his team

This article researches how political changes by democracy effect on the human rights policy

changes in case of South Korea. Moreover, in what ways the case of South Korea has shown

successful human rights change and democracy? This paper builds upon five-phase “spiral”

model of human rights (Fig1) presented by prof. Thomas Risse, Stephen C.Ropp, and Kathryn

Sikkink. By applying it to the case study of South Korea the paper explores how human rights

policy changes in South Korea link up with each phase of the spiral model especially the

third(Tactical Concession) and fourth phase (Prescriptive Status) and how the case of South

Korea has shown successful changes of human rights policy. The third and fourth phase of

five-phase “spiral” model of human rights are considered as the successful change of repressive

2The main general international treaties of the Declaration of Human Rights in 1976 and in 1987: 3After the colony of Japanese imperialism at the end of the World War II, South Korea built up a democratic independent country. However,

during the process of democratic nation building South Korea had experienced war incidents like ‘Deagu 10.1 incident’, ‘Jeju Island 4.3

incident’, ‘Yosu․Sunchono rebellion incident’, and Korean War. During such incidents Korea had experienced large numbers of human

rights violations by losing one sixth of its population, and had caused hundreds of injures and killings. Thus the fundamental rights and freedom

of Korean people were violated through the incidents. Then in 1960s and in 1970s, when Korea was experiencing a high growth of economy,

its democracy and human rights were repressed by its government. In 1980s, authoritative military ultimately crushed the popular uprising in

the city of Gwangju by arresting, killing, and imprisoning. As a result, Korean people started their demonstration against the authoritarian

government. Therefore, democracy and human rights enhancement issues have no longer become historical matter or some abstract things of

the other world for Korean people but became the topic in reality to be improved together with economic and social development. 4 Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic

Change (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 4-5.)

3

human rights condition.

According to five-phase “spiral” model of human rights, Thomas Risse presented that when

the transnational advocacy networks successfully pressured the norms violating states with

their discursive process of argumentation and persuasion (shaming) on the international society

and as a result, if the government shows positive action to such international pressures then

some leaders start a process of liberalization and regime change which means the state human

rights policy transfers to third stage.5

Thomas Risse had pointed out that the outcome of either liberalization or a regime change

is the transition to the fourth phase of the spiral model which means that the international norms

is no longer to be in the argument but internalize them into the domestic system. The domestic

implementation of international human rights norms requires political systems to ratify and

institutionalize the international treaties. Then the full implementation of human rights norms

can bring the final phase, the rule-consistent behavior, the improvement and the policy change

of human rights.

Activist and policy makers have long arguments on the effective practices of human rights

policies, but rarely had time for systematic study and examinations. Risse has examined that

the principled ideas have effects the domestic regime or state policy for human rights, and also

on the practical actions of the state actors, and to study that the principled ideas have various

effects on the international human rights norms which can lead to changes in behavior.

Thus studying the case of South Korea will be effective to explain the theoretical defiance

and reliability of spiral model. Moreover South Korean case study will be also a proper

representation of other Asian countries. The reason is that even though Thomas Risse studied

and explained the diverse impact of the international human rights norms in the case of total

11 countries (North Africa, Sahara South Africa, East and South Asia, Latin America and East

European countries)6, with serious human rights infringement from each region of the world

that later accepted the international norms and changed their political systems and human rights

policy, the research did not include countries like South Korea, except Philippine and Indonesia

from Asian region.

It is impossible to explain those countries like South Korea which achieved high economic

growth and democracy. Therefore, there has to be a wide variety of cases to represent Asian

region. Following the five-phase “spiral” model, Korea had shown successful human rights

policy by institutionalizing international human rights norms unlikely those cases like

Philippine and Indonesia.

A “five-phase “spiral” model of human rights assumes that human rights policy can be

changed together with political change when international human rights norms and principled

ideas internalized in the state and implemented domestically. Thus the paper examines how

South Korea achieved the successful human rights policy change and explores and explains the

theoretical gap or deviance from the spiral model when it is applied to Korea.

5 Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 236-238.) 6 The research countries of international norms and domestic changes: Chile, South Africa, the Philippines, Poland, and the former

Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Kenya, Uganda, Morocco, Tunisia, and Indonesia.

4

<Figure1> Human Rights Change of “spiral” model

Source: The “spiral model” of human rights changes by Thomas Risse and Katheryn

Sikkink, et. Al. (ed), op.cit. p.20

2. Research Scopes and Methodology

The article will mainly focus on the next stage, tactical concession, of repressive and denial

phase and the fourth stage, prescriptive status phase, which mostly brings the success stage,

role-consistent behavior phase of the five phase “spiral” model in the case of South Korea.

South Korea had been through serious human rights infringements and abuses. Especially, the

5

incidents like ‘Deagu October First Uprising’7, ‘Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion’8, ‘Jeju April

Third Uprising’9, and the Korean War civilian massacre incidents10 while establishing Korean

government after 1945 liberation are the representative cases. Those incidents with massive

killings and serious inhumiliation by the repressive governments show the most repressive and

abusive violations of human rights in the history of Korea. The human rights violations by Lee

Sung Man government continued with the repressive incidents like ‘the Progressive Party

incident’11, and ‘April revolution’12. Such repressive regime policy of human rights violation

was continuously exercised even later in the process of developmental dictatorship and

democratization.

The repressive policy of human rights in Korea was continued till the late 1980s. After the

president Park Cheon Hee’s death, Korean repressive government confronted with strong

oppositions domestically and internationally13 . Mobilization and strong opposition groups

arose against the government together with international transnational networks. Thus Korean

government basically moved from the repressive stage to third stage, tactical concession.

From such transition period, the paper begins to explore how South Korea could show

successful changes in human rights policy by accepting and implementing international human

rights norms in political system. The third phase, tactical concession, is considered as an

essential phase of the spiral model forward enduring change in human rights conditions. During

this stage, one hand, some leaders implement human rights norms with the process of

liberalization but on the other hand, other leaders continue or increase the repressive policy

that strengthen the domestic opposition. Then as a result, there happen leaders and government

are likely to be thrown out of power. Tactical concession brings the liberalization and regime

change through the socialization process. Thus the state could shift from the third stage to the

7 Deagu October First Uprising was aroused by the opposition of labors who resisted government policy and supported

communist groups against government in 1946. The incident extended later by leftist groups, students, labors, farmers and

civilians. Basically, the incident became conflicts between left and rightist groups in its process. The accurate numbers of

damage and losses during the incident were not clear but approximate estimations counted more than 150 death, 200 wounds,

1508 and arresting(but by US military administrative authorities 3153). During such hunting conflict between leftist and

rightist of Korea in 1946, numbers of innocent people lost their lives. (Jung, Young Jin, The Storm of October, Hangilsa, 1990,

pp. 287, 409.) 8Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion, happened in 1948 in Yeosu, was also result of the conflict between leftist and rightist groups.

