On April 23rd, 2021, The George Washington University Institute of Korea Studies (GWIKS) hosted its annual signature conference. The conference was moderated by Roy Richard Grinker, Professor of Anthropology, International Affairs, and Human Sciences at The George Washington University. The distinguished speakers were Todd A. Henry, Associate Professor of History at the University of California San Diego and specialist of modern Korea with a focus on the period of Japanese rule and its postcolonial afterlives, and Eleana Kim, a cultural anthropologist with specializations in kinship, migration, political ecology, STS, and multi-species ethnography. They were followed by Susie Woo, Associate Professor of American Studies at California State University, and Sun Hee Engelstoft, a Korean-born documentary director based in Copenhagen. 

Roy Richard Grinker began the event by describing how GWIKS was founded and what its role is now. Eleana Kim opened the event, followed by Dr. Henry. Dr. Susie Woo then gave a presentation entitled “Korean Transnational Adoptions: Historical Contexts” in which she discussed the effect that the US Military Occupation of Korea between 1945 and 1948 had on Korean Transnational adoptions. The U.S. sent military men to spend time with Korean orphans and then took photos and widely publicized them in the U.S. This led to the creation of the rescue narrative surrounding Korean transnational adoptions and the high demand for Korean orphans to adopt. Stories and photos were spread in American media of Korean adoptees adapting to American culture and fitting in easily with their new families. Organizations were formed to help facilitate these adoptions and in 1961, the first permanent US transnational adoption law. More recently, transnational adoptions have declined. Professor Grinker then asked Dr. Woo some questions from the audience. Sun Hee Engelstoft then introduced her film “Forget Me Not,” her first feature-length film about women and girls’ reproduction and adoption processes in South Korea. She described her reasoning for creating the film and her process. Following the film, Ms. Engelstoft discussed her difficulties in creating a film that was related and similar to her own experiences as a Korean adoptee. She explained that she began making this film with the question: how can a mother relinquish her child? The panelists then shared their reactions to the film and asked Ms. Engelstoft questions about it. The event concluded with Dr. Grinker sharing some of the comments from the audience about the film, expressing their gratitude to Ms. Engelstoft for creating such a meaningful piece. 

Panel IV: “Shaping Rights for New and Non-Citizens”

“The Rights of Non-Citizenship: Migrant Hierarchies in South Korea”

Erin Aeran Chung, Johns Hopkins University

Instead of a “sharp distinction between citizen and non-citizen,” postwar immigration has contributed to the development of “a continuum of rights attached to membership of a state,” as Zig Layton-Henry noted in a seminal essay. Far from the ideal of universal citizenship, this model encompasses specific rights associated with different levels of membership among citizens and noncitizens. In countries where noncitizens range from migrant laborers with almost no rights to native-born foreign residents who are generations removed from their immigrant ancestry, visa categories are critical determinants of a migrant’s eligibility for state-sponsored rights and services. This paper will examine how the growth of multiple visa categories created to accommodate labor shortages within South Korea’s restrictive immigration regime has led to the development of noncitizen hierarchies that have become the basis for how migrants relate to the state, mobilize themselves, and voice their collective interests.

“Human Rights, Contested Citizenship, and Diasporic Development: Explaining Global Policies toward North Korean Refugee Resettlement”

Sheena Chestnut Greitens, University of Missouri

Most North Korean refugees and defectors live in South Korea. In the past decade, however, a growing number have sought to move beyond the Korean peninsula, resettling instead in North America, Europe, and other locations around the world. This presentation examines the factors that have contributed to the emergence of this new, global North Korean diaspora. It contends that contestation over conceptions of citizenship, at both the level of the individual and the level of government policy, have collectively shaped the migration and resettlement of North Korean defectors and refugees over time and across geographic space. These changes in resettlement patterns, in turn, have significant implications not only for the human security of individuals and families from North Korea, but for global policy toward the DPRK.

“How North Koreans Understand the Rights and Responsibilities of Democratic Citizenship: Implications for Political Integration”

Aram Hur, New York University

How do North Korean defectors adapt to democracy, and to what effect on democratic citizenship in the host state? I focus on a formative and likely critical step in the process: how such individuals make sense of their newfound democratic rights and responsibilities. I examine how recent North Korean defectors in South Korea understand and talk about democratic citizenship. Discourse analysis of 31 personal narratives and 20 paired debates reveals a counterintuitive phenomenon. Most defectors hold a deeply communal, nationalist script socialized in the authoritarian North. For those who strongly identify with South Koreans, this communitarian approach is extended toward South Korea, framing new democratic roles as a matter of duty. Those with weak identification rely on a heavily contractual, rights-based approach instead. The findings highlight national identification as an important driver of political integration and show how a common aspect of authoritarian socialization surprisingly shapes the contours of democratic citizenship in host states.

Panel IV Discussion

In response to Panel IV: “Shaping Rights for New and Non-Citizens,” discussant Hae Yeon Choo offered comments on each of the papers about the rights of migrants in Korea. She wanted to make sure that the participants were informed about the normative assumptions involved that build on binaries about citizenship, and how to critically interrogate these as well as identify the institutional mechanisms that enact them. Erin Chung agreed with the discussant, and added that she would include a focus on agency to incorporate the notion of duty among the citizens and noncitizens of her survey. Sheena Greitens stated in agreement that it is important to overcome the normative assumptions about human rights refugees when studying their cases. Finally, Aram Hur acknowledged the importance of the explanatory power of subjective identifications of the interviewees, and agreed to distinguish between the archetypal manifestations of her “neat” categories of citizenship.

Panel III: “Mobilizing Rights for the Marginalized”

“The Law and Practice of Disability Discrimination Act in South Korea”

JaeWon Kim, Sungkyunkwan University

The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act in 2007 was the most important disability rights legislation in Korean history. It was finally achieved by a concerted effort of disability communities, civic organizations and lawyers after fierce struggles. The DDA empowers persons with disabilities as the same rights-bearing subjects who can enjoy the same liberties and entitlements as abled people. Since the new legislation, the Korean disability communities and advocate groups have actively utilized the law both in and out of the courtrooms. Well over the half of the all complaints at the National Human Rights Commission in recent years are related to disabilities. Courts are now more responsive to disability rights, and published the ‘guidelines on judicial assistance for people with disabilities’. This paper critically examines the law and practice of disability related legislation in South Korea and suggests some reform measures.

“Now or Later: On Shigisangjo and Premature Politics”

Ju Hui Judy Han, University of California, Los Angeles

Despite the intensified backlash from conservative Protestant groups, or perhaps enlivened by the clamorous opposition, sexual minority/LGBT/queer politics in South Korea appear to have 4 gained a great deal of public visibility in recent years. From the two decades of annual Korea Queer Culture Festival and Parade in Seoul to the near-daily protest rallies around the country against social injustice, sexual minority activists certainly seem to have gained a seat among feminist and progressive labor and human rights advocates. Why then were queer activists shouted down and dragged out from a women’s leadership forum in Seoul in February 2017 where candidate Moon Jae In pledged to become a “feminist president” to the applause of a cheering auditorium? What were the demands of the queer protesters, and why did the audience attempt to silence them? I contend that this chilling moment revealed a great deal about the epistemic violence of shigisangjo or the idea that some concerns should be dismissed as inappropriate and premature. This paper engages with questions of queer futurity and the optics of progressive social change in discussing in particular the politics of deferment implicit in the idea of shigisangjo.

“The Movement for an Anti-Discrimination Act in Korea”

Jihye Kim, Gangneung-Wonju National University

Sungsoo Hong, Sookmyung Women’s University

In the Republic of Korea, the attempt to enact a comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act in 2007 unexpectedly brought to light the social discrimination against minority groups, notably LGBTI people. Ever since, Korea has seen a pattern that obstructs the adoption of the law: any government’s effort to adopt a law or policy that concerns non-discrimination principles was frustrated after framed and attacked as a pro-LGBTI law or policy. The tension over LGBTI could have been understood as the main burden in the movement for an Anti-Discrimination Act. This article enquires into the human rights defenders’ pursuit to take the hard route of embracing LGBTI people, forgoing the possibility of benefiting other groups by leaving them out. Exploring the last 20 years of human rights movement for a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, it aims to find the meanings and goals of the movement that Korea seeks to achieve.

“From ‘We Want Humane Treatment’ to ‘Layoff Is Murder’: The Changing Notion of Labor Rights in Korea”

Yoonkyung Lee, University of Toronto

The collective definition of labor rights for Korean workers has changed since the 1980s along with neoliberal transformation of the economy and the labor market. While workers’ demand for the respect of basic labor rights was expressed in “humane treatment” in the 1980s, labor rights in present Korea is anchored on the right to work and secure employment. Also, the methods through which workers articulate and press for their rights have moved from union-based collective action to symbolic and extreme forms of protest in recent years. This study traces these changes by analyzing the annual reports of the National Council of Labor Unions (Cheonnohyeop) and the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions (Minjunochong) for the period of 1987-2017, which chronicle organized labor’s major demands and activities.

