Introduction

During World War II, thousands of women and girls, primarily from Korea, were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military.^[2] Subjected to repeated sexual violence and immense physical and psychological trauma, these women became known as the “comfort women.”^[3] Despite decades of advocacy and less than ten living survivors, justice remains elusive and unattained. This article seeks to answer: What is the most effective framework for achieving justice for Korean comfort women? I will argue that a victim-centred approach to justice is the most constructive model for addressing this injustice. Unlike current state-centred strategies that fail to prioritise survivors, the victim-centred model positions their needs and conceptions of justice as the sole objective. To develop this argument, I will first critique the failures of state-centred approaches as having prioritised diplomacy over justice for survivors. Next, I will define the victim-centred approach and apply it to the comfort women issue by analysing survivor testimonies to identify their components of justice: a formal apology, education reform, meaningful reparations, and commemoration. I will conclude by addressing the limitations of the victim-centred model and reframe them as opportunities to preserve the survivors’ legacies and ensure their voices remain central, even in their absence.

Background

Between 1931 and 1945, an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 women and girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military.^[4] The victims were from various nations, including China, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, the Netherlands, with the majority originating from Korea.^[5] In most instances, the women were either kidnapped by the Japanese army or deceived with false promises of job opportunities as nurses or factory workers.^[6] Testimonies hold that the girls, as young as eleven years old, were raped up to 40 to 50 times per day.^[7] Sexually transmitted diseases, forced abortions, sterilizations, torture, physical abuse, and starvation resulted in the deaths of an estimated 75 percent of the women during th

Between 1931 and 1945, an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 women and girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military.^[4] The victims were from various nations, including China, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, the Netherlands, with the majority originating from Korea.^[5] In most instances, the women were either kidnapped by the Japanese army or deceived with false promises of job opportunities as nurses or factory workers.^[6] Testimonies hold that the girls, as young as eleven years old, were raped up to 40 to 50 times per day.^[7] Sexually transmitted diseases, forced abortions, sterilizations, torture, physical abuse, and starvation resulted in the deaths of an estimated 75 percent of the women during their confinement.^[8] Besides the widespread psychological trauma from the atrocity, many survivors were sterile due to the damage to their reproductive organs and the repeated injections of Salvarsan.^[9]

Deep-rooted societal stigma forced survivors to remain silent for decades.^[10] This led to the injustice being first publicly addressed almost fifty years after the end of World War II. In 1991, Kim Hak-sun was the first Korean woman to testify publicly about her experience.^[11] Her testimony prompted many more survivors to come forward with their stories and resulted in a global movement for justice.^[12]

Attempts at Justice

Following global outrage at the Imperial Japanese Army’s war crime, the Japanese government issued the Kono Statement in 1993.^[13] The Statement acknowledged the coercion involved in the recruitment of women but failed to deliver a formal apology and any form of reparations for victims.^[14] The failure of the Kono Statement resulted in the establishment of the Asian Women’s Fund to provide survivors with financial support.^[15] While seven registered Korean survivors accepted payments from the fund, most rejected the attempt.^[16] They condemned the fund for being privately sourced and reframing the payments as humanitarian aid rather than reparations tied to legal responsibility.^[17] The continued failure of attempts at justice resulted in the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal in 2000. Driven by international attention, the tribunal heard testimonies from Korean, Chinese, Dutch and Filipino survivors.^[18] The tribunal found Japanese leaders guilty of crimes against humanity for their role in establishing the comfort women system.^[19] Nonetheless, the judgments were symbolic and lacked legal enforceability.^[20]