The opposition groups, especially the leftist, against the government started armed uprising from all over the Korea. During

Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion, the loss of human reached 2334, wounds 2050, and missing of person 4318.(Jeon Young Heon,

Communist Movement in Our Country and current Enemy Position: People’s Uprising riots 10.1 incident and Yeosu-Suncheon

Rebellion incident), 1986, pp. 627-628 9Jeju April third uprising aroused from 1948 to 1954 causing a great sacrifice of life. During this incident, more than 14000

people were died and became victims of the conflict. (Jeju 4.3 Events and Victims Rehabilitation Truth Commission, A Fact

Finding Report on Jeju 4.3Events, 2003, p.43-45). 10

The Korean War civilian massacre incident was the result of all other incidents happened during the nation state building

process, especially the result of conflict between leftist and rightist groups (Heo Man-ho, Korean Modern Nation-state building

and Korean War, KwangjinMunghwasa, 2011, p.224). Korea had experienced one third of human loss of its population during

Korean War. 11

In 1958, the members of Progressive Party who claimed the unification of North and South Korea were arrested and accused

of North Korean spy by Lee Sung Man government. With the accusation of constitution of Korea, the members including the

chairman of Progressive Party were executed. (YiByeongCheon&Lee Kwang Ill side, 21st Century Savage in Korea, Seoul

Work Light, 2001, pp.22-23.) 12

April revolution was aroused by anti-government opposition groups that criticized Lee’s government extreme violation of

human rights in 1960.(Lee Hun Seong, 4.19 is not an incomplete revolution but a democratization womb of Korea, Korea

Times 01/10/2010. ) 13

In addition, South Korea had experienced rapid economic development under the repressive developmental strategies of the government in

1960s and 1970s. This economic development continued during the early period of democracy in 1980.

During the economic development period Korea had faced serious human rights issues.

6

forth by so that norms will be institutionalized in the constitution or domestic laws.14

Based on Risse theory of the spiral model, the paper attempted to demonstrate first that the

late 1980s, which marks the period of tactical concession in Korea and the beginning and the

mid of 1990s, which represent Korean prescriptive stages were the significant transition period

with the improvement of human rights situation and policy change and secondly, it presents

that from the mid of 1990s by implementing international norms in domestic system Korea

moved forward toward to fourth and fifth phase of human rights policy change as a success

case. Thus the paper explores in what conditions and how South Korean human rights policy

changed by following the socialization process15 of human rights norms.

II. Specific Feature of South Korean Third Phase, "Tactical

Concession"

1. Society

The phase, tactical concession, is the beginning of important changes of human rights

situation. In this stage the mobilization and strengthening of human rights actors and networks

form their power. They try to force the norm violating state to implement international norms

into domestic system. Domestic networks of human rights activists try to empower themselves

with the help of International society or transnational networks. They will be protected by the

cooperation with international society. So that the transnational networks amplify local

activist’s demand and appeals about norm violating state in international agenda with

cooperating and strengthening domestic human rights actors or networks. Then the norm

violating state no longer can control of domestic NGO networks protected and strengthened,

fully mobilized by international human rights polity. Thus the domestic transitional networks

together pressure the government to make change for human rights policy and for regime by

claiming normative appeals.16 Without giving any chance to the government to practice human

rights violations again they will keep pressure the state from below and from above.

In its successful overcoming process of human rights policy change from denial stage to

tactical concession stage of human rights South Korean started to take steps forward to the

changes of civil society. Korean civil society had been pressured by military governments

under the name of modernization since nation building period17. Under such repressions by the

authoritarian governments it was hard for the actors to bring human rights situation against the

government. This situation was continued under period of the rapid economic growth during

Park’s military government that had emphasized human rights as his government propaganda

and the opposition actors had been extremely repressed by his control. However, Korean

opposition actors for human rights had continued to extend their actions during the repression

from above.18

14 Thomas Risse and Katheryn Sikkink, et. Al. (ed), op.cit. pp. 25-29. 15 According to “five-phase “spiral” model of human rights the international human rights norms effect political change by socialization process.

Socialization process is the process norm internalization and implementation domestically. Socialization process can be distinguished between

three types of causal mechanisms such as the process of instrumental adaptation and strategic bargaining, the process of moral consciousness–

raising, argumentation, dialogue, and persuasion, and the process of institutionalization and hospitalization. 16 In addition, on the level of human rights society, for the formation of opposition coalition, the domestic human rights networks, the

argumentation and deliberation are important. Then through the instrumental and argumentative rationality domestic networks pressures the

state to validate the importance of human rights norms. (Thomas Risse and Katheryn Sikkink, et. Al. (ed), op.cit. pp. 25-26.) 17 Kim Tae Ryong, Democratization process and civil society in Korea, Korean Association for Governance, No.17, No.2,

2010.8, p.82) 18 Lee Jong Eun, “Human Rights Concept and Movement in Korea” Seoul National University, 2004.

7

Even though Korean domestic human rights networks were expanded their human rights

actions to the international society they were not strong enough to stand against the repressive

government. The first human rights organization ‘Human Rights Protection Union of Korea’

was established in 1953s to protect human rights and to improve its system and later it became

‘International Human Rights Protection Union of Korea’ by joining to the international

organization in 1955.

Following up the human rights organization, other domestic networks started to be

established for human rights improvement. In 1961, ‘A Corporate Human Rights Protection

Association’ was established for human rights protection by being registered in Department of

Justice of Korea. In addition, there were several offices for human rights the Department of

Justice such as Human rights consultation place of Public Prosecutor Office, Human rights

consultation place in each lawyer association, and Legal consultation place for human rights

of women and labor union. However, such human rights networks were not strong enough for

practical human rights protection and improvement because of the repressive influence of the

government. After the mid of 1970s human rights organizations and networks became more

active and tried to strengthen their cooperation with international society. Amnesty

International of human rights in Korea was established pressing the government to make

political prisoners released.19 Such pressures to the government became inspiring actions for

human rights networks and organizations to grow in numbers with influential and practical

actions. Their growing numbers help them support to get out of the control of their government

and work independently from any pressures. Thus the mobilization and strengthening of human

rights actors and networks in Korea formed their power in the society.

