national

Japan lodges protest against China's seizure of Mitsui O.S.K ship

53 Comments

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

© (c) 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

i see the "Statute of limitations" has no meaning in China. maybe they should impound mongolian assets in China for Genghis Khans invasion of China 800years ago!?

13 ( +19 / -6 )

'Statute of limitations', 'Intellectual property rights' 'rule of law' take your pick.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Let me get this straight, China randomly impounded a freighter over unpaid bills from two sunken vessels from the 1930s even though they renounced war reparations from some agreement from 1972.

I feel like there has to be something more to this story that we're not hearing cause from this article China sounds insane. And if that is the case, this could set a precedence for any country to go back in time and file a complaint against any other aggressor nation. There is no way international courts would uphold this ruling.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Seeing how Japanese lawmakers are antagonizing the Chinese by their actions........

-20 ( +6 / -25 )

1961-1964 Chen Chiak Qun came to Japan to demand reparation, but Japan gov. says that the claim of the two ships being claimed by it is unsubstantiated.

1964-1967 Civil mediation with Japan gov, but Japan still refuses to compensate

1970 Chen starts to file a case in Tokyo to sue Japan gov

1974 The Japan court judged that the case already exceeded the bar of statue of limitation, Chen cannot demand any reparations.

This what i translated from my local paper in Malaysia

1 ( +8 / -7 )

China enjoys going back in time, they've done it many times in their history - that's why it is such a backward country. Right now they're on their way to the dark ages.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Right now they're on their way to the dark ages.

Better hope not, we really don't want to see all hells let loose, when China launches its nuclear missiles to every potential enemy, resulting in worldwide nuclear retaliation.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Eff-ing China. They just won't be satisfied until the region is embroiled in a war, will they? Honestly, how do they seriously expect Japan to react to this kind of provocative bull puckey? Do they really believe extortion is going to create any possible positive outcome? Japan will never pay. Not only by international law, but also by the 1972 accord, any debts between Japan and China as a result of the war are settled. Any debts. This damnable "we're just going to retroactively redefine the terms of the agreement" nonsense is just that: nonsense.

And eff-ing Japan for exacerbating the problem with clearly antagonizing crap like putting asshats like Shinzo Abe into public office, constant high-profile field trips to Yasukuni Shrine, and yelling from the belltowers that Japanese apologies for behavior during the war were premature at best.

I have waded into a number of debates regarding Japan's culpability in the Greater East Asia War, standing firmly behind the reality that Japan did some truly heinous things to the people of East Asia in their ill-fated bid to become a world power. I have genuinely sympathized with China for the many indignities visited upon it by not only Japan, but a host of colonial powers, including the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia.

I have argued unto exhaustion for Japan to unequivocally reject Japanese nationalist revisionism seeking to whitewash or utterly deny Japanese Imperial Army culpability for comfort stations, biological warfare, scorched earth military policies, and the kind of wanton rape and pillaging that, while common on any battlefield, was particularly horrific in many of Japan's campaigns across eastern China.

But the non-stop hit parade of crap like this from Chinese leadership... It makes me not want to give a damn any more. Fostering riots across China, causing tens of millions of yen in damages to private Japanese businesses and properties. The Senkakus. Arbitrarily decided air defense zones, And now this. Well done, China. You've now secured a place in history as one of the world's most prolific and manipulative crybabies.

There isn't a person with any reasonable degree of education behind them that isn't aware this is all smoke and mirrors to deflect Chinese public attention from the looming reality that China's booming economy is on the precipice of a disastrous plunge, and the real estate bubble that provided buoyance for that economy is on the verge of bursting. Chinese leadership doesn't want the public to notice that economic growth has slowed down to it's lowest level since 1990, when it became an international pariah after slaughtering hundreds of pro-democracy college students in Tiananmen Square.

And leadership most certainly doesn't want the public to notice that the wealth/income gap between the rich and the poor is widening at an alarming rate, particularly between wealthy urban dwellers and their far poorer rural counterparts. In 2012, the top 5 percent of households held 23 percent of China's total household wealth, while the bottom 5 percent enjoyed but 0.1 percent of it. That's point-one percent. A tenth of a percent.

What China has been doing over the past several years -- IS doing -- is immoral and criminal. Will it take a destructive war that China most certainly cannot win in any sense of the word to figure this out? Or will the lesson come too late for anyone to do anything about it but cry over the lives, property, and future prosperity flushed down the toilet for something so ultimately infantile as nationalist pride?

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Mongolia watchout it is your turn soon! Ref# wtfjapan . If they want history let talk history. China invades Tibet and still occupies most of Tibet. China invaded Vietnam and occupied the country for thousands of years. Wondering what Vietnamese people are entitle to claim from China? By the way China is not the only nation suffering during the pacific war there are many countries in the Asian regions experience what the Chinese did included the American the Aussie. It is time to move on and you cannot hold the young Japanese generation to be responsible for their parents and grandparents actions. Vietnamese people suffering a lot more than the Chinese and they seem to move on fast.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

But the non-stop hit parade of crap like this from Chinese leadership... It makes me not want to give a damn any more. Fostering riots across China, causing tens of millions of yen in damages to private Japanese businesses and properties. The Senkakus. Arbitrarily decided air defense zones, And now this. Well done, China. You've now secured a place in history as one of the world's most prolific and manipulative crybabies. There isn't a person with any reasonable degree of education behind them that isn't aware this is all smoke and mirrors to deflect Chinese public attention from the looming reality that China's booming economy is on the precipice of a disastrous plunge, and the real estate bubble that provided buoyance for that economy is on the verge of bursting. Chinese leadership doesn't want the public to notice that economic growth has slowed down to it's lowest level since 1990, when it became an international pariah after slaughtering hundreds of pro-democracy college students in Tiananmen Square. And leadership most certainly doesn't want the public to notice that the wealth/income gap between the rich and the poor is widening at an alarming rate, particularly between wealthy urban dwellers and their far poorer rural counterparts. In 2012, the top 5 percent of households held 23 percent of China's total household wealth, while the bottom 5 percent enjoyed but 0.1 percent of it. That's point-one percent. A tenth of a percent.

well they are all signs of 'mighty' China's weaknesses , those China Bashers gonna love this

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Japan became an economic power by abjuring war. China is spending bulk of wealth on building a war machine. Divert resources to detox the air and water before poor unsanitary malnourished succumb to a super bug that respects neither rich nor powerful nor CCP

1 ( +6 / -5 )

China’s seizure of a Japanese ship over unpaid bills dating back to the 1930s

what the Chinese side says is money owed from the 1930s

This is false. There are no "unpaid bills".

The ships were leased from Chinese company. Then the ships "were expropriated by the Japanese government before their charter contracts were terminated. Both vessels then sank or were lost at sea."

http://www.mol.co.jp/en/pr/2014/14021.html

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Did they pay the bill? If not, I see nothing wrong with demanding the money now. Better late than never. If they did pay, China's bad.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Medieval land grabs and hostage taking.

A thief like China only benefits if others abide by the law.

So, the world needs to stop treating China as a rational actor and isolate them. It will be painful for everyone to be without their electronics made cheaply by slave labor, but it is a necessity given China's consistently medieval actions.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

What China has been doing over the past several years -- IS doing -- is immoral and criminal. Will it take a destructive war that China most certainly cannot win in any sense of the word to figure this out? Or will the lesson come too late for anyone to do anything about it but cry over the lives, property, and future prosperity flushed down the toilet for something so ultimately infantile as nationalist pride?

I know, i know, can anyone give some suggestion how China can do better

My suggestion are as follows,

so for tibet, xinjiang give them sort sort of self rule and then help them to become economically independent. Regulate the inflow of chinese immigrants so that the locals don’t have to compete so much with outsiders.

Vietnam, Philippines just give them the islands they want while keeping the rest for China. In short China still can claim as much as before, minus some without violating the rights of other countries.

It is better for China to turn into a democratic country, but i fear that is still not possible. PRC is still too power hungry.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f68b9e8-c92b-11e3-99cc-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2zWdRzedw

The company said in a 2006 filing that the Chung Wei claim was initially launched in 1990 for Y31.3bn ($305m), but rejected on procedural grounds in the mid-1990s. It was reopened in 2003 by Chen Shuntongs grandsons.

Mitsui noted at the time that this case and another similar claim for Y1.2bn for a ship originally belonging to Dah Loh Industrial Co could adversely affect the financial condition of Mitsui OSK lines if awarded in full.

The Shanghai Maritime Court said it awarded Y2.9bn in compensation to the two grandsons in 2010, and that Mitsuis appeal and request to reopen the case were both rejected by higher courts.

It awarded $9.45m to plaintiffs in the Dah Loh case. The court said that case was settled last year by Mitsui and Dah Lohs legal representative.

How many other claims are there against Mitsui?

How many have Mitsui paid on?

Did Mitsui report these "expenses" or are they hidden from shareholders?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

we are demanding China take appropriate measures, Jiji Press reported

I think China already did what they've intended. Ball is in Japan's court.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Here is what China has to say (source Xinhua News) : China's seizure of a Japanese ship was solely for delayed rent and losses owed to a Chinese firm and was unrelated to wartime compensation, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said on Monday. "As a commercial lawsuit, the enforcement of the verdict was carried out at the request of the plaintiff. It is unrelated to wartime compensation," Qin said. China's stance to uphold the joint communique signed in 1972 remains unchanged, Qin said. **He reiterated China would continue to protect the legitimate rights of foreign businesses operating in the country"

0 ( +4 / -4 )

A thief like China only benefits if others abide by the law.

A clear and concise summation of the history of PRC. Almost everything PRC is today has been built on thieving from others. And this is the sort of disgraceful, shameless country that has a permanent seat on the UNSC. Unbelievable.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

My point is before 1974 Chen already filed a case against Japan Gov, if Japan gov is a responsible gov it should have gave reparations, not wait until 1974 to say it's your loss

I believe that Chen's claim isn't unsubstantiated as there are statements are proving its existence and its use by Japan gov in this news portal.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

http://chinadailymail.com/2014/04/21/china-seizes-japanese-ship-for-failure-to-return-ship-leased-before-world-war-ii/

For decades, China has disallowed such claims in Chinese courts. They stated that all war-related compensation between China and Japan reached final settlement in 1972, following normalisation of relationships between China and Japan. China now unilaterally refuses to recognise that settlement, but gives no reason as to why.

China has long claimed that contracts signed under the KMT government had no validity after the Communists came to power in 1949. This was to avoid repayment of almost one trillion dollars in unpaid Chinese war bonds (plus interest) from prior to WWII (see China could owe America one trillion dollars in pre-WWII war bond debt).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

China is ridiculously out of line here, pull the plug on this idiot nation and let it alone. No more trade with these belligerent arrogant people who run the dump.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

1961-1964 Chen Chiak Qun came to Japan to demand reparation, but Japan gov. says that the claim of the two ships being claimed by it is unsubstantiated.

1964-1967 Civil mediation with Japan gov, but Japan still refuses to compensate

1970 Chen starts to file a case in Tokyo to sue Japan gov

1974 The Japan court judged that the case already exceeded the bar of statue of limitation, Chen cannot demand any reparations.

Just in case someone doesn't know that Chen already has been suing Japan gov in JAPAN COURT from 1970.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

wtfjapanApr. 22, 2014 - 03:12PM JST i see the "Statute of limitations" has no meaning in China.

It has no meaning in most countries' civil law either. All that is necessary in business is that you keep asking for the money every now and again, and the amount will never expire, not in 10 000 years.