The most controversial attempt at resolution was the 2015 agreement between the Japanese and South Korean governments.^[21] The Japanese government offered a monetary fund of 1 billion yen to be dispersed through a foundation established by the Korean government and expressed “deep remorse” for the suffering of the comfort women.^[22] The agreement was declared “final and irreversible,” with both governments agreeing to refrain from discussing the issue.^[23] A condition of the agreement was the removal of the Comfort Woman statue from the front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul, which has served as a significant symbol of the movement.^[24] The deal faced immediate criticism from survivors as it lacked consultation during negotiations and failed to meet their demands for direct reparations and an unequivocal apology.^[25] Survivors also rejected the agreement’s failure to address Japan’s denialism and its lack of commitment to incorporating the injustice into Japanese school curricula.^[26] The most contentious aspect of the agreement was the “irreversible” clause, which victims viewed as a diplomatic manoeuvre to suppress further discussion rather than a genuine effort to achieve justice.^[27] The agreement was ultimately annulled in 2019 due to widespread boycotts of Japanese products in South Korea and the dissolution of the foundation by the Korean government.^[28]

Over the past three decades, the Japanese government has failed to provide meaningful justice for survivors, often denying responsibility and the existence of comfort women. This lack of accountability has framed the government’s actions as acts of goodwill rather than legal obligations to victims.^[29] The demands of survivors, including acknowledgment of their suffering, a formal apology, and reparations that explicitly admit the Japanese government’s involvement in the atrocities, remain unmet. With only nine registered Korean survivors alive as of May 2023, the urgency to achieve justice has never been greater.^[30]

Shortcomings of State-Centered Approaches

Besides the evident failure of the Japanese government to provide justice for survivors, the South Korean government has also failed to advocate for the needs of the victims. The Korean government’s shortcomings were particularly highlighted by the confirmation of the 2015 agreement before consulting with survivors.^[31] Rather than championing the objectives of victims, the government pursued financial settlements that survivors viewed as secondary to other demands. The Korean government’s acceptance of the “final and irreversible” clause further demonstrates their failure to put justice for victims over maintaining diplomacy with the Japanese government.

The state-centred approach, where a nation’s government is deemed the authority to represent victims from its nation, has failed in the context of Korean survivors, eroding trust among them. Many of the women feel abandoned by a system focusing on political expediency rather than addressing their suffering.^[32] Considering that grassroots organisations more suited to support victims have been sidelined, survivors strongly question the Korean government’s competency in attaining justice for them.^[33] In response to the 2015 agreement, Bok-Dong Kim, a survivor, directly critiqued the Korean government, explaining that “…without even saying a word to us, our previous administration just reached a deal on their own and decided to get rid of the Comfort Women statue. How can that be? What kind of bastards would reach such a one-sided deal?”^[34]

Defining “Victim-Centered Justice”

Victim-centred justice marks a shift from the failures of state-centred strategies by placing the needs and agency of survivors at the forefront of justice processes. Unlike other justice-seeking approaches that often prioritise institutional goals or offender rehabilitation, I conceptualise this framework as ensuring justice is defined and driven by those who have endured harm. In practice, victim-centred approaches require direct consultation and input from victims instead of a separate actor determining justice for them. Since most survivors of the injustice are no longer alive, this consultation can occur through the well-documented testimonies of the women as guidelines for appropriate justice. The victim-centred model is founded on Suzuki’s argument that empowering victims to articulate their needs and share their experiences transforms justice from a punitive process to one centred on recovery.^[35] This objective is supported by Wemmers et al.’s emphasis on addressing the emotional and psychological impacts of victimisation by affirming the survivor’s dignity and autonomy.^[36] Beyond obtaining appropriate justice, the victim-centred model creates processes that validate survivors’ experiences and respect their agency. Including the victims in all stages of decision-making and justice-seeking ensures justice is ultimately accountable to those it seeks to serve.

One may critique the victim-centred approach as being the same as traditional restorative justice frameworks, where the victim is a stakeholder in reaching appropriate outcomes. The primary difference with a victim-centred approach is its sole focus on survivors. The strict focus on victims as a form of justice contrasts restorative frameworks that aim to balance the interests of victims, offenders, and the broader community.^[37] For Korean “comfort women,” whose suffering was facilitated by state-sponsored exploitation, restorative mediation processes are both impractical and inappropriate. A victim-centred approach thereby minimizes the offender’s agency in shaping justice outcomes, positioning them solely as a party responsible for acknowledging harm and fulfilling the demands of survivors.