The continues growth of human rights networks under the government pressures was getting

stronger by cooperating with international human rights networks. For their international

cooperation to support human rights and democracy human rights networks were established

even outside Korea. In 1974, Korean Congress for Democracy and Unification was established

to support Korean democracy and human rights in Washington. They focused on the

improvement of Korean human rights situation by having continues actions that persuade

international society to influence the government. Moreover, in the same year National Council

of Churches in Korea (KNCC) and Catholic Priests' Association for Justice (CPAJ) were

established to protect human rights against torture and detentions, and expanded their actions

for human rights and democracy by appealing to the international society.

Most of the civil organizations and human rights networks had been emphasized and fought

for removing totalitarian government and restoring democracy to bring freedom and social

equality.

2. State

Under the strong domestic opposition networks and pressures from international agenda, the

norm violating government seeks cosmetic changes to overcome the pressures and try to

improve temporarily human rights situation to regain military or economic assistance, or to be

out of international isolation. The continues shaming by international society and domestic

opposition make the state start to make human rights networks concessions with the

underestimate that the changes are less costly. The state miscalculate that it has still control of

both international and domestic networks in the beginning process. But once human rights

concession is made, the strengthened domestic- translational networks and the domestic

situation will be out of the state control. Then the state will be set in the reduced margin of

19

AI in Korea was established in 1972. (History of Amnesty International in Korea: http://amnesty.or.kr/)

8

maneuver human rights policy that the state no longer denies the validity of human rights

norms. Which means states will make visible changes with true dialogue of human rights

through the institutional and argumentative rationality.20

South Korean government had been ruled by authoritarian dictators for several decades since

its independency. Under such authoritarian dictatorship Korean government had seriously

violated human rights of Korean people by civilian massacre incidents like ‘Deagu October

First Uprising’, ‘JejuApril Third Uprising’, ‘Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion’, and the Korean War

while establishing nation-state after 1945 liberation. Especially, the repressive government by

Lee Sung Man represented such incidents with massive killings and serious inhumiliation by

violating human rights and continued the repressive incidents like ‘the Progressive Party

incident’, and ‘April revolution. Moreover, even later in the process of developmental

dictatorship and democratization human rights violations by government were continuously

exercised till the late 1980s.21

Opposing the extreme human rights violations the domestic and international networks had

been battled with the government by various ways of persuading, appealing, pressing and

criticizing. However, the authoritarian government had been continuously exercised military

dictatorship. South Korea had experienced 5.16 coup in 1961, 12.12 coup in 1979, and 5.17

coup in 1980s.

After the president Park Chung Hee’s death, Korean repressive government confronted with

strong oppositions domestically and internationally. Mobilization and strong opposition groups

arose against the government together with international transnational networks. Thus Korean

government basically moved from the repressive stage to third stage, tactical concession.

From such transition period, South Korea could show successful changes in human rights

policy by accepting and implementing international human rights norms in political system.

As the third phase, tactical concession, is considered as an essential phase of the spiral model

forward enduring change in human rights conditions the continues pressure on the repressive

state or the government is required for the successful human rights policy. During this stage,

one hand, some leaders implement human rights norms with the process of liberalization and

on the other hand, other leaders continue or increase the repressive policy that strengthen the

domestic opposition. In case of South Korea, the repressive governments had seemed to

respond to the oppositions by the domestic society by showing positive actions to bring

democracy and protect human rights, but they had been ended up by sudden human rights

violations by the government. It was clearly shown by the Gwangju massacre in 1980 under

the pressure of Chun Doo Hwan government.22 However, the repressive state was under

continues pressures from above and below.

As a result, in the end of 1980s there happen the repressive government was thrown out of

power in Korea. Tactical concession brings the liberalization by political change through the

socialization process. By having political change thus Korea could later shift from the third

stage to the forth and the new civil government started to implement the international norms

and institutionalized them in their constitution or domestic laws.23

3. International / Transnational Networks

20Thomas Risse and Katheryn Sikkink, pp. 27-28. 21 Heo Man Hu, 2011, pp. 223-225. 22 Chun Doo Hwan government brutally suppressed the Korean civil society (Hun Joon Kim, “What is Transitional Justice

and Why is it Relevant to South Korea?”, Griffith University, 2013, p. 31.) 23Thomas Risse and Katheryn Sikkink, pp. 25-26.

9

Once the international networks connects gathered sufficient information about the

repressive state through domestic advocacy networks, the international/transnational

networks24 start to pressure the norm violating state by putting on the international public

attention. Thus the transnational human rights networks will keep pressure the states and force

them to make concession of human rights norms. Basically, the transnational networks work

to force the norm violating state to make concession of human rights norms, on one hand and

serve to strengthen and to protect the domestic advocacy networks on the other hand.

<Table 1> the spiral model, dominant actors, and dominant interactions modes

Phase 1. Repression 2. Denial 3. Tactical

Concessions

4. Prescriptive

Status

5. Rule-

consistent

behavior

Dominant

actors

moving

process to

next phase

Transnational

human rights

networks

Transnational

human rights

networks

Transnational

networks and

domestic

opposition

National

governments

and domestic

society

National

governments and

domestic society

Dominant

mode of

interaction

Instrumental

rationality

Instrumental

rationality

Instrumental

rationality

Rhetorical

action →

Argumentative

rationality

Argumentative

rationality and

institutionalizati

on

Institutionalizatio

n and

habitualization

Source: Risse et al.(1999), p. 32.

The talk on human rights in Korea from international society started on November, 1961,

right after May Sixteen coup in Korea. The president of US, Kennedy and Park Chung Hee had

their first meeting in Washington D.C. Through this meeting President Kennedy had requested

Park to have normalization of diplomatic relation between Japan and Korea and to have formal

procedure of election. Such request to prevent the practice of torture, terror actions and coups

which were originated since Lee Sun Man government. At that time the pressures by US were

based on the US economic and military assistance to Korea. The continues pressures by US

related to human rights situation in Korea had been held by president Jimmy Carter who later

established human rights diplomacy in Korea and criticized the repressive government.

Especially, The Revitalizing Reform system (Yushin regime)25 of Park government in 1972

was criticized by both domestic and international societies. In one hand, the Revitalizing

Reform system was the most repressive system of human rights violations, but on the other

hand, it was the main source that provoked civil oppositions and took attention from

24

Transnational human rights networks are the organizations that work internationally for human rights and

connect domestic advocacy networks with international regime and international communities. 25

The establishment of the Yushin regime, established in 1972 for national security of South Korea, made Park Chung Hee authoritarian government possible to hold on to political power in a long term.

