politics

Abe orders steps against S Korean seizure of Nippon Steel assets

58 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

Stay strong on this, PM Abe. If even one Japanese asset is seized by SK government, it is officially an act of hostility against Japan. PM Abe will have many options, take SK to ICJ (even though it is risky as the body is anti-Japanese), place embargo/tariffs on all SK goods, even expelling SK diplomats and turning back Korean tourists will be on the table IF SK do not back down as expected. Stand strong for Japan, PM Abe!!

3 ( +23 / -20 )

Abe is trying to reconnect its conservative supporters again because elections are close.

No one believes this traitor anymore, just disgusting Abe.

-9 ( +16 / -25 )

but they could include taking the case to the International Court of Justice

Maybe that's a good thing. An impartial umpire is probably the best way to finalize this issue, but I fear it would drag on for years and that needs to be avoided. Still, perhaps a good option.

21 ( +25 / -4 )

Going to the ICJ is the right thing to do. But it's pretty much a sure thing that South Korea will refuse. They have refused to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times.

22 ( +29 / -7 )

The basis for Japan's security is a peaceful Northeast Asia. Any statements against it is void and null. SK and Japan should talk to avoid further tensions. Japan did something bad in the past, but Japan also did something good in the past. Japan is the first country in northeast Asia completed industrial revolution which has to be recognized.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

If South Korea actually seizes Japanese assets, the most effective countermeasure would be to seize SK assets in Japan for retaliation.

11 ( +24 / -13 )

cut the supply to samsung and watch them eat a humble pie

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Trum Pet keep pretending be a conservative politician

but he never takes steps to protect the rights of the ordinary Japanese citizen but he does not hesitate to change the laws to protect the interests of people like Takenaka Heizo and his Globalist henchmen, you're just pathetic.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

If South Korea actually seizes Japanese assets, the most effective countermeasure would be to seize SK assets in Japan for retaliation.

It would be about a thousand times better to stop that process before it starts. I can't think of anything more likely to bring about genuine conflict than going down that road.

20 ( +23 / -3 )

Calm is needed in dealing with crisis, especially when dealing with neighbours.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

They have refused to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times.

Well if Japan is keen on the idea and they float the idea to South Korea and they refuse and the Japanese make it internationally known, that makes Japan look good and South Korea look like they have no case and that's why they are avoiding the ICJ.

That would be a win for Japan in the court of international opinion.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

taking the case to the International Court of Justice

You mean the same ICJ that ordered Japan to stop whaling after Australia sued them, and Japan said ''nah, we will just ignore the ruling''? That ICJ?

-7 ( +14 / -21 )

According to the Korea Japan agreement in 1965 in question,

Article III

1 Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or the implementation of this Agreement shall be settled primarily through diplomatic channels.

2 Any dispute which cannot be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted for decision to an arbitral commission of three arbitrators;

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_Between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea_Concerning_the_Settlement_of_Problems_in_Regard_to_Property_and_Claims_and_Economic_Cooperation

so an international arbitration including an arbitration by ICJ is called for.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

IloveCoffeeToday  09:03 am JST

taking the case to the International Court of Justice

You mean the same ICJ that ordered Japan to stop whaling after Australia sued them, and Japan said ''nah, we will just ignore the ruling''? That ICJ?

Except that's not what Japan said. The ICJ ruling called for an end to the JARPA II program pointing out the faults that needed to be corrected. Japan immediately complied with the ruling and conducted a different program later having made the recommended corrections.

16 ( +22 / -6 )

its funny abe is protecting these companies, which also happen to be chairmans and vice chairmans of Keidanren. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Business_Federation

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Sorry, but that's the way the court ruled. Assets would be frozen or seized in any jusridiction in which such a ruling was handed down, and foreign governments and/or corporations are powerless to stop it. This is about Japan's refusal to acknowledge its war crimes, nothing more.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Why didn't the Japanese government levy South Korean assets in return?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Japan tries to play by the rules.

When the rules don't matter.

If you want to "win"??

F the rules.

If Japan wants to settle this, its very easy:

-- Seize all assets of Korean companies in Japan.

-- Kick out all Korean companies operating in Japan.

-- Deny landing rights to all Korean aircraft flying to Japan.

-- Deny admission to ANY Korean national who wants to visit Japan.

-- Deny safe passage to any Korean vessel that wants to sail from Korea out of the Sea of Japan.

Trust me, it will work.

