S Korea considers extraditing Chinese man to Japan

This could get very interesting. (Popcorn time....)

Well it can be argued that Japan has right of jurisdiction since the embassy is considered soverign Japanese territory but the crime also took place in Korea so either country would have a right to tri and convict him. China has no right of jurisdiction just because the perpetrator is Chinese. Japan will probably just let him go anyway so as not worsen relations with china so it's probably better for everyone if the Korean courts handle this.

Aftrer trail and sentencing in japan, he will will expulsion back to China and he will be 'decorated and honoured' as hero!

Although it was mentioned that he is a Chinese but there was no indication whether he is now a Korean citizen or still a Chinese citizen or could hold dual citizenship. He did claim that his late maternal grandmother was Korean, there might be a possibility that he could be Korean citizen as well. If he dual citizen the case could get interesting.

If there is an extraditing treaty between Japan and South Korea and if is proven that he had attacked Japanese soverign territory then South Korea has no choice but to send him to Japan unless SK does it out of spite.

hmmm. It can cause some confusion in Japan.

Ok so when someone from another country attacks another country's embassy or consulate without actually entering the grounds they are presumed to be held culpable in said country's judicial system?

The logic behind the extradition is missing here, the guy committed a crime in SK not in Japan, he should be tried and if found guilty, imprisoned in SK.

If he is extradited to Japan there is potential here of a can of worms being opened up that nobody really wants to consider. Another thing SK needs to seriously consider is that the guy is already serving a prison term for the crime, he should not have to face a trial again for the same offense in another country.

This is purely politics at play, and SK is looking to smooth things over with Japan and this guy is a pawn, nothing more nothing less.

crime in sk, trial and sentencing in sk...anything else is just shenanigans

The idea that a country's embassy is actually part of its territory is a popular myth. Look at the Assange case in London; the only thing stopping the police entering the Ecuadorean embassy is self-restraint on the part of the UK government, not any "territorial rights" issue.

The Japanese want this guy extradited because of what he allegedly did at Yasukuni. Nothing else.

I don´t get the logic. Even if the Japanese embassy is Japanese territory -- he was not inside, he attacked it from outside, i.e. from Korean territory. So since the crime was committed in Korea, it seems to me that clearly the Korean courts have to deal with him?

10 months isnot the real sentence. Remember that he said that he was in Japan also. He could get like 10 years or more

The Chinese man accused of committing an unlawful act against the Japanese embassy in Seoul, South Korea can be tried only in a court of law in South Korea. Under the circumstances Japan is demanding extradition of the accused and the South Koreans are working on how to go about it - if they do extradite it will be treated as an illegal act - An accused can only be tried in a country where crime has been committed and not anywhere else - should they go ahead with this, than we will have so many other countries demanding the same facilities specially the USA - imagine what would happen if the USA demands that Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan extradite all protesters who periodically attack the US embassies in their respective countries so that they stand trial in the USA....America would soon be flooded with such people who'd be happy to go to the USA even if it means living in a jail cell for a few days, months or years -

Japan should have faith in the South Korean justice and let them handle the matter according to the law of the land and if the verdict is not satisfactory for Japan they can always appeal and send a Japanese panel of experts....

FF's sake, read the article, people.

Liu also claimed responsibility for an arson attack which caused minor damage at Japan’s controversial Yasukuni shrine last December.

That's why the Japanese want him extradited. Nothing to do with the embassy attack (which is Korean territory, not Japanese, as the urban myth would have it).

WilliB has a point, the act was committed outside the Japanese embassy on Korean soil. Neither Japan nor China allows dual citizenship post 21yrs old, Li is either Chinese or Korean, or Japanese - then Japan has a stronger stand to ask for extradition.

Well OK if Japan wants him for the Yasukuni firebomb, that would make sense. But the article is not clear about that.

"The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei on Saturday said Beijing “attaches great importance to this case”."

Yeah, they PRC wants him because he is a national hero in their book.

If Korea does not hand him over to the PRC the PRC will stop paying off Korean politicians and how can a Korean politican survive without a payoff!.

Even if the Japanese embassy is Japanese territory -- he was not inside,

It's not Japanese territory.

Well OK if Japan wants him for the Yasukuni firebomb, that would make sense. But the article is not clear about that.

Quite right! The article is (again) poorly written and makes it appear that the Japanese want him for the Embassy bombing and not about the attack on Yasukuni. In fact it is Liu's "claim of responsibility" and not anything that the Japanese have provided as the possible reason for the extradition request.

It would be helpful if JT didnt obfuscate issues like through poor reporting or translations. I hope Japanese authorities provide evidence that he may be guilty of the arson attack beyond his claims.

Liu also claimed responsibility for an arson attack which caused minor damage at Japan’s controversial Yasukuni shrine last December.

The shrine in Tokyo is dedicated to 2.5 million Japanese killed in wars, including key war criminals, and is often seen as a symbol of the country’s wartime aggression.

China shouldn't even be talking about these matters. Has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Is Japan requesting his extradition because of the fire bomb attack on the Embassy in Korea and/or the incident at Yasukuni shrine? I agree with Yubaru; the JT article doesn't make this clear.

Well, actually both two countries have a point in this. Thing is, this guy has already served in Korea for his crime, then he should be sent back to his country. but before that Korea govt may have to do something to satisfy Japan. It's just a political play. People should just sit back and watch. After all, citizens in any country all want peace. Hopefully Korea govt can come up with a solution to satisfy all?

China shouldn't even be talking about these matters. Has absolutely nothing to do with them.

The perpetrator is a Chinese national. Their interest is justified, even if it's also motivated by other factors.

kylebabyNov. 04, 2012 - 12:40AM JST: Hopefully Korea govt can come up with a solution to satisfy all?

No, It feel like someone wants to stir up all. Suppose this guy finish his prison term and thenceforth be sent home then nobody can say SK is not right. Why they make this a issue at this time and especially when this guy's already been taking his charge half way? Ok, so I can't help but thinking who'll get most profit if chinese hate japanese and refuse to use JP products? the answer seems clear~

No, It feel like someone wants to stir up all. Suppose this guy finish his prison term and thenceforth be sent home then nobody can say SK is not right. Why they make this a issue at this time and especially when this guy's already been taking his charge half way? Ok, so I can't help but thinking who'll get most profit if chinese hate japanese and refuse to use JP products? the answer seems clear~

Good point. Thanks for the insight. It's really interesting why this has become an issue at this point of time. Ultimately nobody benefits from political crisis. Just hope every big player can realize it.

there is only bad asstitude china to go around to commit crime , wondering why ? china might teach its people to do this , because every chinese who commit crime in other countries will become an hero as that one come back to china . there4 it is so good for s korea to send liu to japan

Japan should admit it's past atrocities against it's neighbours, regardless to the behaviour of one chinese citizen.

The perpetrator is a Chinese national. Their interest is justified, even if it's also motivated by other factors.

Yeah the motivation is because Japan wants him. I doubt that Chinese nationals that who allegedly commit crimes in other countries warrant the same attention.

I disagree that China has any jurisdiction at all. Only South Korea and Japan do. Furthermore, he is wanted for arson in Japan in a separate matter. The question South Korea needs to consider if a Chinese man assaulted the Soth Korean Embassy in Japan, and that same man was wanted for rson in South Korea, would they want Japan to extradite him to South Korea or to China? How South Korea answers this question will determine if it is a modern cibilized counytry that abides by, and can expect other nastions to abide by interbational laws and protools....or if it still a tributary state of China and will be subservient to their demands whatever they may be.

OssanAmericaNov. 04, 2012 - 05:44AM JST : How South Korea answers this question will determine if it is a modern cibilized counytry that abides by, and can expect other nastions to abide by interbational laws and protools....

There's a fameous case just happened last month: "London (CNN) -- The UK government Tuesday blocked the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States to face trial for what the U.S. government says is the biggest military computer hacking of all time." So? do you think UK isn't 'a modern cibilized country'?

The idea that a country's embassy is actually part of its territory is a popular myth. Look at the Assange case in London; the only thing stopping the police entering the Ecuadorean embassy is self-restraint on the part of the UK government, not any "territorial rights" issue.

You're absolute wrong. The British will not raid the embassy because it violates the treaty that almost every country in the world has signed. It also set a precedent for other countries to do the same thing and puts British embassies at risk. And any British that illegally sets foot in the embassy is liable for extradition to equador if they should leave Britain. UK knows it has a lot lose if they go in. Embassies are sovereign territory and have to be respected or the whole treaty gets put in jeopardy.

@ lucabrasi

'That's why the Japanese Government wants him extradited. Nothing to do with the Embassy attack....'