Lee Byeong Cheon, Developmental Dictatorship and The Park Chun Hee Era, Changbi publishers Inc, 2003, pp. 215-216.

10

international arena. In February, 1973, there was an investigation report on South Korean

human right by a staff of Committee on Foreign Relations US Senate. The staff reported that

unless some unexpected sparks provoke Korean revolution or President Park’s removal by his

own agreement or by death, the continuation of his personal dictatorship will keep impose the

Martial Laws.26Moreover, such comments and criticizes were continued by Donald M. Fraser

from House of Representatives from 1974to 1975.

The committee of International Relations of House of Representatives had conducted

Congressional hearings about Korean human rights situations. In the Congressional hearing,

there were reported by the committee members that The Congress should reduce by half the

requested military and economic assistance to South Korea so that such cut in aid would slow

the Park’s military dictatorship and his repressions on human rights without no significant risk

of North Korean attack.27In Dec, 1974, US Congress had cut the military aid for Korean

administration from 2 hundred 30 million dollar to 1 hundred 40 million dollar and pressured

Korea to observe her human rights with the condition that if South Korea could guarantee to

the US Congress to improve her human rights situation then US would supply the rest aids.28

However, Park’s repression was continued with his dictatorship and human rights situation

was not showing good improvements but getting worse. Therefore, the Committee on

International Relations House of Representatives had opened another investigation on Korean

human rights situation based on the appeals from Korean domestic force in 1976 and continued

the investigation with the investigation report ‘Investigation of Korean – American

Relations’.29

The investigations about human rights by the Committee had been continued year by year in

South Korea. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter opened human rights diplomacy and criticized

the serious abuse of human rights in Korea. He opened two new tension-raising policies: human

rights and troop withdrawal from South Korea. His active policy on human rights improvement

in Korea became clearer by his pressure on Parks government to change his human rights policy

when he visited to Korea. During his visit to Korea he had meeting with the opposition

representatives against the authoritarian government and emphasized the importance of human

rights improvement while requesting to the government to release political prisoners. Such

activities by President Carter showed strong influences on Korean domestic actors and

motivated them to activate movements for democratization and against the repressive

government of Park.30

The norm violating government might then temporarily improve the situation by the release

of prisoners, or greater permissiveness about domestic protest activities. At the point, the

repressive government is usually acting almost solely from an instrumental or strategic position

26A Staff report of Committee on Foreign Relations US Senate, 『Korea and the Philippines, November, 1972』, 1973, p.

44. 27They also reported the fact of serious abuses of human rights that inflict harm on thousands of people in South Korea caused

by the repression of the Park government. (“Human Rights in South Korea and the Philippines: Implications for US Policy,

“A staff report of Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on US International

Relations House of Representatives (May to June, 1975), pp. 10-14.) 2828The Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives,

『Donald Fraser report: The Yushin Emergency reform and The Role U.S』(Seoul: ShilcheonMunhuosa, 1986), p. 78. 29When the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives opened the next Congressional Hearings 『Human

rights in South Korea and the Philippines』the former diplomat, En Jae Hyung witnessed about illegal cooperative actions of

Korean Central Intelligence Agency and Park’s government. Based on such witnesses the Committee had made ‘Investigation

of Korean – American Relations’ after three years of investigation in South Korea. (The Subcommittee on International

Organizations of the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives, 『Donald Fraser report: The Yusin

Emergency reform and The Role U.S』(Seoul: Shilcheon Munhuosa, 1986), pp. 8-21, pp.29-30). 30William H. Gleyteen, Massive Entanglement, Marginal Influence (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999), p. 198.

11

trying to use concessions to regain military or economic assistance or to lessen international

isolation.

The increased international attention serves to create and or strengthen local networks of

human rights activists whose demands are empowered and legitimated by the transnational/

international network, and whose physical integrity may be protected by international linkages

and attention.

III. Democratization and Policy Change:

In the ‘spiral model’ of five phase, the dominant actors play important roles to move the

socialization process from one phase to the next phase that brings the dominant mode of social

interaction across the phase changes. To sustain human rights changes through socialization

process that the international norms affect domestic structural changes the activities of

dominant actors which are domestic NGOs, transnational networks, international institutions

and national government become increasingly significant.

1. Dominant actors moving process to next phase

Korean civil society organizations, NGOs for human rights and democracy, and international

networks as the dominant actors showed increasingly strong influences to bring structural

changes in Korea. Especially the beginning and the end of 1980s were crucial period of civil

society formation in Korea. Comparing with 1960s and 1970s, the human rights and democracy

movements were not strong enough as in 1980s.31

As the democratic and human rights movements came to power with strong resists the

government starts to realize that it is hard to control the society with its continues repression.

In Korea, especially after President Park’s incident and Carter visit in 1979, the opposition

groups accelerated their movements for democracy and human rights. The wide variety of

spreading public movements of started from students and to public movements and united with

other group movements.32

In 1984, after the ‘Youth Coalition for Democratic Movement’ of 1983, the establishment

of ‘People’s Democratic Conference’ became one of the main acting factors to grow in power

by unifying many separate movements.33Such movements started to prove the rising powers

of the public oppositions that the opposition forces against the government had no longer to be

repressed or controlled. Their social movements were increasing together with domestic and

transitional networks and getting close to bring real democracy and freedom under the legal

means.

Moreover, the religious groups in Korea also had been played important roles for the

improvement of domestic human rights situations from 1970s. Especially, under the President

Park’s repression they had experienced serous repression for their movements for human 31 A Conference commemorating the democratization movement 『Realities and Challenges of Democracy in Korea』,

HANWOOL Academy, 2007. pp. 97-98. 32 Council of Academic, South Korea’s current enemies of Democracy project: Institution, reform, and social movements,

United Symposium Journal No. 6, 1993, p. 169 33These groups had been consistently tried to bring democracy by opening’ National Congress for Democratic Unification’

based on the movements ‘National Unification’ of democratic actors in 1970s and later they established ‘National Movement

of Democratic Unification Union’ in 1985. Throughout the movements they had been tried to establish democratic constitution,

mechanisms against torturing massacre, national movement offices and so on. (Council of Academic, pp. 170-171.