Applying a Victim-Centred Approach to the Comfort Women Issue

Having established the victim-centred approach as an independent justice-seeking framework, I will apply this model to the context of Korean comfort women. This framework demonstrates what justice entails for survivors and ensures that all efforts align with their conception of justice. To do this, I will consult a variety of survivor testimonies to identify common themes and priorities across their accounts.

Formal Apology

The unanimous demand across all testimonies was for the Japanese government and the Emperor of Japan to issue a formal apology to the victims. The party offering the apology holds particular significance in this context, as the comfort women system was created and maintained by the Imperial Japanese Army under the authority of the Emperor of Japan. Kim Bok-Dong demanded an explicit admission of wrongdoing and a commitment to correcting historical narratives, explaining that “[t]hey should say, ‘what we did was completely wrong, and we’ll correct our history textbooks.”^[38] Lee similarly argued for a formal apology that meets international legal standards, stressing that “[i]t’s not about the money… An apology is what we requested for 30 years.”^[39] Central to the women’s conception of a formal apology is the clear delineation and acknowledgement of the harm inflicted on them for the entirety of their lives.

Kim Haksoon stressed the importance of the apology coming from the Emperor of Japan, arguing that she “[doesn’t] need any apologies from anyone else from Japan, but from only one person, the king of Japan” as “an apology from anyone else doesn’t mean anything.”^[40] Therefore, there are four components to an appropriate apology: an explicit acknowledgment of wrongdoing, both during the injustice and throughout the entirety of the victims’ lives; an apology issued directly by the Emperor of Japan to reflect accountability of the offender; a commitment to correcting historical narratives; and an apology offered unconditionally, without any pretext or limitations.

When understanding apologies for injustices of this severity, Karn explains that they must address the power imbalances that perpetuate historical injustices.^[41] By thoroughly addressing past and ongoing harm, Karn asserts that it is only then that apologies do not serve as political tools but as genuine efforts to repair harm.^[42] This contrasts the existing apologies provided by the Japanese government, as they were offered solely alongside conditions that sought to better their diplomatic ties with South Korea, such as requiring the removal of the Comfort Woman statue. Similarly, Slocum et al. argue that an apology must explicitly acknowledge wrongdoing and expressions of regret that culminate in a commitment to meaningful change.^[43] Without these components, an apology is dismissive of the harm inflicted​.

Education

Education on the injustices faced by Korean “comfort women” is fundamental to survivors’ visions of justice. The call for educational reform is particularly significant given the misrepresentation of the injustice in Japanese textbooks, which have omitted the comfort women issue entirely or falsely portrayed them as paid prostitutes.^[44] Kim Bok-Dong stressed that other than Japan admitting “what we did was completely wrong,” they must revise their educational materials accordingly.^[45] Recent testimonies have increasingly highlighted education as a top priority as survivors view education as their legacy and a means to prevent future injustices. When explaining education as a form of justice, Sriprakash writes of education’s important role in actively challenging structures of denial and preventing historical erasure.^[46] Thereby, the women’s insistence on education on the injustice is essential due to its dismissal of the denialism found in the Japanese education system that claims victims became comfort women “at their own wills.”^[47]

Reparations

Reparations are also important in survivors’ understanding of what constitutes meaningful justice. Survivors have consistently rejected private funds or consolation payments as they view them as attempts to trivialise their suffering and avoid legal responsibility.^[48] Kim Haksoon described such payments as “token money” and insisted that reparations must come directly from the Japanese government to carry genuine meaning.^[49]

Reparations, in this sense, are not solely about financial compensation but represent a formal and symbolic recognition of the state’s culpability and an effort to redress the harm inflicted.

