Article

I became a target of a formal complaint for participating in President Moon Jae-in’s Four Major Rivers Investigation and Evaluation Planning Committee’s decision to restore the Geum and Yeongsan rivers.** When I heard that the prosecutors dismissed our case for lack of evidence, I searched my case number on the Criminal Justice Portal. When I saw the result come up I let out a chortle. Due to this complaint, the rigorous deliberations by subject matter experts and environmental activists were reduced to a matter of ‘obstruction of commercial business’ under the official records. But also I found myself feeling a sense of relief and freedom. Until the dismissal, I had carried an irrational yet real possibility that at any given moment I could be ‘searched and seized’ by the prosecutors whilst under such an accusation for almost three years. This complaint is only one small incident against a broader set of conflicts surrounding the Four Major Rivers Project. Over fifteen years ago, the Four Major Rivers Project was Lee Myung-bak’s administration’s (2008-13) flagship nation building project, even mobilising the National Intelligence Service to crack down criticisms expressed by civil society groups and media. Why was Lee so determined to develop rivers to that extent? To restore our rivers, we have to dig deeper into the drivers behind Lee’s agenda.

From the Ryukyu Kingdom to Brazil, this story traces Okinawa’s journey of survival, migration, and identity. Through colonialism, war, and diaspora, Okinawan communities preserved their culture and resilience across generations.

The discourse surrounding artificial intelligence inevitably raises fundamental questions of human rights and democracy: whose lives are affected, in what ways, and who is allowed to participate in the policy decisions responding to those impacts. This perspective lies at the core of the concerns raised by Yeo-kyeong Chang, who argues that AI policy operating within broader structures of labor, care, welfare, public safety, climate, and social power should be understood not merely as a matter of industrial policy, but first and foremost as a matter of social policy tied to citizens’ rights and social justice.

As the government and industry accelerate the AI race, civil society groups continue to warn about privacy violations, labor control, the spread of surveillance technologies, and broader human rights concerns. Yet the digital justice movement has not yet grown into a broad-based social movement. Jang Yeo-kyung, Executive Director of the Institute for Digital Rights(IDR), warns that although the harms may still appear fragmented, the rights of citizens and the principles of democracy are already being put to the test.  

As generative AI rapidly expands and discourse surrounding an “AI Basic Society” and the ambition to become one of the world’s “Top3 AI Powers” intensifies, calls are growing in South Korea for technology to be understood from more multidimensional perspectives. We spoke with Yeo-kyeong Chang, Executive Director of the institute, about the evolution of Korea’s information rights movement, the demands civil society is raising from the perspective of digital justice in the age of artificial intelligence, and its perspective on the governance shaping AI policymaking. 

What happens when rivers built for development begin to collapse? This story follows Korea’s journey from mega-dams and the Four Major Rivers Project to a new vision of river restoration.

From September 2025 to January 2026, the LGBTQ+ political participation project RUN/OUT was conducted over four sessions, bringing together a total of 128 participants. Who took part in this project, and how do they perceive political participation? As the pilot program came to a close, we conducted a short survey. Drawing on the survey results and the RUN/OUT experience, we take an exploratory approach to examining how perceptions of LGBTQ+ politics are formed.

The US is largely falling away as a partner, China is binding the Global South closer. To help shape tomorrow’s world order, Europe needs new, credible platforms for climate, development, and fair trade rules – together with the emerging middle powers.

With the violation of international law in Venezuela by the US, the hegemonic ambitions of the Trump administration are impossible to ignore. The EU’s hesitant response has weakened the Union at a crucial moment. Where should Europe go from here?