12

rights, social justice, and democracy. The prisoning, torturing, and other incidents under

repressions provoke the national united movements of Christians including farmers and

students till 1980s.34 The continues movements for democracy and human rights of such

religious groups spread through all over the country by being unedified with democratic

movements of other opposition groups.

During the mean time the human rights networks and democratic actors of various groups

were increasingly accelerated by their domestic and international networks. The Domestic

actors for human rights started to increase their demands for the roles and activities of

international human rights groups. Especially, the network in overseas and the domestic

Koreans delivered strong appealing to the president of US against President Park’s government

several times. They cooperated with the domestic civilians whose freedom was extremely

repressed by being arrested, tortured, and being punished with crucial penalty sentences in the

darkness of Korean society. Moreover, they pointed out that the Korean government should

release all political prisoners without any condition, withdraw the Yushin system, President

Park’s resigning, and make the peaceful changes in the government. In addition, they

announced that they continuously support the movement for Korea human rights and

democracy and opposition against the repressive government.35

Such activities in overseas were grown in numbers till the real democratic movement by end

of 1980s. Among such actors for political prisoner’s release, the respect and protection of

human rights and democracy, The Catholic Priest Association for Justice (CPAJ) and Korean

Amnesty International36had been actively fought against the authoritarian dictatorship and for

the release of prisoners of conscience.37 They had been through the government repression by

1980Kim Dae Jung conspiracy of rebellion incident, and also by democratic procedure problem

inside organization in 1985.

Korean Amnesty International (hereafter AI) was also one of the dominant actor

organizations for human rights in Korea. Korean AI had activated intervene and participation

of international society through the connection with its head organization (Amnesty

international) and tried to strengthen the cooperation for human rights between domestic and

international human rights organizations. AI in Korea has been played important roles to shape

the human rights regime in Korea by starting movements for release of prisoners of conscience,

opening the public lectures on human rights, and publishing articles and papers about human

34

Especially, in March, 1976the Catholic, Protestant and other democratic actors announced the ‘Declarations for Democratic

Country’ which was known even in international society as Myeong-dong Prayer Service incident. The democratic movements

of such incidents by Christians in Korea showed strong influence to take international attention.

(Kim Su Hwang, Why has the Korean Catholic Church Involved itself in Socio-Political Movements?, special topic: Modern

History and Religious in Korea- Korean Religions in Social Change; Retrospect and Prospects by Religious Leaders;, 1996,

p. 4). 35 Such appealing was started from 1974 by Democracy-believing Koreans in St. Louis area. These democratic actors in

overseas resisted the US president’s visit to Korea and requested to cancel the visit. They strongly opposed that the US

president visit to Korea would encourage the President Park’s authoritarian dictatorship and also appealed the serious

repression on human rights in Korea. They criticized the President Park’s claim that the government authoritarian system is

necessary for the country security. They requested the respect for human rights, social justice, and the reform of democracy

from the Korean government.

(Institute of Theological Studies in Academy of Hanshin University, North America’s Human Rights, Democracy, Peace and

Unification Movement Data Analysis- II, 2004, pp. 344-350 ) 36Korean Amnesty international was established in Korean in 1972. (Korean AI) 37The prisoner of conscience is term used for the prisoners who have been imprisoned or persecuted for their race, sexual

orientation, religion, or political views. In 1945, the article 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

approved the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression and opinion. Also in the

article of “The Forgotten Prisoners” by Peter Benenson in 1961, the term was explained in detail.

(http://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us/amnesty-50-years/peter-benenson-remembered/the-forgotten-prisoners-by-peter-

benenson, Amnesty International, visited in 2014/06/04).

13

rights in domestic level.38Furthermore, the human rights situations were reported to its head

organization and also to international arena. All detailed information related to the abuse of

human rights, arresting, imprisoning, and other types of violations were reported to the head

organization. Such activities continued with the requesting letter to the Minister of Justice that

Korea support AI resolutions for illegality of torture. 39

In 1976, the activities of AI were more extended by forming the domestic human rights

networks with connecting international human rights regime and focusing on cooperation with

the organizations of domestic and international human rights relations, reports on human rights

situations, and abolition of death penalty. Especially, in case of cooperation with the

organizations of domestic and international human rights relations, AI in Korea participated in

“The Pan-Pacific Human Rights Conference” by its head organization and tried to implement

the conference resolutions into Korea. In addition, based on the “UN conference of Crime

Prevention and Prisoner’s Treatment”, AI in Korea tried to let the Korean government

representative support and apply the conference resolutions through the cooperation with

domestic human rights networks.40

To have international pressures on Korea, AI in different countries such as Sweden, Japan,

South German, US, Swiss, Nederland, Australia, England and Belgium also increasingly

focused on Korean human rights situations by monitoring and requested the government to

reform domestic human rights situations. Continues pressures from international society were

keep pushing Korean government to release political prisoners and improve its human rights.

As a result of international pressures, Korean government had meeting with International

Secretary General, Martin Ennals about human rights improvement.41 The cooperation of

domestic and international human rights networks and the pressures from international society

had significant influences on the development of human rights activities.

Likewise the dominant actors of human rights in Korea were organized by a wide variety of

different groups, human rights domestic and international cooperation and networks, students,

labors, Christians, elites, the press, and even politicians.

2. Dominant mode of interaction

In the ‘spiral model’, the dominant modes of social interactions also changes according to

the different phases of the spiral model. In the initial phases, most of the actions can be easily

explained by instrumental reasons. Norms violating governments want to remain in power,

gain foreign aid etc, and therefore, deny the validity of norms and make tactical concessions.

Later, through the socialization process of human rights norms, argumentative rationality

increasingly takes over. Governments under transnational and domestic pressures for change

are increasingly forced to argue with the opposition and to enter into a true dialogue. Once

human rights norms have gained prescriptive status, institutionalization and habitualization

processes become the dominant mode of social action.42

By the end of 1980s, Korea had faced again another big anti-government protest. The

underlying circumstances were not all different in 1980 and 1987 except the mobilizations of

strong domestic43networks, their ties with and active pressures from international society. 38http://amnesty.or.kr, Amnesty International Korea story, (visited in 2014/06/04). 39Amnesty International Korea Office, Amnesty Korea 30years! The civil rights movement 30 years history, 2002, p. 161) 40Lee Yu Jing, “Human Rights Change Process in North and South Korea and the Role of International Society”, Korea University, 2009, pp. 84-

87.