In examining different reparation frameworks, Buti discusses the ‘Van Boven-Bassiouni principles’ that synthesise reparations into four components: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.^[50] These principles provide a comprehensive framework for addressing past injustices.^[51]

Initially, the survivors’ testimonies aligned with these principles in their emphasis on compensation and guarantees of non-repetition. However, as survivors have aged and many have passed, their focus has generally shifted toward forms of justice that carry lasting value beyond material compensation. Kim Bok-Dong reflected this shift, explaining that “if [she] ever got money from the Japanese government…[she] was going to pay for the education of the students who can’t afford to do so.”^[52] Her testimony demonstrates that, for some, reparations have taken on a strictly symbolic meaning that is linked to societal benefit rather than individual restitution. In contrast, survivors like Kim Haksoon continue to stress the importance of reparations as a direct acknowledgment of wrongdoing.^[53] This divergence in perspectives demonstrates how reparations remain significant but are less central to the survivors’ evolving conception of justice. While reparations may no longer be universally prioritised, the testimonies of the women infer that they still hold immense value when framed as a means of ensuring accountability.

Limitations to a Victim-Centred Model

A critique of the victim-centred model is the argument that its purpose fails given the temporal reality of the issue. As the few remaining survivors pass away, one may argue that there is little to no opportunity to center their voices directly in the justice process. Survivors like Lee Ok-seon have lamented that the Japanese government appears to be “waiting for all the grandmothers to pass away” and get rid of the women as stakeholders in attaining justice.^[57] This critique is valid, as the declining number of survivors inherently limits direct consultation. However, the comfort women issue is unique in its wealth of testimonies that successfully capture survivors’ visions for justice and allow the model to function posthumously. Nonetheless, future research must examine how the model can be adapted to address injustices without recorded testimonies or living victims to ensure its applicability to other contexts.

Another major limitation lies in the Japanese government’s refusal to revisit the 2015 agreement, which it considers “final and irreversible.”^[58] One might criticise that although victims’ voices are the sole stakeholder determining justice objectives in the victim-centred model, many actions rely on compliance from the offending party. In the context of comfort women, without the Japanese government’s apology, meaningful reparations and reconciliation in history textbooks, one may argue that the framework is meaningless as the women’s demands remain unfulfilled.

Reframing Limitations as Opportunities

Despite the limitations, I argue that a victim-centred approach is still the most powerful framework for addressing injustices like the comfort women issue in meaningful and lasting ways. While full accountability from the Japanese government may remain unlikely, the South Korean government has significant opportunities to partially fulfill survivors’ idea of justice. For instance, through the victim-centred approach, it was established that survivors greatly worry that their stories will be erased from public memory. To mitigate this concern, the South Korean government can codify the statue outside the Japanese embassy as a protected national symbol. The assurance that their legacies will never be removed from the public sphere is a monumental step towards achieving the commemoration component of the survivor’s conception of justice.

Concerning the critique that the victim-centred model may also fail to attain justice as envisioned by survivors, I argue that it remains the most ethical and dignified approach. Despite the shared challenges faced by all justice models due to Japan’s lack of involvement, this model uniquely prioritizes victims in the justice-seeking process. For many survivors, sharing their traumatic experiences was a monumental act of bravery amid the significant stigma of rape in Korean culture. Even if justice is not achieved within their lifetimes, this framework assures survivors by incorporating their perspectives into future efforts and affirms that their courage in sharing their stories was not in vain. Notably, the model also ensures that after survivors pass, their conception of justice remains central and prevents false assumptions by external parties such as the Japanese or South Korean governments. By grounding justice efforts in the lived realities of the survivors and holding that definition as paramount, the victim-centred model avoids the pitfalls of imposing external interpretations of what justice should entail. Therefore, although the victim-centred approach fails to guarantee justice to women like all other models, I argue that its emphasis on survivor agency makes it the most ethical framework for addressing the issue of comfort women.

