Abstract
Ahead of the 22nd National Assembly elections, there had been a renewed push to amend the 4.3 Special Act. Shortly after the elections, the first bill proposed by the elected representatives with ties to Jeju was adopted as an amendment of the 4.3 Special Act, and it was proposed at the start of the 22nd National Assembly. This paper generally agrees with the common evaluation and stance that continually updated legislation will promote a ‘complete resolution’ and a ‘just resolution.’ Nevertheless, the purpose of this paper is to observe the symptomatic phenomenon of ‘resolution’ and to seek out research questions. In particular, by critically examining the issues that re-emerged around the 22nd National Assembly elections, the paper seeks to identify the questions that were overlooked in the process. The heightened effort to amend Article 2 (Definition) of the 4.3 Special Act ahead of the elections primarily focuses on changing the term ‘riot’ to ‘uprising.’ However, by not including the term ‘victim,’ which was a product of a riot-oriented historical perspective, in the amendment list, the approach has the limitation of not attempting to differentiate itself from the 20th and 21st National Assembly, which did not change ‘riot’ to ‘uprising.’
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call