The growing number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is fundamentally reshaping the balance of power and the roles of NGOs in democratic governance in Japanese and Korean politics, but in distinctive ways. Korean advocacy NGOs influence policymaking by focusing on politics at the center, while Japanese NGOs achieve influence by focusing on local politics. Whereas Korean NGOs tend to be contentious and politicized, Japanese NGOs adopt more pragmatic and cooperative stances. What factors explain these significant differences in the character of NGOs and the patterns of their participation in democratic politics in Japan and Korea? This paper argues that the effects of the historical development of civil society are essential components to any explanation of the patterns of NGOs' relations with the government and the public and their organizational structure and strategies. Civic associations in both countries have both exploited and been empowered by developments in party politics, the public's receptiveness to NGOs, and state actors' attitudes toward NGOs. By comparing NGOs in Japan and Korea, this paper aims to enhance our understanding of the similarities and differences in both countries' civil societies, as well as of the factors that have led to these distinctive patterns of NGO politics.

How and when do people participate in sustained collective action via the courts? Previous research highlights group identity or resources and political opportunities but overlooks civil procedural rules’ effects beyond the courtroom. This article explores how rules regarding privacy shape individuals’ decisions about sustained participation. Fears of exposing one’s identity deter participation, especially in the context of public trials. Yet, a paired comparison of litigation by victims of hepatitis C-tainted blood products in Japan and Korea reveals that court-supervised privacy protections, which were available in Japan but not in Korea, facilitate plaintiffs’ participation inside and outside the courtroom. They ease plaintiff recruitment and enhance claimants’ credibility. Counterintuitively, they also let claimants strategically shed pseudonymity to send a costly signal about their commitment to the cause. Theorizing “pseudonymous participation” as an understudied mode of activism between full exposure and anonymity demonstrates that seemingly technical aspects of law have significant political consequences.

This article addresses the question of what gets transmitted in cross‐national diffusion and why. It does so by analyzing the spread of rights‐based activism from Japanese to South Korean leprosy (Hansen's disease) survivors in the 2000s. Previous scholarship would predict extensive diffusion of mobilizing frames and tactics, especially since Korean lawyers learned an effective legal mobilization template while working with Japanese lawyers to win compensation for Korean leprosy survivors mistreated by Japanese colonial authorities before 1945. Yet the form of subsequent activism by Korean leprosy survivors for redress from the Korean government differed from the original Japanese model. This case suggests the need for scope conditions on theories about isomorphism and the agency of brokers. In particular, it draws attention to how the structure of a country's public sphere—and especially its legal profession, news media, and activist sector—affects the feasibility of imported innovations related to activism and legal mobilization.

Scholars argue that litigation can have positive and negative “radiating” or indirect effects for social movements, irrespective of formal judicial decisions. They see litigation as a dynamic process with distinctive features yet nonetheless intertwined with advocacy in other forums. Litigation can indirectly shape collective identities, reframe debates, or provide political leverage. However, the mechanisms behind these radiating effects are poorly understood. Through an analysis of lawsuits and related activism by Korean survivors of Japanese actions in the first half of the twentieth century, this article disaggregates the mechanisms behind litigation's productive indirect effects. It theorizes and illustrates mechanisms such as attribution of similarity, brokerage, issue dramatization, political cover, and intergroup discussions. These mechanisms help us understand how litigants obtain litigation's indirect effects and thus also the broader impact of postwar compensation lawsuits in East Asia, despite few judicial victories. The article contributes non‐Western and transnational cases to scholarship on litigation's indirect effects.

We investigate cause lawyers’ roles in movements for the domestic adoption of international human rights norms. Social movements scholarship often assumes that lawyers will divert activism toward institutional tactics, while the sociolegal studies literature emphasizes that lawyers are active in diverse ways across venues. A paired comparison of antidiscrimination movements in South Korea and Japan reveals how critical junctures in regime history shape the tactical repertoires that cause lawyers bring to their interactions with movement actors, and thus also movement tactics. This research advances scholarship on professionals in social movements, cause lawyers as norm entrepreneurs, and legal mobilization in East Asia.