Concluding Remarks & Suggestions for Future Research

This article argued that a victim-centred approach to justice, which places survivors’ voices at the forefront, is the most effective framework for addressing the injustice suffered by Korean “comfort women.” Through critiquing the shortcomings of state-centred approaches, defining the victim-centred model, and analysing survivor testimonies, I identified the components of justice as articulated by victims: formal apologies, educational reforms, sincere reparations, and public commemoration. While this model demonstrates strength in addressing the comfort women issue, its broader applicability invites further exploration. Future research should focus on operationalizing the framework in practical settings by examining the logistics of victim consultation, including the appropriate party that funds this process and how it may operate in posthumous contexts. Additionally, this framework must consider contexts involving larger or more diverse victim groups, where differing perspectives may complicate the consensus necessary for this approach. Such efforts would refine the victim-centred model and expand its potential to address other injustices effectively and ethically.

Ballad of the Traveling Entertainer
By: Kim Sun-deok (lines 1-12)
“Oh, we’ve got to have fun while we can.

August fifteenth was our land’s liberation day

Every house flew the flag; on every street people shouting ‘ten thousand years, hooray!

Hooray, hooray! Hooray for independence, our land is free!

Don’t trust the Americans or be suckered by the Soviets;

Hasten the reunion of our North and South, build up our land—I want to live for a trillion years!’

‘I want to live for a trillion years!’

Oh, we’ve got to have fun while we can.

On a motionless night, while everyone else is asleep, only I sit up alone.

Things that have happened in the past spread out before me, and today I think of my grief.

A giant thing higher than the mountains; beyond the waters, a great sea.

‘You didn’t understand any of that, did you…!?’” ^[59]

This poem conveys Kim’s experience as a survivor of the comfort women injustice.

---

Artin Khiabani is a Guest Author, who is a third-year undergraduate student at the University of Toronto, studying Ethics, Society & Law, Sociology, and Diaspora & Transnational Studies. His research examines how immigrants and diasporic communities engage with legal and justice systems, with a particular focus on transnational processes and international frameworks of accountability.