Panel III Discussion

Eric Feldman and Sida Liu offered insightful comments and constructive feedback on Panel III: “Mobilizing Rights for the Marginalized.” In reference to JaeWon Kim’s paper, Feldman pressed for more information on what constitutes “disability” in Korea, how one understands the “abled” versus the “disabled,” and how these notions may be socially distinctive to Korea. For Sung Soo Hong and Jihye Kim’s paper, Feldman cautioned against attributing an act and a result as either causation or correlation due to temporal association (and thus recommended cleaning up the chronology). He asked for additional clarity on the actors involved in the LGBTI rights discourse such as individuals, corporations, the government, conservative Christian groups, and other religious entities. Sida Liu offered remarks on Ju Hui Judy Han’s paper, noting that shigisangjo does not necessarily equate to a denial of rights, and suggested further examination into not only the temporal but also the spatial components of LGBTI rights discourse in Korea. Furthermore, he noted the importance of not only looking at the protests and political activities of LGBTI activists, but also their everyday life and identity. For Yoonkyung Lee’s paper, Liu commended her for her attempt to provide an overview of the historical transformation of labor rights in Korea, but also highlighted how this attempt could be overly ambitious. He commented on how her paper talked more about how the government controls labor, but less about actual labor rights; furthermore, he noted that Lee should not intermix the two parallel concepts of a change in formal law and a change in labor action.

Panel II: “Institutional Mechanisms for Rights Claiming”

“The Institution of Constitutional Adjudication and Fundamental Rights Claims in South Korea”

Hannes B. Mosler, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

The paper investigates how in South Korea citizens’ petitioning for redress of grievances against the state through the institution of constitutional adjudication evolved since the end of the 1980s. While de jure there existed a constitutional review system since the founding of the republic in 1948, it was only after transition to formal democracy that infringement on fundamental rights could be de facto appealed to the constitutional court established in 1988. The paper explores conceptual shifts in constitutional rights over time in terms of citizens’ self-perception of the rule of law and fundamental rights as well as in court decisions. Therefore, the article sheds light on the constitutional court’s accessibility, and analyzes how citizens have been making use of the constitutional appeal system for claiming their rights. Furthermore, the study examines the changes in outcomes of constitutional adjudication on fundamental rights focusing on three illustrative cases.

“Evolving Legal Opportunity Structures in South Korea”

Celeste Arrington, The George Washington University

Scholarship on legal opportunity structures examines how rules and statutes related to access to the courts, adjudication procedures, and judicial remedies influence the likelihood that individuals and groups will use litigation to try to influence policy decisions or policy implementation. The legal opportunity structure is often considered relatively fixed, but changes in the legal opportunity structure can encourage or discourage recourse to the courts and may vary across issue area. This paper takes stock of changes in South Korea’s legal opportunity structures in the past two decades, focusing on civil and administrative litigation. On balance, Korea’s legal opportunity structures have become more open, even during two conservative administrations. The analysis indicates that claims-makers, activist lawyers, partisan politics, statutory reforms, and international factors help account for the liberalizing legal opportunity structures. The paper examines how citizens are recognizing and using legal opportunities, and sometimes even prying open new opportunities, in pursuit of policy change

“Public Interest Lawyering in South Korea: Sites for Minority Rights Protection”

Patricia Goedde, Sungkyunkwan University

Public interest lawyering in South Korea has evolved over the years as a response to inadequate rights protection, whether civil and political, socioeconomic, or of the most marginalized communities. During the democratic transition, Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyeon) was the primary network of lawyers who advocated for civil and political rights especially on behalf of workers, students, and dissidents. Beginning in the 1990s, lawyers working with NGOs helped to promote more social and economic rights in the areas of labor, consumer advocacy, environmental rights, and gender equality. In the past decade, a small number of public interest lawyers groups have emerged to focus on the rights of minorities, such as foreign migrants, refugees, people with disabilities, and sexual minorities. Meanwhile, bar associations, law firms, and law schools have promoted pro bono activity as a professional ethic in respective degrees.

