External Actors and Transitional Justice in a Reunified Korea

  • Andrew G. Reiter
Part of the Asan-Palgrave Macmillan Series book series (APMS)


As countries emerge from periods of authoritarianism and armed conflict, they face the often monumental task of engaging past human rights violations. Determining which transitional justice mechanisms—ranging from trials and truth commissions to amnesties, reparations, and the construction of monuments—to pursue and how to implement them are some of the most difficult choices domestic actors face in times of transition. Moreover, transitional justice choices can have significant ramifications for the future of society, ranging from avoiding renewed conflict and achieving reconciliation to strengthening the rule of law and consolidating democracy. Yet increasingly transitional justice is not solely a domestic process. International actors now play a sizeable role in shaping the trajectory of transitional justice processes in countries around the world, and societies are no longer able to come to terms with their own pasts without taking into account the interests of external actors. This external influence can take a variety of forms. In its most benign form, states may feel pressure to comply with international or regional norms, and, in turn, take a particular type of approach to transitional justice. In other cases, international actors provide important support, including advice, expertise, funding, and technical assistance for domestic transitional justice efforts. Yet in some cases, external actors take control of transitional justice efforts directly, by operating mechanisms themselves, blocking the pursuit of specific transitional justice efforts, or applying coercive pressure to force states to pursue specific mechanisms.


Security Council External Actor International Actor International Criminal Rome Statute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ellen Lutz and Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: The Evolution and Impact of Foreign Human Rights Trials in Latin America, 2 Chic. J. Int’l L. 1 (2001);Google Scholar
  2. and Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics (New York: Norton, 2011).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Chandra Lekha Sriram, Globalizing Justice for Mass Atrocities: A Revolution in Accountability (New York: Routledge, 2005).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999);Google Scholar
  5. and Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights, 54 Duke L. J. 621 (2004).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Diane F. Orentlicher, Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime, 100 Yale L. J. 2537 (1991);Google Scholar
  8. and Naomi Roht-Arriaza, ed., Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Lisa J. Laplante, Outlawing Amnesty: The Return of Criminal Justice in Transitional Justice Schemes, 49 Va. J. Int’l L. 915 (2009).Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Ann Florini, “The Evolution of International Norms,” International Studies Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1996): 363–389.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. and Harvey Starr, “Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the International System,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 35, no. 2 (1991): 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 9.
    Tricia D. Olsen, Leigh A. Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter, Transitional Justice in Balance: Comparing Processes, Weighing Efficacy (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010).Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    Emilie Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui, “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: Paradox of Empty Promises,” American Journal of Sociology 110, no. 5 (2005): 1373–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    Jelena Subotic, Hijacked Justice: Dealing with the Past in the Balkans (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    See Gary J. Bass, Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000);Google Scholar
  16. Philippe Sands, ed., From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003);Google Scholar
  17. and Laura A. Dickinson, “The Promise of Hybrid Courts,” American Journal of International Law 97, no. 2 (2003): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 20.
    See Cynthia J. Arnson, El Salvador, Accountability and Human Rights: The Report of the UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (New York: America’s Watch, 1993);Google Scholar
  19. and Thomas Buergenthal, The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador, 27 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 497 (1994).Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    Caitlin Reiger and Marieke Wierda, The Serious Crimes Process in Timor-Leste: In Retrospect (New York: International Center for Transitional Justice, 2006), Scholar
  21. 25.
    Matthew Reichstein, The Extradition of General Manuel Noriega: An Application of International Humanitarian Law to Answer the Question, If So, Where Should He Go? 22 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 857 (2008).Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    Significant Japanese participation, however, is unlikely, given its past military aggression in the region and problematic record of coming to terms with its own past. See Jennifer Lind, Sorry States: Apologies in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008);Google Scholar
  23. and Alexis Dudden, Troubled Apologies among Japan, Korea, and the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
  24. 33.
    Daniel L. Byman and Jennifer Lind, “Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea,” International Security 35, no. 1 (2010): 44–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 34.
    Victor D. Cha and Nicholas D. Anderson, “A North Korean Spring?” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2012): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 36.
    Bruce W. Bennett and Jennifer Lind, “The Collapse of North Korea: Military Missions and Requirements,” International Security 36, no. 2 (2011): 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 43.
    David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps (Washington, DC: The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2003).Google Scholar
  28. 48.
    Blaine Harden, Escape from Camp 14: One Man’s Remarkable Odyssey from North Korea to Freedom in the West (New York: Penguin Books, 2013).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Baek Buhm-Suk and Ruti G. Teitel 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew G. Reiter

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations