business

Nippon Steel appeals South Korea court ruling on asset seizure

11 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

If South Korea seizes Japanese company assets then Japan should do the same to them. Time to move on South Korea you will lose more in the long term.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

The Koreans have nerves of steel

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If you did something bad to someone you should pay for it. That's my opinion, no excuses that it was already paid etc. until the last Korean that was forced to slavery during that time is still alive, Japan has to pay. This is my opinion. My grandma took survived II World War is still alive to this day, but stories she told me about what Germans did were terrible.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Japan argues the ruling violates international law because all claims for compensation arising from Japan's 1910-1945 colonization were settled under their 1965 diplomatic treaty.

The two governments agreed to make no more property and other claims against each other, nor allow further claims of their people against the other government. One could argue they don't even have the authority to do that to individual citizens. Its like your father getting together with your rapist's father and agreeing that no rape charges will be filed.

But even if I accepted that they have that authority, the treaty said nothing about individual claims against corporations for back pay nor damages either.

Why the hell can't Nippon Steel just pay the back wages plus interest it owes to four men it slaved anyway? I don't know how long they were slaved but lets say it was three years average (it was probably longer). The 84,150 dollars each amounts to 2,338 dollars a month which is a pretty standard wage. What the hell is wrong with these greedy people?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

The Korean government at the time was under significant pressure by the US to sign the treaty, which did not mention private citizens or corporations, it only indemnified the Japanese government against claims, in exchange for payments not called "reparations". The US was already moving troops into both countries for its illegal military action in Vietnam, and did not want to have to deal with fighting among its "allies".

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Unlike the comfort women case which was "emerging" more recently as an unsettled issue, the so called forced Korean labour was already one of the primary agenda under negotiations for normalisng the bilateral relations in 1965. Korea's recent move could risk nullifying the Basic Treaty.

In case of a possible treaty nullification, there may arise another issue so far rarely pointed out: Should Korea's claim on individual rights outweighing international agreement/framework be allowed, the Japanese individuals/former expats/private entities could also demand compensations for their assets left in the Korean Peninsula upon the war end, and seized by local Korean authorities. The total number of cases and monetary value are far larger than those of Nippon Steel assets on hold. Back in 1965 the Japanese officials suppressed and renounced such a claim in order to conclude the treaty. True, the postwar framework seems to be unsatisfactory, yet for both sides.

The international agreement should outweigh local laws or verdict, and individual claims should be taken care of by their home government.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Vanessa CarlisleToday  09:50 am JST

But even if I accepted that they have that authority, the treaty said nothing about individual claims against corporations for back pay nor damages either.

Why the hell can't Nippon Steel just pay the back wages plus interest it owes

When two or more sovereign nations sign a Treaty, the purpose is to restore or maintain relations. The signatories, being the legal representatives of the nations commit every individual, every corporation, every organization in their nations to the terms of the Treaty. Stop and think for a moment, the number of wars and conflicts humans have had in just the past two centuries. Now imagine every individual who had a claim for losses or damages bringing it to court. The entire world's courts and judicial systems would be backlogged for a thousand years. This is why nations negotiate and sign Treaties in the first place. It does not matter whether the 1965 Treaty makes or doesn't make any reference to individuals. The government of the Republic of Korea represented them on signing IF they were South Korean nationals.

Nippon Steel is not bound to be making a payment when the matter is covered by the 1965 Treaty. The South Korean government allowed the SK Court to proceed with this case in violation of the 1965 Treaty. Furthermore they have refused to accept arbitration as stipulated in Article 5 of the Treaty. Under such circumstances, Nippon Steel, which incidentally did not exist at the time, can not set a precedent by succumbing to South Korea's ridiculous action.

The proper course of action would be adjudication by the International Court of Justice, to which Japan is bound to recognize and abide by rulings. However, South Korea refuses to accept ICJ jurisdiction, just as it has refused over the Liancourt Rocks THREE times. Effectively admitting that it has no legal case.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I wonder how much CCP money landed in the laps of the S.Koreans?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is basically a domestic legal issue, which neither Korean nor Japanese government are allowed to meddle in. Both Japanese and Korean government know it very well.

"そのため、個人の請求権は日韓請求権・経済協力協定や国内法で消滅したわけではありません。"

https://www.taro.org/2018/11/%E6%97%A5%E9%9F%93%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82%E6%A8%A9%E3%83%BB%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A.php

A full explanation by Japanese legal experts to enlighten brainwashed naive Japanese:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Seek and Liquidate their assets according to local Laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's their own fault for not recognizing the changes and doing direct business there hence jobs not kept in Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites