Proving Disappearance : A Comparative Study of the Jeju 4.3 and Taiwan 2.28 Incidents

This paper comparatively analyzes the processes through which individuals who went missing in connection with the Taiwan 2.28 Incident and the Jeju 4.3 Incident have come to be legally and institutionally recognized as “victims” within the framework of transitional justice. It focuses on how family census records (jejŏk deungbon) compiled around the time of disappearance are mobilized in the review process, and to what extent death entries are considered credible and evidentially significant. The paper also examines how statements submitted by bereaved family members are verified, and how truths that elude written documentation are reconstructed. In doing so, it critically investigates how the category of “disappearance” is reevaluated in both cases. In each context, official recognition is based on an application system. Due to the lack of material evidence and prolonged uncertainty, disappearance cases rely heavily on family members’ memories and oral testimonies. However, in the 2.28 case, applications are assessed primarily through the lens of family register records, whereas in the 4.3 case, such records are treated as historically incomplete, and their evidentiary weight is scrutinized accordingly. As a result, a performative process emerges in which applicants and reviewers work to fill gaps, reconcile contradictions, and trace the truth across fragmented and conflicting records.