Screw diplomacy and international norms. If Japan wants to prevail, this is how they do it!!!

But Japan are wimps, toothless pussies!!

4 ( +13 / -9 )

@zones. you are actually suggesting we go to war? abe would love you.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Screw diplomacy and international norms. If Japan wants to prevail, this is how they do it!!!

But Japan are wimps, toothless pussies!!

So we do all that over a few claims that amount to less than $1 mill USD

Not discounting the precedent the case sets, and that's why this case needs to resolved, once and for all, to prevent further creep in the arrangement between Japan and South Korea, but its hardly worth that sort of extreme response.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Goodlucktoyou ,

@zones. you are actually suggesting we go to war? abe would love you.

and

@Matt Hartwell,

Not discounting the precedent the case sets, and that's why this case needs to resolved, once and for all, to prevent further creep in the arrangement between Japan and South Korea, but its hardly worth that sort of extreme response.

You HAVE to consider the other side.

The other side plays a game, knowing how Japan will play the game. They COUNT on Japan playing the game the way Japan always does.

This is exactly why Japan needs to change the rules of the game.

Well, let me rephrase that. If I were Japan and I wanted to "win" this game, then this is what I would.

Because I think the Koreans would cave in less than 6 months!

But that is just me,.... as an outside observer.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

There is a larger picture to all this...

Sometime in the 1960's or so...Pres. Park? (need to fact check) I was told that S Korea "nationalized" and took over ALL Japanese factories such as Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, etc. in S. Korea based on similar claims and that is how, Gold Star, Samsung, Kia, Hyundai and others started in S. Korea. That is after Japan had settled most of the S Korean claims on War atrocities, soon after the Korean war. This appears to be like a precursor to that step.

That is also the biggest fear for all the world's companies in China at this time, but if S Korea continues to move in that direction, it will be joining China in the potential threat.

The other is that S Korea is most probably trying to "test" the international waters using these Supreme Court rulings to see if they may be able to take the disputed island which is surrounded by major underwater resources that can be fished or mined. That island alone has enough mineral and other valuable resources that could support S Korea for many decades, possibly Centuries. 

The biggest "fear" and "caution" for Japan is in the escalation and expansion of such claims which can indeed affect both countries' national security, as it will affect domestic laws and politics as well as the economy. The problem will be the "international" stage with N Korea and China being the immediately unpredictable obstacle for Japan.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Well, let me rephrase that. If I were Japan and I wanted to "win" this game, then this is what I would.

Because I think the Koreans would cave in less than 6 months!

But that is just me,.... as an outside observer.

Were not talking about some grand game in which the survival of Japan and South Korea is at stake. We are talking about a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things that involves, what, 2 or 3 companies and a dozen people?

This is not China v United States in some grand global chess match.

This is a minor squabble between two countries that need to stop it from becoming a major squabble.

Unless of course you want to bring in the whole argument that it fires up nationalists on both sides towards a certain political end and in that case, yes I can see that argument. Not a positive end for either country, but I can see the argument.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@Ganbare Japan!

take SK to ICJ (even though it is risky as the body is anti-Japanese),

Korea doesn't have to respond to Japan's challenges at the ICJ.

place embargo/tariffs on all SK goods

And Japan loses because Japan runs a large trade surplus against Korea. Imagine a Korean counter tariff on Japanese goods, and Japan has more to lose than Korea does in a trade war. This is why the country with a trade surplus never starts a trade war. Korea can start a trade war against Japan, but Japan cannot start one against Korea.

even expelling SK diplomats

And Japanese deplomats get expelled in return. What has changed?

and turning back Korean tourists will be on the table

And hurt one of Japan's only bright sector in economy?

@OssanJapan

They have refused to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times.

And Japan has refused to settle the Diaoyu Islands challenge from Taiwan at the ICJ.

@Meiyouwenti

If South Korea actually seizes Japanese assets, the most effective countermeasure would be to seize SK assets in Japan for retaliation.

Actually this was already ruled out by Japan's foreign ministry since there is no legal basis for this kind of action.

Nippon Steel and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are direct defendants in a damages legal case. Which Korean companies are direct defendants in forced labor case of Japanese citizens? 

 @Matt Hartwell

It would be about a thousand times better to stop that process before it starts.

It can't be stopped. The forced laborer plaintiffs have the final damages verdict, so it must be enforced and there are no more legal recourse left.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Samit BasuToday 02:41 pm JST

This is why the country with a trade surplus never starts a trade war.