LFRAgainApr. 22, 2014 - 04:42PM JST particularly between wealthy urban dwellers and their far poorer rural counterparts. In 2012, the top 5 percent of households held 23 percent of China's total household wealth, while the bottom 5 percent enjoyed but 0.1 percent of it. That's point-one percent. A tenth of a percent.

... so you mean a lot like the U.S. then? What is your problem, that you're afraid they'll do capitalism better than you?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Do what would happen if The Japanese government just forked over the money? The ship would be released and the problem buried till China thinks of another one.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just like kidnaper and terrorist, you just do not give in to them. What will they do next?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Jack SternApr. 22, 2014 - 08:18PM JST Do what would happen if The Japanese government just forked over the money? The ship would be released and the problem buried till China thinks of another one.

Why should the Japanese government care? This is a private business matter between two private companies. Let the companies sort it out.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Isn't that piracy on the high seas?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The money should be paid and Japanese companies should leave Peoples Republic of China. Remove all of their assets before the PRC takes them and this includes flights. Then do not allow their ships and planes to enter Japan.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Allow me to translate this from Schoolyard Bully to English:

The ruling could “intimidate Japanese companies doing business in China”, Suga said, adding that Japan was “deeply worried”.

= You win.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China sounds insane.

You regret the Chinese sanity from the time of the Cultural Revolution or from the Taiping rebellion ? Good old day when you'd tell them you were the brother of Jesus, and pfff, dozens of millions storben. Well that never changed. Now, you can tell on Weibo that because of an unpaid bill of 1612, Toyota owes a new hybrid car to each Chinese driver. No need to prove anything, you'll get the 0.1% of Chinese silly netizens (which adds up to crowds) rushing to get theirs on parkings everywhere.

The ships were reportedly commandeered by the Imperial Japanese Navy and were sunk during World War II.

It's unlikely they were sunk by the Japanese, we never heard about kamikaze ships. I'm sure they were bombed. They should try to ask the money to the US army. And meanwhile, I invite everybody whose belongings were damaged by Chinese armies in the last 100 years to fill a claim and and seize some Chinese property to be sure...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I wonder if the children and grandchildren of Chinese pre-Mao schoolteachers can sue for their relatives being sent to hard labour in the countryside, for having their relatives tortured, for having their houses stolen. No, of course not. They're Chinese.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Group 1 confirmed Japan's recent seizure of German ports and operations in Shandong Province, and expanded Japan's sphere of influence over the railways, coasts and major cities of the province. Group 2 pertained to Japan's South Manchuria Railway Zone, extending the leasehold over the territory for 99 years, and expanding Japan's sphere of influence in southern Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia, to include rights of settlement and extraterritoriality, appointment of financial and administrative officials to the government and priority for Japanese investments in those areas. Japan demanded access to Inner Mongolia for raw materials, as a manufacturing site, and as a strategic buffer against Russian encroachment in Korea.[3] Group 3 gave Japan control of the Hanyeping mining and metallurgical complex in central China; it was deep in debt to Japan. Group 4 barred China from giving any further coastal or island concessions to foreign powers except for Japan. Group 5 was the most aggressive. China was to hire Japanese advisors who could take effective control of China's finance and police. Japan would be empowered to build three major railways, and also Buddhist temples and schools. Japan would gain effective control of Fukien province, opposite the island of Formosa.

January 18, 1915. Japan has made the famous Twenty-One Demands which shows that

Japan demanded recognition of its seizure of the German spheres of influence in China, and also wanted new powers over the Chinese government that had the potential of making China little more than a puppet state.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So Chung Wei Steamship had no Hull & Machinery coverage on the ship lost in the typhoon? And had no war Risk Coverage on the ship lost to an allied torpedo? How was Chung Wei SS able to secure Charters from Daido Steamship Japan without insurance on their ships?

.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

January 18, 1915. Japan has made the famous Twenty-One Demands which shows that

Japan demanded recognition of its seizure of the German spheres of influence in China, and also wanted new powers over the Chinese government that had the potential of making China little more than a puppet state.

