politics

Japan-S Korea feud deepens with disputed accounts of trade meeting

72 Comments
By Hyunjoo Jin and Kiyoshi Takenaka

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

© Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

is it me or does it look like 2 guys sitting oposite themselves in different clothes?

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I can see which side is Japanese - the Cool Biz style on the left.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Pride is stubborn.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

“A cold reception amd the place resembling a garage”

The korean official is clearly trying to earn sympathy from the public. Like who cares what kind of reception they gotten or in what kind of place the meeting was held? He expect a expensive greeting after all the recent threats? If they really did wanted to negotiate,they would just try to keep things calm and not whine to the media every chance it get. They have been crying a while now to the world as being the victim. SK have been trying to drum up support from the public for a while now while purposely escalating things.

15 ( +23 / -8 )

Well, I suppose some credit must be given to the South Korean government, because outside of a few pictures of silent and orderly protests by some South Korean citizens against Japan, have yet to see any of this burning of Japanese flags and destruction of Japanese businesses nonsense we've seen in the past from that neck of the woods.

Still, any day now, and the SK government should be inciting the anti-Japan nationalists to start becoming more vocal and spreading their misinformation campaign across the world. Wouldn't surprise me to see local chapters of grassroots Koreans in every major city in the world spreading anti-Japanese propaganda, about how Japan 'never' apologized or atoned for its past, and what utterly terrible people they are for this latest trade fiasco.

15 ( +22 / -7 )

They can’t even agree on what they disagree upon.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

"I am frustrated," said the Korean official, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.”

“ South Korean media, however, reported there was a "cold reception" for their officials, and that the meeting took place in a room that looked like a "garage".”

A taste of your own medicine S.Korea.

Your frustration is barely a week old.

Now you know what Japan has been feeling in the last two decades.

Enjoy!

18 ( +29 / -11 )

On a worldwide scale, this is all prety irrelevant.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

He told Reuters the two sides had discussed what they would disclose but that there was no agreement.

"The nature of the meeting is not a consultation, but an occasion where Japan gives explanation after getting a request from the South Korean government," Iwamatsu said.

Does Iwamatsu not understand that the definition of "consultation" IS having a "formal discussion" which he admitted to have had.

-19 ( +4 / -23 )

The paper on the white board says the clerical explanatory meeting with export control, in very clear letters.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

Tokyo lodged a protest against Seoul, saying it had broken an agreement

Nothing new here.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

South Korean media, however, reported there was a "cold reception"

A result of their long history of anti-Japanese activities. What do they expect?

10 ( +16 / -6 )

The Japanese companies have lost one of their markets, so the Japanese companies are hurting too.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Tokyo lodged a protest against Seoul, saying it had broken an agreement on what the two sides would disclose from the Friday discussions on Japan's curbs of exports to Korea of some materials used to make high-tech equipment, said Japanese trade ministry official Jun Iwamatsu.

I'll buy this as a Probable, given Seoul's reputation for agreements. Further, leaking information for advantage is not only a common ploy, but has been done by Korea's brothers, the Chinese, since the "Twenty-One Demands".

Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) also disputed a Korean official's statement that Seoul had asked Japan on Friday to withdraw the restrictions.

But I don't see much value in disputing this. It is well known this is what they want. It is possible, of course, this is just a matter of fact though.

@HiroToday 07:21 am JST

I agree with your comments.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

They talked in Japanese or in Korean or in English? maybe the issue of language?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan holds all cards at the table. SK needs Japan, Japan doesn't need SK. Moon, wake up to yourself and overturn that unjust court ruling against Nippon Steel. Only then the relationship may improve.

Wouldn't surprise me to see local chapters of grassroots Koreans in every major city in the world spreading anti-Japanese propaganda, about how Japan 'never' apologized or atoned for its past, and what utterly terrible people they are 

Well argued, Old man. But make no mistake, the world will not fall for SK propaganda, and is behind Japan. Record numbers of tourists will continue to flock to Japan, people will still seek out Japan Quality goods, and Tokyo will put on the Greatest show on earth next year.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

The Japanese companies have lost one of their markets, so the Japanese companies are hurting too.

Not true. Government will ensure they won't lose even 1 yen.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

yoshiToday  08:24 am JST

The paper on the white board says the clerical explanatory meeting with export control, in very clear letters.

BuWaHaHa That's right. Shabby paper put on board, probably on purpose, saying

"Just an explanatory meeting"

Set aside greetings and shaking hands done already beforehand when they arrived at the bldg, probably

the choice of the room was also in line with this "Mere explanatory meeting"

This can no way be formal consultation. This is an good comedy!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"The nature of the meeting is not a consultation, but an occasion where Japan gives explanation after getting a request from the South Korean government," Iwamatsu said.