No. What we see today is that Japanese assets in South Korea are no longer legally safe. So, what we will see soon is wholesale divestiture and capital flight from South Korea by Japanese investors.

The compensation payments were paid in 1965 which was accepted by South Korean government. If Korean courts arbitrarily award additional compensations to its citizens, there will be no end. So, divestiture from South Korea is the rational reaction.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Ganbare Japan: "If even one Japanese asset is seized by SK government, it is officially an act of hostility against Japan."

No. They lost the lawsuit and were ordered to pay. They are not honouring the court order and are therefore breaking the law. South Korea therefore has every right to seize assets. If I refused to pay back-taxes, fines, or some penalty ordered by the court in Japan and I refused to do so, the government seizing any and all of my assets would not be an act of hostility against Canada.

OssanAmerica: "Going to the ICJ is the right thing to do. But it's pretty much a sure thing that South Korea will refuse."

The ICJ Japan refuses to go to over the Senkakus because they said there is no island conflict? The ICJ that is not legally binding? Korea doesn't NEED to go to the ICJ because there is no contesting their claims to the island in their mind, same as Japan says about the Senkakus. Why isn't Japan asking Russia to go to the ICJ and you guys not demanding they do that there, too? You've been asked this many times, and the fact that SK administers and lives on the islands, but you refuse to address those facts or questions when made. You simply have no comment on it because you know the "It's different" excuse doesn't fly. And we all know how Japan reacts to world bodies that don't judge in their favour... just look at when they didn't get their way with the IWC, or when UNESCO agreed to print the letters of Nanking survivors.

Korea does not need to go to the ICJ. A company operating within their borders is refusing to obey the law, plain and simple. There is nothing much Abe or people crying victim here can do about it, since it is this mentality that has Japanese companies in Korea in the current mess to begin with; SK is the REAL victim, and these companies won't address that or pay ordered recompense.

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

CH3CHO: "The compensation payments were paid in 1965 which was accepted by South Korean government."

Compensation payments for what? You guys won't even admit what happened.

-15 ( +6 / -21 )

Compensation payments for what? You guys won't even admit what happened.

Whether Japan has admitted to past acts to your satisfaction is immaterial. The money has been paid and you know it. Don't try to obfuscate the reality. South Korea should have distributed the money a long time ago.

They chose not too. If they had, we wouldn't have this problem.

That is not Japans fault.

End Of.

14 ( +20 / -6 )

@CH3CHO

What we see today is that Japanese assets in South Korea are no longer legally safe.

Only the assets of Japanese firms that have legal judgement rendered against them.

The compensation payments were paid in 1965 which was accepted by South Korean government.

The 1965 treaty only covered back wages and assets. It did not cover damages resulting from illegal actions. 

So, divestiture from South Korea is the rational reaction.

Of course, Japanese investors should leave from Korea if they are uncomfortable or have bones in the closet. They are free to go and Koreans won't miss them. 

@Matt Hartwell

The money has been paid and you know it. 

Money for backwages, bank deposits, and assets left in Japan, yes.

Money for damages resulting from illegal actions of Japanese entities, nope.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

cut the supply to samsung and watch them eat a humble pie

Supply of what? Well whatever it is I'm sure Samsung can get it from elsewhere.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Japan has never had a good understanding of jurisdiction. Japan does not seem to understand that the decision has been made by a SK court, and can therefore implement decisions within it's jurisdiction.

Japan is starting to learn that the world has not been put here just for Japan.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Japan has a lot of counter-measures at their disposal:

Japanese girls can stop idolizing K-poppers.

Japan could ban Korea from participating in the 2020 Olympics.

Yeah, that'll teach them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Pay up, Japan have done the crime, history is prove. Start admitting and others will too. Japan is the only country that cannot admit to the truth in history in Asia. It is a no wonder that young Japanese do not know right from wrong. To be respected, U have to admit , What U have done. Nanking massare , south-east asia killing. It all happened. There is no way to run. Admit yr crimes.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

Matt Harrell: "Whether Japan has admitted to past acts to your satisfaction is immaterial. The money has been paid and you know it."

I asked specifically what the money was for, since the people who often bring up it being paid deny any atrocities took place. CH3CHO is a firm denier in any coercion of Korean women and sexual slavery. He denies Nanking. He denies that Unit 731 was what it was. It's an easy enough question for him to answer.