China has much to learn from Japan

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It looks like the seized vessel was under an exclusive transport contract with Baoshan Steel Co. for 20 years with 17 years remaining in the contract. According to the spokesman for the said company, he hopes that Mitsui O.S.K. will continue the operations and fears the negative impact domestically as well.

<http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/140422/chn14042208140002-n1.htm

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Despite the dismissing comments from Japanese officials, the reality is that the Chinese have very strong documents and arguments (not only moral, but also legal). Especially “sticky” is the loan that China was forced to give to Japan during the 30's. If you study the law and some of the details, you will see that even with the obligatory way that this loan was “arranged”, the documentation that exists, the lack of repayments at the appropriate times, the lack of consent between the governments on the issue over the decades, the complexity of Japan’s split on compensation issues. If I were a Japanese official or citizen, I would be worried that a fair trial could have devastating financial consequences. Japan should hope for a “rigged” procedure to escape from this nightmare. It might be a best interest of Japan to compromise now before it gets too late and the repayment become completely unmanageable.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I see lots of emotional reactions to this case. The legal analysis should be as follows:

Was it a valid contract between two private parties? If it was a valid contract, did the Japanese party breach the contract, for example, by not returning the ship or not paying the rental on the lease of the ship.

If the ship was requisitioned by the Japanese government, it does not automatically relieve the Japanese party of its obligation to return the ship or pay the rental on the ship. Typically in this type of scenario it would be considered a "total loss" of the hull and the Japanese party would continue to be obligated to pay rent and the total loss proceeds.

Legal theories the Japanese party could use to defend their non-performance of the contract:

(a) Statute of Limitations -- however, as this dispute is between private parties from two different nations, we will need to look at the governing law to determine which nation's law on statue of limitations governs the contract, and if the governing law is unclear, the parties would need to look at if Japan and China have a treaty or are parties to a treaty that specifically discusses statutue of limitations. If there is none or if the governing law's statute of limitation is say 100 years, then the Chinese party is not estopped from making a claim notwithstanding the passage of time;

(b) 1972 Joint Communique where China agreed not to make further claims on war reparation -- however, we will need to look at what constitutes "war reparation claims." Does the scope cover valid contracts between two private parties? If a Chinese citizen lends $100 to a Japanese citizen in 1930, and the Japanese citizen never returns the $100 because the Japanese government took the US$100, does it mean the Chinese citizen can longer make a breach of contract because of the 1972 Joint Communique? Is that within the scope of "war reparation"?

(c) In my opinion, the best defense of the Japanese party may simply be that they are not the legal entity that entered into the ship contract (it seems the Japanese company underwent several rounds of re-organization over the years). The Chinese party is suing the wrong guy.

Anyhoo, seeing lots of heated rhetoric here, but it seems to me it's more of a legal case than a political case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HolaKitty Apr. 23, 2014 - 04:10AM JST they are not the legal entity that entered into the ship contract (it seems the Japanese company underwent several rounds of re-organization over the years). The Chinese party is suing the wrong guy.

Suing the wrong guy? The old companies, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, did get somewhat broken up during the occupation but had regrouped by the early 1950s. They did regroup in different forms, but they are still the same genealogies.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Treaty of San Francisco clause concerning reparations.....

Article 21

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2; and Korea to the benefits of Articles 2, 4, 9 and 12 of the present Treaty.

China received $19 Bn (with inflation today $178 bn) Taiwan received $3 Bn (with inflation today $28 bn) Korea received $5 Bn (with inflation today $47 bn)

As for the 1972 treaty, in it Communist China renounced any and all demands for war reparations from Japan.

This is why before 2012 any and all law suits brought by it's citizens against Japan were denied by the Communist Party of China and never saw the light of day.

But, since Communist China has declared a cold war against Japan and has no legal bases to win it. They have decided to take it to the next level. Communist China has resorted to strong arm tactics to try and win.