In other words ‘a waste of time’ ! You

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"The Japanese companies have lost one of their markets, so the Japanese companies are hurting too."

Awwww!

That Japanese companies are hurting is a good point. What is missing in the above statement is that they are hurting because of the Abe-LDP government. The South Koreans did not impose the sanctions.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

The South Koreans did not impose the sanctions.

?? What sanctions??

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This situation cannot be resolved as long as the South Koreans keep making unspecified demands.

There was an agreement that both Japan and South Korea agreed would be final. South Korea tore it up. So now if they want a resolution, they need to come up with one they think is appropriate. The problem is, they're an absolute mess internally on this situation. They don't even know what are fighting for, so how is Japan supposed to fix that?

After tearing up the supposed "final" agreement, the onus is on South Korea to put forth an alternate proposal, one that they are willing to agree to.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

My impression is that Japanese government officials are professional, and Japanese citizens respect them. In S. Korea, government officials are not so much respected, but their performance will be greatly enhanced as recently the competition for any governmental position has been extremely intense among young Koreans (1 to several hundreds applicants) since the 1997 economic crisis.

A problem I noticed is some Japanese officials are too much meticulous, sometimes failing to see the big picture. For example:

After decades of obfuscation, Japan stated today for the first time that bungling within the Foreign Ministry 53 years ago was responsible for Japan's failure to declare war on the United States before launching its attack on Pearl Harbor.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/21/world/japan-admits-it-bungled-notice-of-war-in-41.html

The current trade dispute between S. Korea and Japan was also back to a bungle of Japanese governmental officials when drafting the 1965 treaty. The Japanese government at that time denied any wrongdoing in S. Korea during the WWII, and the Japanese officials tried their best to omit 'reparation' or 'compensation' in the 1965 treaty. Thereafter, they agreed like this in the 1965 treaty:

*Products of Japan and the services of Japanese people, free of charge, the total value of which will be so much in yen as shall be equivalent to three hundred million United States dollars ($300,000,000), at present computed at one hundred and eight billion yen (\108,000,000,000), within a period of ten years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force.*

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

It states that the money is provided "free of charge" to the S. Korean government, not for reparation. The Japanese officials indeed did a good job in trying to omit any word like 'reparation' or 'compensation' in the treaty, which acknowledges wrongdoings. But, that was not a standard method in making treaties. It was just an expedient. They could not foresee that the term "free of charge" will be a judicial time bomb 50 years later.

Unlike Japan, the 3 powers (legal, administrative, and judicial powers) are well separated in S. Korea. It is impossible or even criminal for the administration to intervene the judicial process or try to overturn a ruling of the court in S. Korea. The term 'free of charge' ultimately leaded to the 2012 supreme court ruling that the Japanese companies within the S. Korean territory should pay reparation to the surviving victims of forced laborers, as they have never paid, according to the 1965 treaty. Of course, the courts did not allow the plaintiffs to ask compensation from the Japanese government. Detailed explanation by Japanese legal experts can be found in:

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

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a02703/

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

It pays to be self sufficient. Don't depend on anyone for anything.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A mind-boggling picture showing an international meeting. The Japanese officials in casual dresses sitting in front of the formally-dressed Korean envoys across the folding tables in what appears to be a makeshift meeting room of a fledging private company.

Whatever the reason, the Japanese side must follow international protocol strictly for such a meeting.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Looks like an omiai... I am interested to know what language they speak at these meetings. I can only imagine the miscommunication if they use English.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa

A mind-boggling picture showing an international meeting. The Japanese officials in casual dresses 

It's a formal dress during summer in Japan. It's called Cool Biz, an annual campaign calling on business and government offices to set their air conditioners at 28 degrees Celsius to save energy.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Below is an exact copy of the Treaty signed by both the governments of Japan and South Korea......

There is no reference or use of the term free of change.......This signed Treaty normalised relations.

Please, free of charge, as, buy one get one free, are sometime dubious offers one could stumble over in a supermarket, so have not place in Treaty law.....

1. To the Republic of Korea Japan shall :

(a) Supply the products of Japan and the services of the Japanese people, the

total value of which will be so much in yen as shall be equivalent to three hundred

million United States dollars ($300,000,000) at present computed at one hundred

and eight billion yen (¥108,000,000,000), in grants [on a non-repayable basis] within

the period of ten years from the date of the entry into force of the present Agreement.

Agreement on the settlement of problems concerning property and claims and on economic co-operation (with Protocols, exchanges of notes and agreed minutes).

Signed at Tokyo, on 22 June 1965

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

The options are clearly detailed for the present South Korean government to fully comprehend, and have to be followed to the letter.