And in any case, this is a different suit and the SK court has found within their jurisdiction, and they have a right to do so. These companies can leave if they like, but since they are there and have been found guilty and sentenced, they must pay first. What Japan wants to try and do after that in a petty tit-for-tat is up to them, but it will fail.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

If South Korea actually seizes Japanese assets, the most effective countermeasure would be to seize SK assets in Japan for retaliation.

This is hilarious. Is Japan a third-world country where the Administration leader can order anything above the law? Even in the third world countries, the dictators should abide by the domestic law at least seemingly. Seizing SK assets for retaliation is legally impossible in any civilized country that has the constitution, the law, and the the judiciary.

It is marvelous that even the PM does not understand the principle of separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries, not to mention some people here. Neither the PM of Japan nor the president of SK can meddle in or influence on the domestic judiciary.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

The following editorial in a Japanese newspaper may help study and understand the separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries:

https://this.kiji.is/440981644791874657

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

If the wording of the treaty was definite and beyond any doubt we wouldn't be having this dispute..... I think this is the main problem.... And would be one problem Japan has in winning in the ICJ.

Abe is right that you have to keep your promises in international law but you certainly don't have to keep promises you haven't made...

We can all agree on this one whether you're for Japan or Korea right?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

And Japan loses because Japan runs a large trade surplus against Korea. Imagine a Korean counter tariff on Japanese goods, and Japan has more to lose than Korea does in a trade war. This is why the country with a trade surplus never starts a trade war. Korea can start a trade war against Japan, but Japan cannot start one against Korea.

Ever heard of "Comparative advantage of principle" in Economics? Why could this happen? If the imports from Japan are easily replaceable, S.K would have done so long time ago.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

When companies do business overseas they must follow the laws of that country, and it's the same here in Japan as it is in SK. If they don't like a ruling they can either appeal it or stop doing business there.

What these recent companies (Nippon Steel, MHI) should have done is publicize the payments in Korea and turn it into a PR win, not the exact opposite. What SK companies will want to deal with them now? Their actions and especially this seizure have devalued their companies significantly more than the value of the actual payments.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

@Jalapeno

Japanese girls can stop idolizing K-poppers.

Japanese girls don't listen to Abe government. 

Japan could ban Korea from participating in the 2020 Olympics.

Japan cannot ban any country from participating in the Olympics, only the IOC can.

If Japan bans Korean athletes, then the IOC bans Japan from the Tokyo Olympics, so Japanese athletes will have to compete under the name of "Olympic Athletes From Japan" and the Olympic flag.

This is why Japan allows North Korean soccer players to enter Japan in the World Cup soccer primaries even though North Koreans are legally banned from entering Japan, because Japan too would be banned from the World Cup if Japan banned NK players from entering Japan under the FIFA rule.

@Mlodinnow

What these recent companies (Nippon Steel, MHI) should have done is publicize the payments in Korea and turn it into a PR win, not the exact opposite. 

Nippon Steel and Mitsunishi are willing to settle with the plaintiff's lawyers, but the Abe administration has prohibited them from settling.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

S. Korea has shown time and again their bias and hate against Japanese, especially a strong Japan. Went back on agreements and compesation paid multiple times already.

A tooth for a tooth. A insult for an insult. A radar lock on for their radar lock on, they seize Japanese assets, we seize Korean assets in Japan.

Treat S. Korea the way they treat Japan in return and this problem will be solved!

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Samit BasuJan. 7  02:41 pm JST

@OssanJapan

They have refused to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute at the ICJ three times.

And Japan has refused to settle the Diaoyu Islands challenge from Taiwan at the ICJ.

Japan can not "refuse" to settle a dispute at the ICJ because Japan is a signatory making acceptance and recognition of ICJ jurisdiction compulsory.

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations

14 ( +17 / -3 )

@IloveCoffeeJan. 7  09:03 am JST taking the case to the International Court of Justice

You mean the same ICJ that ordered Japan to stop whaling after Australia sued them, and Japan said ''nah, we will just ignore the ruling''? That ICJ?

Yes yes yes! The same one!!

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

@OssanJapan

Japan can not "refuse" to settle a dispute at the ICJ because Japan is a signatory making acceptance and recognition of ICJ jurisdiction compulsory.

Japan already refused to accept Ma Ying Jeou's ICJ challenge. Surprised you didn't know this.

https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,23,45&post=2558

Ma urges Japan to face up to Diaoyutais reality

Publication Date: August 22, 2012

Ma made the remarks in an interview with Japan’s national broadcaster NHK at the Presidential Office in Taipei City following a recent spate of incidents involving the archipelago.