---

Footnotes

1. Sun-deok Kim, Taken Away, Drawing, 2018, Flower Unbloomed, Korea, Republic of. ↑
2. Jeewon Lee et al., “Psychiatric Sequelae of Former ‘Comfort Women,’ Survivors of the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery During World War II,” Psychiatry Investigation 15, no. 4 (April 17, 2018): 336, https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.11.08.2. ↑
3. Ibid., 336–37. ↑
4. Ibid., 336. ↑
5. Pyong Gap Min, “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class,” Gender & Society 17, no. 6 (December 1, 2003): 938, https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243203257584. ↑
6. Lee et al., “Psychiatric Sequelae of Former ‘Comfort Women,’ Survivors of the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery During World War II,” 336–37. ↑
7. CNN, “Former ‘comfort Woman’ Recalls Horrors,” December 30, 2015, 00:17-00:30, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ty44VQl7pQ. ↑
8. Lee et al., “Psychiatric Sequelae of Former ‘Comfort Women,’ Survivors of the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery During World War II,” 336–37. ↑
9. Min, “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class,” 941; Lee et al., “Psychiatric Sequelae of Former ‘Comfort Women,’ Survivors of the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery During World War II,” 336–37. ↑
10. Ibid. ↑
11. Min, “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class,” 942. ↑
12. Ibid. ↑
13. Linny Kit Tong Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” Scholarship Archive, May 16, 2024, 24, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/llm_essays_theses/14. ↑
14. Ibid., 24–26. ↑
15. Min, “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class,” 946. ↑
16. Ibid. ↑
17. Ibid., 946–47. ↑
18. Arirang TV, “[Arirang Special] the Waning Light: ‘Comfort Women’ _ Full Episode,” January 24, 2019, 08:23–10:44, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjtjdB8KuEg. ↑
19. Ibid. ↑
20. Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” 62. ↑
21. Ibid., 31–32. ↑
22. Seunghyun Nam, “Court Decisions in the Republic of Korea on Japan’s Accountability for Sexual Slavery of the Comfort Women,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 20, no. 2 (January 25, 2022): 472, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac007. ↑
23. Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” 32. ↑
24. Ibid., 47. ↑
25. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” October 28, 2018, 13:02–14:57, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsT97ax_Xb0. ↑
26. Ibid., 14:32–15:40. ↑
27. Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” 11; Min, “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class,” 944. ↑
28. Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” 45. ↑
29. Ibid., 12. ↑
30. Byung-chan Ko, “Another Death Leaves Only 9 Surviving Korean ‘Comfort Women,’” Hankyoreh, May 3, 2023, https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1090418.html. ↑
31. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 13:17–14:22. ↑
32. Ibid., 12:25–14:00. ↑
33. Ibid., 13:17–14:22. ↑
34. Ibid., 13:35–15:00. ↑
35. Masahiro Suzuki, “Victim Recovery in Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Framework,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 50, no. 12 (October 18, 2023): 16–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206828. ↑
36. Jo-Anne Wemmers, Isabelle Parent, and Marika Lachance Quirion, “Restoring Victims’ Confidence: Victim-centred Restorative Practices,” International Review of Victimology 29, no. 3 (October 19, 2022): 469, https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221128830. ↑
37. Suzuki, “Victim Recovery in Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Framework,” 4. ↑
38. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 14:30–15:02. ↑
39. AJ+, “92-Year-Old ‘Comfort Woman’ Demands Justice From Japan,” February 17, 2021, 01:37–01:50, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSO5IND6I8w. ↑
40. 뉴스타파 Newstapa, “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” March 8, 2016, 10:45–12:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAKT6lZPT4E. ↑
41. Alexander Karn, “Political Apologies for Historical Injustices: Engaging With Questions of Power, Utility, and Impact,” Global Studies Quarterly 2, no. 4 (September 22, 2022): 8, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksac076. ↑
42. Ibid., 9. ↑
43. Debra Slocum, Alfred Allan, and Maria M. Allan, “An Emerging Theory of Apology,” Australian Journal of Psychology 63, no. 2 (March 16, 2011): 88–89, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00013.x. ↑
44. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 14:32–15:40. ↑
45. Ibid., 15:22–16:07. ↑
46. Arathi Sriprakash, “Reparations: Theorising Just Futures of Education,” Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 44, no. 5 (November 15, 2022): 786, https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2022.2144141. ↑
47. 뉴스타파 Newstapa, “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” 07:32–07:45. ↑
48. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 11:15–12:05; 뉴스타파 Newstapa, “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” 12:44–13:57. ↑
49. 뉴스타파 Newstapa, “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” 12:44–13:57. ↑
50. Antonio Buti, “The Notion of Reparations as a Restorative Justice Measure,” in Springer eBooks, 2009, 195, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68572-2_10. ↑
51. Ibid. ↑
52. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 15:36–16:00. ↑
53. 뉴스타파 Newstapa, “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” 22:35–22:59. ↑
54. Asian Boss, “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” 13:02–13:57. ↑
55. AJ+, “92-Year-Old ‘Comfort Woman’ Demands Justice From Japan,” 0:25–0:44. ↑
56. Duncan Light and Craig Young, “Public Memory, Commemoration, and Transitional Justice: Reconfiguring the Past in Public Space,” in Cambridge University Press eBooks, 2015, 233, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107588516.017. ↑
57. Ma Hazel Joy Faco, “2019 Wednesday Protest and Interview With Lee Ok Seon,” July 11, 2020, 02:22–02:44, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ_sZ4aXapc. ↑
58. Ng, “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond,” 32. ↑
59. Sun-deok Kim, “Ballad of the Traveling Entertainer,” Museum of Comfort Women, February 20, 2019, https://trostfrauen.museum/en/face-to-face/kim-sun-deok. ↑

Bibliography

AJ+. “92-Year-Old ‘Comfort Woman’ Demands Justice From Japan,” February 17, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSO5IND6I8w.