Your comment could well be relevant but there was not any mentioned in the report that the Japanese Government had requested for extradition of Liu. The report only stated that minor damage was done to the Shrine. For Japan to request for extradition for Liu must have an overbearing reason for doing so. Comment made by Polarmalik was relevant. Unless Liu is a Chinese citizen and not Korean citizen the issue is most probably a political one, whether this had any relevance to the current conflict between Japan and Korea and the possibility of a reconciliation proposal by the Korean is yet to play out.

@darknuts

Can't be bothered to argue. Here's a quote from a person who knows:

Contrary to popular perception and a lot of careless news reporting, embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located, NOT of the country whose diplomatic mission is housed there. That is why an office building can host an embassy on some floors and, say, a bank on others. The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow transmuted into UK (or other) soil or legal territory for purposes of law enforcement.

This is a direct quote from a US consular officer.

China just doesn't have any claim at all; the crime was not committed in China, nor did involve Chinese jurisdiction in any sense. I'd conclude that they're just trying to protect their man, though not exactly for altruistic reasons; Liu being punished abroad for what a good number of Chinese fenqing see as a "patriotic act" could well turn some of the anger that's currently directed at Japan towards the Chinese government. This is why nationalism is a dangerous tool for governments to use - it can just as easily turn against them when they are perceived to fail "the nation".

China's role in this case is to ensure that Liu, as a Chinese citizen, is granted a fair trial and will not suffer cruel or unusual punishment. As it is, Korean jails are more humanitarian than Chinese ones, and he has not committed a capital crime. It's a fair cop basically.

I'd agree that South Korea has the strongest case for prosecution. The crime was committed under their jurisdiction (as lucabrasi has helpfully clarified, embassies are not the territory of the country whose diplomatic mission is located there), and he has been caught and charged for that offence already. South Korea's legal system is also not terribly dissimilar to Japan's, and Korean prisons aren't picnics either. Extraditing him to Japan would involve greater legal complexity and less compelling evidence than his charge in South Korea.

He'll be punished anyway, whether for the embassy arson or the attack on Yasukuni (though I'd happily see that revolting place burned to the ground myself). The diplomatic fracas that would result from him being extradited to Japan just isn't worth it.

yosunNov. 04, 2012 - 09:25AM JST "OssanAmericaNov. 04, 2012 - 05:44AM JST : How South Korea answers this question will determine if it is a modern civlized country that abides by, and can expect other nations to abide by interational laws and protocols...".

There's a fameous case just happened last month: "London (CNN) -- The UK government Tuesday blocked the >extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States to face trial for what the U.S. government says is >the biggest military computer hacking of all time." So? do you think UK isn't 'a modern cibilized country'?

McKinnon is a british national who is charged by the U.S. with commiting a crime while in the UK,. Li Qiang , a Chinese national commited a crime in South Korea, against the Japanese Embassy and also commited a crime eariler swhile in Japan. There is no comparison on the question of jurisdiction. UK doesn't need to prive itself to be a modern civilized country. It's South Korea that needs to prove it.

if the attack on the Japanese embassy carried out from the out side of the embassy property, then the case should be handled by te Koreans as it took place in Korean soil, really no point in bring in these Chinese into Japan, waste of air they breath!

yosunNov. 04, 2012 - 09:25AM JST "OssanAmericaNov. 04, 2012 - 05:44AM JST : How South Korea answers this question will determine if it is a modern cibilized counytry that abides by, and can expect other nastions to abide by interbational laws and protools."...

There's a fameous case just happened last month: "London (CNN) -- The UK government Tuesday blocked the >extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States to face trial for what the U.S. government says is ?the biggest military computer hacking of all time." So? do you think UK isn't 'a modern cibilized country'?

Jurisdictional issues are entirely different. Gary McKinnon is a British citizen charged by the U.S. of committing a crime WHILE IN Britain. Liu Qiang is a Chinese citizen charged with commiting a crime in South Korea, and previousy charged on another criume is Japan.

OssanAmericaNov. 05, 2012 - 10:25PM JST: Gary McKinnon is a British citizen charged by the U.S. of committing a crime WHILE IN Britain. Liu Qiang is a Chinese citizen charged with commiting a crime in South Korea, and previousy charged on another criume is Japan.

Sometimes someone don't need to be in a country to violate that country's law, seriously. For example: Bin laden.

My opinion is that "Extraditing" is only one of methods to confirm someone punished for his crime, it's not important where the punishment was executed.