‘해결’ 전야에 4·3연구가 던져야 할 질문들 - 22대 국회 4·3특별법 개정안을 사례로

Questions for 4·3 Research on the Eve of ‘Resolution’ : Focusing on the Amendment of the 4.3 Special Act by the 22nd National Assembly

22대 국회의원 선거를 앞두고 다시 4·3특별법을 개정하려는 움직임이 본격화됐다. 선거 직후에는 제주에 연고를 둔 당선자들의 1호 법안이 4·3특별법 개정안으로 채택되고 22대 국회 시작과 함께 발의됐다. 이 논문의 목적은 갱신을 거듭하는 법률이 ‘완전한 해결’, ‘정의로운 해결’의 촉진 기제가 될 것이라는 점에서 세간의 평가와 입장을 같이하면서도, ‘해결’의 징후적 현상을 어떻게 관찰하고 기록하며 질문을 던져야 할지, 도래할 ‘해결’의 시대를 앞두고 가다듬어야 할 연구 질문을 고민하는 데 있다. 특히 22대 국회의원 선거를 전후하여 재등장한 의제들을 비판적으로 검토함으로써 그 과정에서 결여된 질문을 모색해 본다. 선거를 앞두고 고조된 4·3특별법 2조(정의) 개정은 ‘소요 사태’를 ‘봉기’로 수정하는 안을 골자로 한다. 그러나 ‘소요사태’와 함께 폭동론적 역사 관의 산물로 탄생한 ‘희생자’를 개정 목록에 포함하지 않는다는 점에서 ‘소요사태’를 ‘봉기’로 바꾸지 않았던 20, 21대 국회와 차별화된 기획으로 평가하기 어렵다.

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.’