This article examines the public interest lawyering activities of several public interest law groups —Gonggam, Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL), Hope and Law, and Gamdong— that advocate on behalf of minority groups. It asks, how and why have public interest law actors and institutions diversified? How and why do their mobilization tactics overlap or differ? How do public interest lawyering sites and mechanisms protect the rights of citizens versus noncitizens? Are minorities nationwide finding adequate representation in existing public interest law sites and mechanisms? [This article further explores how legal institutions such as bar associations and law schools invest or promote public interest lawyering, and to what extent they collaborate or are influenced by the public interest law groups above.] These case studies present insight into the workings of non-profit public interest law groups in South Korea to show how non-state actors remedy inadequate rights protection for vulnerable minority groups.

Panel II Discussion

Stephan Haggard and Eric Feldman’s comments on Panel II: “Institutional Mechanisms for Rights Claiming” challenged the underlying assumptions of all three papers. Haggard urged Hannes Mosler to drill into the Constitutional Court case data and focus particularly on rights cases, the substance of those cases, and what level of attention the Court gives to each case. Haggard suggested that Patricia Goedde think of the changes in public interest lawyering not as a shift but a “layering on” of new forms. Feldman pushed Celeste Arrington to ask whether litigation is democratizing or whether it is actually an undemocratic way to change policy. He also pushed her to demonstrate the value added of the “legal opportunity structure” framework and nest it in other literature on access to justice. Participants also raised interesting questions about the bias scholars have towards their own countries’ institutions and the relationship between gender and public interest lawyering.

Panel I: “Rights in Historical Perspective”

“The Emergence of Rights in the Chosŭn Period”

Jisoo Kim, The George Washington University

This paper traces precursors to the concept of rights in Chosŭn Korea. I analyze legal cases to show how people sought rights. The discourse of (equal) “rights” (권리) only emerged in the late 19th century with the rise of modernity. As the practice shows, people were engaged in legal disputes to seek rights related to life, property, inheritance, etc. I am going to argue that it is anachronistic to claim that “rights” did not exist in Confucian judicial system in East Asia by applying the modern notion of “rights” that emerged after the French revolution in the West. Legal practice shows people were practicing rights within their society. But, of course, there is a shift in the notion of rights in the late 19th century as the status system gets abolished and with the introduction of modern notion of rights (권리).

“Women at the Courts: Women and Lawsuits in Colonial Korea”

Sungyun Lim, University of Colorado, Boulder

How did the Japanese colonial rule influence women’s inheritance in Korea? In this paper, I explore the impact of the Japanese colonial rule on women’s legal rights in Korea through a close examination of some civil court records. Despite the restriction on legal rights of women under the Japanese colonial legal system, Korean women were actively present in the colonial courts to defend their customary rights and most of these women were successful. What does this tell us about the nature of the Japanese colonial policy in Korea and how did women fare under them? This paper delves deep into the complex dynamics between the colonial power and the colonized society through civil cases waged by widowed household-heads.

“A Tale of Two Commissions: The Evolution of Rights Claims in the Jeju Commission and the TCRK”

Hun Joon Kim, Korea University

With at least ten commissions, South Korea is leading a trend of addressing past human rights violations using truth commissions. Two commissions—the Jeju Commission and the TRCK— stand out in their mandate, budget, and personnel. Both commissions worked effectively under two consecutive progressive regimes but their paths starkly diverge with the inauguration of Lee Myung-bak in February 2008. With an appointment of new commissioner, the TRCK was hurriedly closed down, even without properly placing the excavated remains of victims. In contrast, the Jeju Commission, faced with the exactly same pressure from the new regime, effectively resisted the repression until today and even made significant achievements such as progressively revising the law to proclaim April 3rd as the national memorial day. By tracing how claimants defined rights and articulated their rights, this paper examines whether the different processes in the evolution of rights claims in two commissions make a difference.

Panel I Discussion

Discussant Li Chen kicked off the discussion of Panel I: “Rights in Historical Perspective” by urging all authors to define “rights” in an East Asian context and the particular type of rights they are referring to in their papers. He commended Jisoo Kim for trying to avoid comparing Chosun dynasty rights to Western conceptions of rights, but noted that comparisons with other colonial contexts and East Asian countries could bolster Sungyun Lim and Hun Joon Kim’s arguments. Aram Hur suggested that Hun Joon Kim further investigate regional identity formation as a factor in Jeju-do’s collective rights claims. Other participants raised questions about the role of social status in delimiting rights, the methodology of choosing historical legal case studies, and the historical evolution of collective versus individual rights claims. The panelists agreed that this discussion would help them tighten their arguments and paper structure going forward.