41 Amnesty International Korea Office, 2002, p. 39. 42Thomas Risse, p. 34. 43For the explanation, the new US policy was radically different this time that contributed to the success in 1987 protest by

14

Korea’s authoritarian leadership which had been conspicuously oppressed democracy and

human rights in previous decades now came to face with turbulence as result of large anti-

government protests erupting across the country. The protesting groups were highly

independent and strong enough to influence the government which became one of the main

reasons for real democracy in one hand. On the other hand, the social preconditions for actual

democracy was ready enough that Korea achieved many objectives such as economic growth,

a cohesive cultural and social makeup, and high level educations.44

Chun Doo Hwan’s government was increasingly resisted by the April of 1987. His

prohibition about any discussion of constitutional reform and 4.13Constitution protection

measures against direct presidential election was the main cause of people’s anger and

frustration to lead the social movement. The prohibition measures about any discussion of

direct presidential election provoked the religious groups, professionals, and elite classes first.

After declaration of 4.13Constitution protection measures, Korean Layers association

presented that direct presidential election already came to be agreed by all people and

protestors. Then the opposition movement started from Catholic priests from Gwangju entered

into hunger strike continued by the elite groups from universities who resisted the

4.13Constitution protection measures and expanded over the country till June 25th including

more than 4000 members of 34 organizations of lawyers, doctors, and artists.45Such social

movements by the religious and elite groups provoked the middle class groups, students and

even civilians of more than one million.46

Facing with such continues and strong protests Chun Doo Hwan finally came to surrender

by using peaceful turn-over of political power. Then in June 29th, 1987 Chun’s government

announced democratic measures based on demand of democracy of students, intellectual,

human rights and labor rights activists, clergyman, professionals, other civic groups and US

withdrawal of supporting Chun Doo Hwan government.

V. Prescriptive Status

1. Society

In the phase of prescriptive status47, human rights become the main discourse in the society.

Thus new institutions and NGOs to protect human rights will come into power by applying

human rights training in public official, ratifying international human rights norms and by

instituting the procedures to solve individual’s complaint. The cooperation between the

government and the domestic transnational networks becomes strong.

In the beginning of 1990s by ratifying human rights treaties South Korea came into successful

change of human rights situation. In 1993, the democracy became actual by the government of

Kim Young Sam and continued by Kim Dae Jung. Under the actual democracy South Korean

human rights situation was improved. Through the ratification in UN in 1991, human rights pressuring the government differently from the failure in 1980.

(Tracy Williams, “Rhetoric, Reality, and Responsibility: the United Stats’ Role in South Korean Democratization”, 2004,

p.74.) 44Thomas Carothers, Aiding democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, 1999), p. 114. 45The Korea Herald 1987/6/27. 46Korea Institute of Christian Social Problem, June Democratization, MINJUNSA, 1987, pp. 58-71. 47“Prescriptive status” means that the actors involved regularly refer to the human rights norms to describe and comment on their own behavior

and that of others (Thomas Risse and Katheryn Sikkink,, p. 29.

15

protection became legal by recognized in the constitution and people in Korea started to

consider human rights naturally.

After the democracy in Korea the most important change for human rights protection and

improvement was the establishment of Constitutional Court as a representative of domestic

human rights regime that solves human rights issues within the norms and the law. Moreover,

the establishment of National human rights commission of Korea 48 became a successful

improvement of human right.49Together with adjudication on the constitutionality of an Act,

Constitutional Court put human rights protection of people and legal action of the country in

practice through adjudication on a constitutional complaint. Likewise through the

establishment of such domestic organizations accepted by and works independently from

government was the significant change for human rights improvement in Korea.

National human rights commission of Korea as the active organization has been tried its role

for improvement and protection of human rights and the effective continues implementation of

international norms since its establishment. Moreover, many other human rights NGOs and

networks were established in diverse and specific fields following the National human rights

Commission by making diverse mechanisms and effective activities for human rights

protection. Such improvements became one of the important factors for the stable improvement

and protection of human rights in the society. The activities like education and training on

human rights took places and became common practice with the cooperation between domestic

and international organizations, the continues contribution from foreign governments, the

cooperate researches with foreign civil organizations, lectures, academic seminars, exchanges

on information, publications, and many other types of exchange cooperation. Likewise through

the effective actions of civil organizations and human rights networks Korea signed in cultural

agreement with 65 countries and in the agreement for establishment of Cultural Committee

with 16 countries by actively participating in UNESCO.50

As a result of successful implementations and institutionalization of international norms,

Korean civil society became more stable and aware of human rights knowledge that developed

in wide variety of fields. Through the improvement of cultural rights Korean NGOs and human

rights networks actively participated in international seminars, workshops and symposiums

organized by UNESCO, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, Food and

Agriculture Organization, UN Industrial Development Organization, IPS, IMF, and ILO51.

Likewise, Korean society became open to any programs and activities in international society

and became an active promoter of human rights and democracy.

2. State

Basically, in the prescriptive status phase human rights norms should become government

policy as a common practice even if domestic and international networks pressures decreased.

The government starts to adopt and ratify international human rights norms. Thus the state

implements and institutionalizes the norms into domestic system and laws.

48 Established in Nov 25th, 2001. 49 Kim Jung Seop,..Globalization and human Rights Development, URUM (ASCENDING), 2004, pp. 172-175. 50 National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Domestic Implementations of International Human Rights Treaties, -

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2003 51IPS is for Investment Promotion Sector, IMF (International Monetary Fund), and ILO (International Labor Organization).

Through participation in such activities by international organizations Korea had successfully established periodic meeting of

Joint Cultural Commission and included total of 11 countries by April, 1992. (National Human Rights Commission of Korea,

Economic, Social and Cultural rights, p. 156)

16

Korean government has ratified international human rights norms as the result of democracy,

the reform in human rights understanding of people, and the domestic legal changes. Thus as

a democratic country, the first step of the government was initiated by stating the international

norms domestic implementation in the constitution.52

Secondly, as a member state of international human rights regime Korean government first

ratified important covenants such as ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural

Rights’, ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its optional protocol’ in 1990

and so on.53With her continues ratifications and institutionalization of international norms

Korean civilian government focuses on its cooperation with domestic and international NGOs

for human rights improvement that shows the persistent and actual improvement of human

rights by submitting reports on domestic practice of international norms for protection of

individual fundamental rights and freedom and by the investigation mechanism of international

human rights organization.54

Moreover, one of the most significant improvement for human rights by Korean government

was the process of recovering reputation of and making apologies for the victims whose rights

were violated. For this, the government invoked the necessary arrangements and the regulations

in the law based on the decision of constitutional appealing.55 Related to the restriction of

human body in the respect of political and civil rights and for the development of democracy,

Korean government have made reforms in the regulations, to strengthen the welfare of women

and the disabled, amendments in laws to improve human rights, and reforms in local

government system.

