Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Why did the “comfort women” movement globalize amid memory contestations? Using norm localization theory, this paper draws on interviews and fieldwork with advocacy actors to show how memory politics localizes global justice norms in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, prompting varied state responses.

Paper long abstract

Why and how did the “comfort women” redress movement evolve from a marginalized regional movement into a global justice movement amid persistent memory contestations? This paper addresses this question by applying Acharya’s (2004; 2011) concept of norm localization to the study of “comfort women” advocacy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Rather than treating the movement as a case of linear norm diffusion or normative convergence, it conceptualizes globalization as a process through which international norms related to global justice are reinterpreted and embedded within distinct local political and mnemonic contexts.

Empirically, the paper draws on field visits and qualitative interviews conducted at key advocacy museums and organizations, including the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace in Tokyo, the War and Women’s Human Rights Museum in Seoul, and the Ama Museum in Taipei, as well as interviews with affiliated foundations and local activists. These sites are examined as arenas of memory politics where international norms concerning women’s human rights, wartime sexual violence, and accountability for past injustice are negotiated and selectively adapted rather than uniformly adopted. The comparative analysis demonstrates significant variation across cases. In Japan, advocacy institutions localize global justice norms through oppositional memory practices that challenge state denial and nationalist resistance. In South Korea, redress claims are embedded within a strong victim-centered memory regime that amplifies survivor voices while limiting interpretive plurality. In Taiwan, norm localization intersects with postcolonial identity formation and regional positioning, producing a distinct framing of responsibility and historical justice. Across all cases, memory politics functions as a central mechanism through which international norms are localized, shaping how justice claims are articulated, contested, and institutionalized.

The paper further argues that these localized interpretations have political consequences. As the redress movement globalized through diverse local forms, it prompted varied forms of state engagement, including diplomatic responses, policy interventions, and attempts at restraint. By foregrounding norm localization, this study contributes to constructivist international relations scholarship by demonstrating how memory politics operates as a site of international norm negotiation and by explaining why transnationalisation generates sustained contestation rather than normative convergence in global justice movements.