The president also suggested that the issue could also be taken to an international court for arbitration if necessary.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Samit BasuToday  05:43 am JST

@OssanJapan

Japan can not "refuse" to settle a dispute at the ICJ because Japan is a signatory making acceptance and recognition of ICJ jurisdiction compulsory.

Japan already refused to accept Ma Ying Jeou's ICJ challenge. Surprised you didn't know this.

https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,23,45&post=2558

Ma urges Japan to face up to Diaoyutais reality

Publication Date: August 22, 2012

Ma made the remarks in an interview with Japan’s national broadcaster NHK at the Presidential Office in Taipei City following a recent spate of incidents involving the archipelago.

*The president also suggested that the issue could also be taken to an international court for arbitration** if necessary.*

Your article simply states what Ma Ying Jeou "suggested". If Taiwan had formally pressed Japan to settle at tje ICJ, Japan was and is bound by the the Compulsory rules. It does not support your claim.

Please post evidence that Taiwan formally requested settlement at the ICJ and Japan refused.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

@OssanJapan

Your article simply states what Ma Ying Jeou "suggested"

If you read the original Japanese or Taiwanese articles covering the interview, it was more of a demand, if Japan refused to come to a direct negotiation over the Diaoyutai.

Of course Japan refuses both direct negotiations and ICJ referrals.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Abe has to defend Japanese interests, it's part of the job. Of course if Japan had dealt with these issues the way Germany had the issue might have gone away. But at the same time I'm not positive about that.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Samit BasuToday 09:05 am JST

@OssanJapan

Your article simply states what Ma Ying Jeou "suggested"

If you read the original Japanese or Taiwanese articles covering the interview, it was more of a demand, if Japan refused to come to a direct negotiation over the Diaoyutai.

Of course Japan refuses both direct negotiations and ICJ referrals.

Fine. Please post the link in Japanese wherein Taiwan formally requested settlement at the ICJ and Japan refused.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Samit BasuJan. 7 03:50 pm JST

The 1965 treaty only covered back wages and assets.

Read the treaty. Where in it does it say that it only covers "back wages and assets"? It clearly says that any claim is settled. Samit, this fact was shown to you several times already in this site.

Now, I have to ask you a serious question. Why do you keep telling falsehood? I see the same problem here as a fake news destroys free and democratic society.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

@Ossan: here is a report on Japan making sweeping unilateral exclusions to ICJ jurisdiction on matters it has previously lost in cases at the ICJ. The political equivalent of taking someone else's ball home with them when they run crying to Mommy. Why should/would Korean accept jurisdiction on the islands when this is what Japan themselves do when they lose?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/japan-rejects-international-court-jurisidiction-over-whaling-20151019-gkc7rm.html

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Good. I mean, how hard is it to compensate FOUR victims of forced labor? While technically it is correct that all claims were settled via the 1965 normalization treaty (where the South Korean government refused Japan's offer of individually compensating victims, and instead used that money to further build the country's infrastructure among other things), Nippon Steel still has a moral accountability to compensate these individuals and do the right thing.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Nippon Steel still has a moral accountability to compensate these individuals and do the right thing.

You just don't get it at all. It's not just the issue of FOUR victims and you should know what's going on in S.K right at this mom. If this is the way it goes, S.K does have a big moral accountability to pay back Japanese Taxpayer's bloody precious money with enough interest.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

MlodinowToday  07:39 pm JST

@Ossan: here is a report on Japan making sweeping unilateral exclusions to ICJ jurisdiction on matters it has previously lost in cases at the ICJ. The political equivalent of taking someone else's ball home with them when they run crying to Mommy. Why should/would Korean accept jurisdiction on the islands when this is what Japan themselves do when they lose?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/japan-rejects-international-court-jurisidiction-over-whaling-20151019-gkc7rm.html

Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, because in that instance, Australia (a compulsory signatory) took Japan (another compulsory signatory) over whaling, and Japan complied with the ruling. Japan's statement is based on the litigated issue (whaling) not being the kind of issue that the ICJ was created for, ie; diplomatic and territorial disputes between sovereign nations. It should be noted that no nation made any further attempts to intervene in Japan's Research Whaling subsequent to that statement.