Government actions for recovering reputations of victims who were executed by the

previous authoritarian governments started from 1990s after the institutionalization of

international norms. In 1998, Kim Dae Jung’s democratic government emphasized the

numerous incidents of victims who were died with false accusations, especially in the Jeju

April revolution. The reputation recovery action for victim’s reputation recovery was started in

1999 right after the Kim Dae Jung’s notification and implemented by the special act on truth

ascertainment and victim reputation recovery in Jan 12th, 2001. In 2003, the investigation

commission had submitted the reports on victim’s reputation recovery. Such actions of

recovering the reputations of victims showed big contributions to the improvement of human

rights and democracy. By the same year, the president Roo Moo-Hyun government accepted a

wide variety of victim incidents and made formal apologies for them. His actions for reputation

recovery were continued till 2007 by having more than thirteen thousand people’s recoveries

during his appointment.56

Korean government’s concerns for domestic institutionalization of international norms were

intended in many areas to improve of human rights. After ratifying International Covenants on

Civil and Political rights, the government took steps for the institutionalization publishing

source books on International Covenants on Human Rights and training the staffs and officers

of police, prosecuting places, and prison with human rights education.57 Moreover, Korean

52 Stated in the Article 60, paragraph 1, and Article 49 of the Constitution of Republic of Korea, 53 Moreover, Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1995, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Convention relating

to the Status of Refugees, in 1992 . (National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Domestic Implementations of International

human Rights Treaties (No.1-1 to No.6-1), International Agreement Action Office, 2003 54 Kim Jung Seop,.. 2004, pp. 41-42. 55 National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Domestic Implementations of International human Rights Treaties, Civil

and Political Rights, 2003, p.15. 56 Available at: http:// jeju.grandculture.net/Content/Index?contentsid=GC00700014. 57From 1997, Korean government approved to have international human rights courses in the curriculum of Judicial Research

17

government amended laws in force, criminal law and criminal procedure code according to the

covenants against torture, inhumiliating and other cruel treatments by stating in the constitution

and implemented the regulations to investigate if the detentions held any type of tortures and

cruel treatments.58Likewise, Korean government actively promoted to improve human rights

situation in Korea by implementing international norms and institutionalized them in the

domestic laws by the necessary amendments and reforms.

3. International / Transnational Networks

Transnational networks still have to keep their pressure to bring sustainable human rights

change. There might be a possibility that the governments still might continue to practice

human rights violations such as torture or detain even after they institutionalized the norms into

the laws. Therefore, the transitional human rights networks still have an important role to

pressure and cooperate with the government.

The ratification of international norms and its domestic institutionalization help Korea to

achieve good recognition by international society. The consist role of international society and

transnational human rights networks has been played influential parts in Korean society. By

being a member state of international human rights regime Korea has to follow the regulations

and norms of it. First of all international human regime requires its member states to submit

their periodic reports on human rights improvements and norm implementations as one of the

duties. Then it starts its evaluations and advices based on the reports. Each member state has

to submit the national human rights report by every five year and receive the related reviews.

In case of Korea, the first periodic national human rights reports were submitted in 1991, and

the second in 1997. 59 Through her continues submission, Korea has been successfully

accomplished its duties to UN. In 2007, UN Human Rights Commission has started the

Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review for every member state. In 2008, UN Human

Rights Commission opened the periodic review in Korea by appointing the members from

Peru, Egypt, and Jordan as the investigating board.

Then at the same year, Korea had submitted its national periodic reports on human rights and

received the investigation and reviews by the working group within the next month.60 The

recent report on human rights of Korea was submitted in 2013.The Special Rapporteur,

Margaret Sekaggya, on the situation of human rights defenders conducted an official visit to

Korea from 29 May to 7 June 2013. She met with relevant government officials and human

rights network groups, including the Prime Minister, representatives of the national human

rights institution, human rights defenders and representatives of business enterprises during her

visit. Margaret Sekaggya also briefly emphasized other groups of defenders facing particular

challenges and concluded with recommendations to all relevant stakeholders.61Likewise, the

and Training Institute which is for the education of bar qualification grant

(National Human Rights Commission of Korea, International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, p. 16). 58Article 123-125 of the Constitution, and Section 2, Article 198 of Criminal Prosecution Code,

(National Human Rights Commission of Korea, International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, pp. 35-36). 59Yang Geon, “Korean Issues on the Protection of Human Rights and its practical proposals: With regard to international

Human Rights Treaties” International Constitution Society, Vol. 7(2002), pp.71. 60Human rights council, “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review-Republic of Korea,” A/HR/8/40

(May 29, 2008), p.5. 61 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret

Sekaggya. In her report, she considered the legal and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights

in Korea, with particular attention to the exercise of public freedoms and the role of the national human rights institution. She

also analyzed the challenges faced by certain groups of human rights defenders in the country, including journalists and media

workers, trade unionists and labor rights defenders, environmental rights defenders, migrants’ rights defenders, students’ rights

defenders, whistle-blowers and those defending the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons(available at

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/191/02/PDF/G1319102.pdf?OpenElement)

18

roles of international human rights regime empower its member states to prevent human rights

abuses, inequity and discrimination, protect the most vulnerable, and expose perpetrators.

Through the reports on its human rights situations to international human rights regime, Korea

has been implemented the required recommendations and advises by it and actively urges the

cooperation with transnational human rights networks by participating in international

activities. The international/transnational human rights networks has been successfully

encouraging human rights activities Korean domestic human rights networks and the

government by examining, monitoring based on the implementation of international norms.

19

V. Conclusion

The paper focused on political changes and human rights policy in case of South Korea in

the view from five-phase “spiral” model of human rights, especially from the third phase,

“Tactical Concession” and fourth phase, “Prescriptive Status”. According to Thomas Risse,

Stephen C.Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink when the transnational advocacy networks successfully

pressured the norm violating states if the government shows positive action to such

international pressures then some leaders start a process of liberalization and regime change.

For such process, the transition to the third phase and to fourth phase shows the significant and

successful changes of human policy. The domestic implementation and institutionalization of

international human rights norms human rights improvement from the third to fourth stage

brings the final phase, the rule-consistent behavior, the actual improvement and the policy

change of human rights.