This case just proves that treaties and international law mean absolutely nothing to the CPC when they want something.

The something that Communist China wants is Japan kowtowing before it's leaders and becoming another of it's tributary states. But luckily for the whole of Asia, Japan isn't going to do this.

Japan has the truth and the rule of behind it, while Communist China and it's tributary states have fantasy and deception behind them.

I suspect that Communist China is also seeking a Causes Beli against Japan so it can take by force what it can't take through strong arm tactics.

So I expect them to forcibly invade a score of Japanese territories in this effort to kowtow Japan. But, hopefully when this happens President Obama will remember his responsibilities and back up the US's words with action.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan said Tuesday it has lodged a formal protest against China’s seizure of a Japanese ship

Well, good luck with that. Somehow I doubt China will take any notice of the complaint.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China is playing with fire.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

sfjp330: I do not know the details of the case, so am only speculating the theories the Japanese party can use to defend its position (whether any of the theories would work depends on the specific facts of the case).

Anyways, this case was decided by a single regional Chinese court. I do not know why people are so quick to condemn China as a nation when they do not have the full facts of the case and are not legal experts.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Its ok to sue someone for not paying back but this sounds more like kidnapping to me- gimme back my money or i'll, or i'll...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

HolaKittyApr. 23, 2014 - 06:55AM JST Anyways, this case was decided by a single regional Chinese court. I do not know why people are so quick to condemn China as a nation when they do not have the full facts of the case and are not legal experts.

Because, courts are controlled by the "Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China" the seven men say what can and can't happen.

In the past they made sure that these sort of cases never saw the light of day. But, things have changed and now they need the courts to try and put more pressure on Japan.

This is called strong arming to try and win.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Salus: the seizure of the ship (or othe mobile asset while it is located at the jurisdiction of the creditor) sounds like kidnapping but it is actually a very common breach of contract legal remedy available in most jurisdictions (US and Europe included). For example, when a non-US debtor failed to pay, we tracked when their mobile asset was going to be in the US, and when it entered US territory, we applied for seizure of the asset to force their performance of their contractual obligations.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If nigelboy is right about the exclusive contract then just remove all mechanism to start the ship and have it tighed up in dry dock for however long they want it there.

At the end it's PRC that is going to sweat the most with less transportation of iron ores into the country and the liability for loss is on PRC's hand not Mitsui OSK.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

China is playing with fire.

Yeah do you want the international community to GET MAD at PRC China?

IT IS EASY,Just tell them to follow the example set by Japan below

January 18, 1915. Japan has made the famous Twenty-One Demands which shows that

Japan demanded recognition of its seizure of the German spheres of influence in China, and also wanted new powers over the Chinese government that had the potential of making China little more than a puppet state.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Loki Herring

Those were the terms made for Japan to participate in WW1 against Germany so no European nations made a fuss about it. By the way CHINA was a puppet state at that time.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@samurai blue

such a cool name. Yet, you didn't get the facts right

the United States expressed strongly negative reactions to Japan's rejection of the Open Door Policy. In the Bryan Note issued by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan on March 13, 1915, the U.S., while affirming Japan's "special interests" in Manchuria, Mongolia and Shandong, expressed concern over further encroachments to Chinese sovereignty.[4]

Great Britain, Japan's closest ally, expressed concern over what was perceived as Japan's overbearing, bullying approach to diplomacy, and the British Foreign Office in particular was unhappy with Japanese attempts to establish what would effectively be a Japanese protectorate over all of China.[5]

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That is after the war when Japan wanted to collect not before when Japan made the demand in trade for participation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

To the numerous posters that have taken the position that China should not be criticized for what amounts to a simple legal dispute between two private parties, I would agree with you if that position was born of the sort of historical vacuum that ignores some 70 years of political unease between the two countries as a direct result of Japan's invasion of China.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines has agreed to pay 4 billion Yun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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