President Moon Jae-in must hold his hands up and comply, failure and his government is in breech of International law. The consequences are clearly evident in the above photo.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The talk is just an appetizer. Main dish is next. Everybody will be fed, satisfactorily.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

説明会: explaination meeting. Hahaha...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Reap the whirlwind you have created South Korea!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Not true. Government will ensure they won't lose even 1 yen.

@Ganbare Nippon - If you have an ounce of understanding of this issue, you'd realise that Japan is ready to lose a few fingers just to see SK lose an arm.. if you see past your supreme and unwavering faith in Japan.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

One issue turned into two. Soon it may be three. South Korea will look for something it exports to Japan that Japan needs and cant get from anywhere else, and place restrictions on it. Around and around. Acting like children rather than adults. Fuelled by media and children in the public who drive the tit for tat behaviour. It seems both nations lack real leadership. Such a shame.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@itsonlyrocknroll

Below is an exact copy of the Treaty signed by both the governments of Japan and South Korea......

An exact scanned copy is here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20690013?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

There is no reference or use of the term free of change.......This signed Treaty normalised relations.

Even if you are right, the legal fact, that the Japanese government has never compensated for the wartime forced laborers, does not change. According to the 1965 treaty, the Japanese government gave the money of USD 300 millions for what?

The Japanese government officials should at least implied or inserted the term 'compensation' at least in an appendix to avoid any legal fiasco. They were so much preoccupied not to admit any wrongdoing during the WWII. This attitude has not changed thereafter, causing all kinds of diplomatic problems with the neighboring countries, and even with the U.S.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@SJ

The Japanese government officials should at least implied or inserted the term 'compensation' at least in an appendix to avoid any legal fiasco. 

Compensation for what? Please define.

Also, I believe you know so-called the list of 8 items SK demanded and fulfilled.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@SJ

Re: "free of charge". Is it your own perception? or generally accepted perception in SK? or newly created "word game" by SK's top-heavy supreme court judges?

I wonder what do you or SK people in general think " free of charge money" was granted for in 1965?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

pan doesn't need SK. Moon, wake up to yourself and overturn that unjust court ruling against Nippon Steel. 

And how is Moon able to do that in a Democratic state, just tell the court to drop the case?

Can Abe simply overturn a Supreme Court case in Japan, a democratic state?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

One issue turned into two. Soon it may be three. South Korea will look for something it exports to Japan that Japan needs and cant get from anywhere else, and place restrictions on it. Around and around. Acting like children rather than adults. Fuelled by media and children in the public who drive the tit for tat behaviour. It seems both nations lack real leadership. Such a shame.

If it weren’t for Jaoan’s largesse, South Korea wouldn’t be as developed as it is today. I wish Japan would continue down this path and take the high road; that’d be admirable.

The small man only cries they started the problem. The gentleman solves the problem.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Korean people are reaping fruits of choosing an extreme anti-Japanese, pro-N Korea president Moon.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

quercetumToday  06:34 pm JST

pan doesn't need SK. Moon, wake up to yourself and overturn that unjust court ruling against Nippon Steel. 

And how is Moon able to do that in a Democratic state, just tell the court to drop the case?

Can Abe simply overturn a Supreme Court case in Japan, a democratic state?

Easy. Enforcement is done by the executive branch. The proposals by such executive branch is making,at this moment, is " pay together( with Korean companies + government" are not exactly same as the judicial branch's order "the defendants pay".

SK government pays on behalf of the defendants. .... and could challenge top-heavy EMOCRATS at the supreme court AGAIN and AGAIN and over AGAIN until they all get tired of this word game.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@SJ Today 05:12 pm JST

That is a scanned copy of something for a journal article printed by Cambridge University Press. I don't know why that formulation is so common but prima facie it cannot beat the credibility of a version stored at the UN, complete with both Japanese and Korean texts.

Having said that, I don't think "free of charge" is that substantively different from "grant" since you can play the same crappy little games. The main thing is that the South Koreans accepted this formulation and agreed that everything was settled. Article II(1) has pretty similar versions everywhere I know. The Supreme Court of South Korea, or any body in South Korea, does not have unilateral authority to reverse or minimize this determination.

If this is a civil law case, this is in essence what happened. South Korea and Japan are legal entities. They entered into a kind of no-fault settlement where money was handed over. Then Korea unilaterally grabbed more money coercively based on its own determination of the case. Most people will understand what happened as Robbery.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

SJ

The link to pdf is a actual/genuine copy stored on the UN treaty archive signed on 22 June 1965.

The document contains the necessary protocols, all appropriate articles, schedules including a comprehensive system/tribunal procedure to solve disputes.