When South Korea moved to phase 3, from phase 2, “Denial”, transnational human rights

networks and domestic and international anti-government opposition groups including elites,

religious groups, labors, farmers, students and international society were dominant actors. The

dominant moving process was initiated by dominant actors of democratic and human rights

since the establishment of South Korea under the pressure of authoritarian governments till the

Gwangju democratic movement of 1987. Korea had experienced serious human rights abuses

under authoritarian repressive human rights policy activated especially during president Park

government and continued through another military government of General Chun Doo Hwan.

With the people struggling for democracy and the government horribly destabilized from both

the coup and the massive demonstrations, the domestic and international opposition groups

tried not to experience the same failure of democratization of 1980. The strong mobilization of

domestic oppositions groups and the pressures from international society finally brought the

actual democratization with Roh Tae Woo becoming the first honestly elected president of

Korea.

Korean government moved from the repressive stage to third stage, tactical concession in

1980 and transferred to the fourth stage in 1987.By the democratic government South Korea

adopted the Declaration of Human Rights and embodied the international treaties and

agreements that had shown the successful changes of human rights situation with the

replacement of the democratic government. Such transition of Korea satisfied the next

requirement to the fourth and fifth phase of the spiral model by institutionalizing international

norms in domestic systems stating in the constitution to implement the international norms and

to follow the requirements and duties of international human rights regime. Korean had been

submitted national reports on human rights and followed the recommendations based on

investigations by UN human rights council.

Wide variety of cooperation between domestic and international human rights networks had

grown strong enough to keep pressure government to improve human rights in Korea. Even

their active participation and promotion for human rights improvement in international and

domestic society show that Korea had successfully transferred into the fifth stage of spiral

model by presenting as a success case in the human rights change of Asian region.

20

References

Amnesty International Korea Office, Amnesty Korea 30years! The civil rights movement 30

years history, 2002

A staff report of Committee on Foreign Relations US Senate, 『Korea and the Philippines,

November, 1972』, 1973.

A staff report of Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the

Committee on US International Relations House of Representatives (May to June, 1975

William H. Gleyteen, Massive Entanglement, Marginal Influence (Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution, 1999).

Haksul danchae hyeopouihoe (Council of Academic Association), Minjuhwa undun ginyeom

saeophoe(Commemoration Service Association of democratization movement)『Hanguk

minjujuie heonshilgua dujong』(Realities and Challenges of Democracy in Korea),

HANWOOL Academy, 2007

Hagsul daehak seulwon shinhak yeonguseu (Institute of Theological Studies in Academy of

Hanshin University), 『Bukmiju Ingwon, Minjuhwa, Peonhwa tun il ungdun Jareujib-

II 』North America’s Human Rights, Democracy, Peace and Unification Movement Data

Analysis- II, 2004, pp. 344-350

Haksul danchae hyeopouihoe (Council of Academic Association), 『Hanguk minjujui

heonjejog guaje: jedu, gkeheok, mid sahoe undun』(South Korea’s current enemies of

Democracy project: Institution, reform, and social movements), Je 6 hoe yeonghap

symposium nyeongmunjib (United Symposium Journal No. 6), 1993, p. 169

Heo Man Ho,Hangukui gundaejog minjuggugga geonsolgua 6.25 jeonjen(Korean Modern

Nation-state building and Korean War), KwangjinMunghwasa, 2011

Human Rights Council, “A Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review-

Republic of Korea”, A/HR/8/40, 2008.

Hun Joon Kim, “What is Transitional Justice and Why is it Relevant to South Korea?”, Griffith

University, 2013.

Jeju 4.3 Events and Victims Rehabilitation Truth Commission, a Fact Finding Report on Jeju

4.3Events, 2003

21

Jeon Young Heon, Communist Movement in Our Country and current Enemy Position:

People’s Uprising riots 10.1 incident and Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion incident), 1986. Jung, Young Jin, The Storm of October, Hangilsa, 1990.

Kim Jung Seop…, Segaehwaoa Ingwon Paljeon (Globalization and human Rights

Development, URUM (ASCENDING), 2004

Kim Sue Hwan, “Why has the Korean Catholic Church involved itself in Socio-Political

Movements?”『Special Topic: Modern History and Religious in Korea- Korean Religions in

Social Change; Retrospect and Prospects by Religious Leaders』, 1996

Kim Tae Ryong, Democratization process and civil society in Korea, Korean Association for

Governance, No.17, No.2, 2010.8

Korea Institute of Christian Social Problem, June Democratization, MINJUNSA, 1987

National Human Rights Commission of Korea, The Domestic Implementation of International

Human Rights Treaties, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2003.

National Human Rights Commission of Korea, The Domestic Implementation of International

Human Rights Treaties, Civil and Political Rights, 2003.

Lee Eun Jung, “Hangukeseoui ingwonkenyeomgua ingwon ungdun (Human rights

understanding and movement in Korea)”, seoul dae hakkuu (Seoul National University), 2004.

Lee Byeong Cheon, Developmental Dictatorship and The Park Chun Hee Era, Changbi

publishers Inc, 2003

Lee Yu Jing, “Human Rights Change Process in North and South Korea and the Role of

International Society”, Korea University, 2009 The Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives,Donald Fraser report: The Yusin Emergency reform and The Role

U.S』(Seoul: ShilcheonMunhuosa, 1986)

Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights:

International Norms and Domestic Change (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press,

1999

Thomas Carothers, Aiding democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999.

Tracy Williams, “Rhetoric, Reality, and Responsibility: the United Stats’ Role in South Korean

Democratization”, 2004

Yang Geon, “Korean Issues on the Protection of Human Rights and its practical proposals: With

regard to international Human Rights Treaties” International Constitution Society, Vol. 7(2002),

22

YiByeongCheon&Lee Kwang Ill side, 21st Century Savage in Korea, Seoul Work Light, 2001

Lee Hun Seong, 4.19 is not an incomplete revolution but a democratization womb of Korea,

Korea Times, 01/10/2010.

The Korea Herald 1987/6/27.

http://amnesty.or.kr/

http://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us/amnesty-50-years/peter-benenson-remembered/the-

forgotten-prisoners-by-peter-benenson, Amnesty International, visited in 2014/06/04).

http://www.jeju.grandculture.net/Content/Index?contents_id=GC00700014

http://amnesty.or.kr, Amnesty International Korea story, (visited in 2014/06/04).

http://daccess-dds-y.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/191/02/PDF/G119102.pdf?OpenElement