Arirang TV. “[Arirang Special] the Waning Light: ‘Comfort Women’ _ Full Episode,” January 24, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjtjdB8KuEg.

Asian Boss. “Life as a ‘Comfort Woman’: Story of Kim Bok-Dong | STAY CURIOUS #9,” October 28, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsT97ax_Xb0.

Buti, Antonio. “The Notion of Reparations as a Restorative Justice Measure.” In Springer eBooks, 191–206, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68572-2_10.

Chun, Jahyun. “Enforced Reconciliation Without Justice: The Absence of Procedural, Retributive, and Restorative Justice in the ‘Comfort Women’ Agreement of 2015.” Asian Journal of Social Science 49, no. 2 (June 1, 2021): 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajss.2020.09.001.

CNN. “Former ‘comfort Woman’ Recalls Horrors,” December 30, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ty44VQl7pQ.

Karn, Alexander. “Political Apologies for Historical Injustices: Engaging With Questions of Power, Utility, and Impact.” Global Studies Quarterly 2, no. 4 (September 22, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksac076.

Kim, Sun-deok. “Ballad of the Traveling Entertainer.” Museum of Comfort Women, February 20, 2019. https://trostfrauen.museum/en/face-to-face/kim-sun-deok.

Kim, Sun-deok. Taken Away, 2018, Drawing, 2018, Flower Unbloomed, Korea, Republic of.

Ko, Byung-chan. “Another Death Leaves Only 9 Surviving Korean ‘Comfort Women.’” Hankyoreh, May 3, 2023. https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1090418.html.

Lee, Jeewon, Young-Sook Kwak, Yoon-Jung Kim, Eun-Ji Kim, E Jin Park, Yunmi Shin, Bun-Hee Lee, et al. “Psychiatric Sequelae of Former ‘Comfort Women,’ Survivors of the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery During World War II.” Psychiatry Investigation 15, no. 4 (April 17, 2018): 336–43. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.11.08.2.

Light, Duncan, and Craig Young. “Public Memory, Commemoration, and Transitional Justice: Reconfiguring the Past in Public Space.” In Cambridge University Press eBooks, 233–51, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107588516.017.

Ma Hazel Joy Faco. “2019 Wednesday Protest and Interview With Lee Ok Seon,” July 11, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ_sZ4aXapc.

Min, Pyong Gap. “Korean ‘Comfort Women’: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class.” Gender & Society 17, no. 6 (December 1, 2003): 938–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243203257584.

Nam, Seunghyun. “Court Decisions in the Republic of Korea on Japan’s Accountability for Sexual Slavery of the Comfort Women.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 20, no. 2 (January 25, 2022): 459–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac007.

뉴스타파 Newstapa. “[ENG SUB] MY Wish is…(Newstapa),” March 8, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAKT6lZPT4E.

Ng, Linny Kit Tong. “A Legal Herstory of WWII ‘Comfort Women’ — Chapters: Past, Present, and Beyond.” Scholarship Archive, May 16, 2024. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/llm_essays_theses/14.

Slocum, Debra, Alfred Allan, and Maria M. Allan. “An Emerging Theory of Apology.” Australian Journal of Psychology 63, no. 2 (March 16, 2011): 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00013.x.

Sriprakash, Arathi. “Reparations: Theorising Just Futures of Education.” Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 44, no. 5 (November 15, 2022): 782–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2022.2144141.

Suzuki, Masahiro. “Victim Recovery in Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Framework.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 50, no. 12 (October 18, 2023): 1893–1908. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206828.

Wemmers, Jo-Anne, Isabelle Parent, and Marika Lachance Quirion. “Restoring Victims’ Confidence: Victim-centred Restorative Practices.” International Review of Victimology 29, no. 3 (October 19, 2022): 466–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221128830.