When it comes to territorial disputes, Japan has asked South Korea THREE times to settle the Liancourt Rocks issue at the ICJ. South Korea itself is not even a signatory to the Compulsory Agreement.

In the case of the Senkakus, it is China (PRC) which is making a claim, and therefore it is up to China to take Japan to the ICJ over this issue. However, China has failed to do so because it has other territorial disputes with other nations and does not want it's "sovereignty" dictated by an international forum. The same excuse it gave to reject the PCA ruling against it in favor of the Philippines.

As for Samit Basu's claim that Taiwan asked Japan to settle the Senkaku issue at the ICJ and Japan refused, that is simply false. If Taiwan had done so Japan could and can not refuse being a Compulsory signatory. I realize that you want to somehow justify South Korea's refusal to go the ICJ over the Liancourt Rocks, but there really is no valid reason other than the extreme liklihood that South Korea does not have confidence in supporting it's case before an objective international forum.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Japan complied with the ruling

Not really. They changed a few letters and numbers and carried out essentially the same program in the knowledge that Australia likely wouldn't bother to take them to court again (and made sure of that in their subsequent refusal to acknowledge the court's obvious jurisdiction over the matter).

It should be noted that no nation made any further attempts to intervene in Japan's Research Whaling subsequent to that statement.

No intervention was made because of Japan's refusal to return to the ICJ (because they lost) and because of their liberal use of military technology (outside of Japan's domestic waters I might note).

SK shouldn't let Japan near the ICJ because even if Japan lose they will simply ignore the ruling and decline any further cases referred there. In any case, this article is about compliance with Korean domestic laws and hence the ICJ is basically irrelevant. For some reason you brought it up. Companies operating overseas must comply with laws of the land, it's that simple. Try kissing in public in Dubai or talking to another man's wife in Saudi Arabia & see how you get on.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

No country, Taiwan or China has ever tried to take Japan to the ICJ to settle a dispute over the Senkaku Islands.

Japan has asked South Korea to settle the Liancourt Rocks dispute THREE times at the ICJ. The first request was at the behest of the United States which was alarmed by the unilateral implementation of the Syngman Rhee Line. South Korea refuses to present it's case before the ICJ and instead occupies the Rocks illegally. No amount of excuses, irrelevant references to non-territorial or diplomatic issues, or even posting under a different sign on name can change the fact that South Korea obviously has no confidence in being able to legally support it's claim before an objective international forum.

When one takes South Korea's behavior on the Liancourt Rocks issue into account together with it's behavior in negotiating and signing the 1965 Treaty with Japan and not living up to it's terms, from failing to give the money paid by Japan to the "individuals who suffered" to violating the dispute resolution clause by allowing a South Korean Court to over ride the Treaty, to negotiating and signing the 2015 Comfort Women Agreement then breaking it in 2018, with the money paid by Japan intended for the survivors still unpaid and in the hands of the SK government, it becomes extremely difficult to avoid reaching a conclusion that the South Korean government is not one that can be trusted to keep it's word on anything. Sort of like an internet poster who keeps making false statements on line. Have a nice life.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@CH3CHO

Read the treaty. Where in it does it say that it only covers "back wages and assets"?

Shall we?

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20583/volume-583-I-8473-English.pdf

Article II

The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally.

The provisions of the present Article shall not affect the following (excluding those subject to the special measures which the respective Contracting Parties have taken by the date of the signing of the present Agreement) :

(a) Property, rights and interests of those nationals of either Contracting Party who have ever resided in the other country in the period between August 15, 1947 and the date of the signing of the present Agreement ;

(b) Property, rights and interests of either Contracting Party and its nationals, which have been acquired or have come within the jurisdiction of the other Contracting Party in the course of normal contacts on or after August 15, 1945.

What's covered by the 1965 treaty

-Property

-Rights

-Interests

What's NOT COVERED by the 1965 treaty

-Damages

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Nippon Steel's assets has been seized.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-01-08/south-korea-court-approves-seizure-of-some-of-nippon-steels-assets-yonhap

South Korea Court Approves Seizure of Some of Nippon Steel's Assets: Yonhap

Jan. 8, 2019, at 8:21 a.m.

SEOUL (REUTERS) - A South Korean court on Tuesday approved a request by plaintiffs in a wartime forced labor case to seize part of the local assets of Japan's Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp, Yonhap News Agency said, citing a court official.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Article II

*The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally.*

The provisions of the present Article shall not affect the following

You see the word "claims", which covers claims for damages.

2 ( +2 / -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