The 1965 Treaties prepose by name is to normalise relations.

I believe this Korean Times article provides a balanced background to the negotiations and procedures involved

Korea-Japan Treaty, Breakthrough for Nation Building

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2013/01/291_62653.html

Remember I am stating my humble opinion, and yes a political one at that. However that does not imply that my opinion carries more weight than any other JT contributor.

I understand emotions, diplomatically have reached an historical low. I also feel President Moon Jae-in has rolled the dice politically and strategically under estimated the outcome and implications.

I really do not want contribute or attempt an interpretation to the 1965Treaties whys and wherefores.

Agreements/Treaties of this nature, by design, draw a line under historic grievances.

All the best, offered and stated sincerely

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@itsonlyrocknroll

Remember I am stating my humble opinion, and yes a political one at that. However that does not imply that my opinion carries more weight than any other JT contributor.

Do you really believe that the so called JT contributors are better in interpreting the laws and treaties. I just cited the interpretations of your own Japanese legal experts, not Korean experts. Even Abe is not a legal expert.

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

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a02703/

If you have any opinion opposing the above 2 links, please cite external links supporting your claim.

Remember I am stating my humble opinion, and yes a political one at that. However that does not imply that my opinion carries more weight than any other JT contributor.

The landmark ruling of the Supreme court of S. Korea was made in 2012, 6 years before the Moon's inauguration. Moon is irrelevant of the ruling. In S. Korea, the president of the administration can not intervene in rulings of courts. It is criminal.

Again, all of the problems were originated from the stubborn attitude of denying any wrongdoing during the world war II by the Japanese government. While not admitting any wrongdoing, how could they compensate for the victims? It is logically impossible.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

That is a scanned copy of something for a journal article printed by Cambridge University Press. I don't know why that formulation is so common but prima facie it cannot beat the credibility of a version stored at the UN, complete with both Japanese and Korean texts.

The UN document, which is omitting "free of charge", was registered by Japan, not by Korea, on December 25, 1966, one year later. It is not accompanied with a Korean or Japanese version.

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

The scanned document was translated in 1965 by Library of Congress of the U.S., and published in January 1966, predating by 1 year the UN document registered by Japan.

In the original Japanese version, the term "無償で供与" is clearly stated, which coincides with the U.S. version.

*現在において千八十億円(一◯八、◯◯◯、◯◯◯、◯◯◯円)に換算される三億合衆国ドル(三◯◯、◯◯◯、◯◯◯ドル)に等しい円の価値を有する日本国の生産物及び日本人の役務を、この協定の効力発生の日から十年の期間にわたつて無償で供与するものとする。*

https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E8%B2%A1%E7%94%A3%E5%8F%8A%E3%81%B3%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82%E6%A8%A9%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C%E3%81%AE%E8%A7%A3%E6%B1%BA%E4%B8%A6%E3%81%B3%E3%81%AB%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%A8%E5%A4%A7%E9%9F%93%E6%B0%91%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AE%E9%96%93%E3%81%AE%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A

This is the same in the Korean version. While the four documents in English, Japanese and Korean all contain the term 'free of charge', only the single English version, registered belatedly by Japan, omitted the term. Which one do you think is more credible?

This clearly indicates the Japanese government, in 1966, may have realized the legal problem in the 1965 treaty, trying belatedly to fix it, again by an expedient method, without letting it be known to Korea or other countries.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

We made a treaty with SK normalizing relationships. The treaty explicitly says that ALL issues from the war are thereby resolved. AND we paid lots of money that was supposed to be paid to victims of the war, but Park Chung He used it for government projects. All this is well known history. Yes, ALL issues from the war were resolved. PERIOD!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@gokai_wo_maneku

we paid lots of money that was supposed to be paid to victims of the war, but Park Chung He used it for government projects.

They paid 'free of charge', and why should Park use it for victims? Your government never requested it, and actually paying to the victims would be technically a violation of the treaty. The Japanese government paved the way of using it for government projects by omitting 'compensation', and confirming again with 'free of charge'.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

They paid 'free of charge', and why should Park use it for victims? Your government never requested it, and actually paying to the victims would be technically a violation of the treaty. The Japanese government paved the way of using it for government projects by omitting 'compensation', and confirming again with 'free of charge'.

This is all moot. Until South Korea can figure out what the hell they want, and put forward a proposal, the situation can never be resolved. This is a direct result of their extreme screw up by negotiating a final agreement and then tearing it up. They destroyed their ability for their word to have any weight whatsoever in negotiations. It was an extremely rookie move as far as international relations go. Any time a leader tears up an agreement without something else in place, they directly impact the ability for their country to be taken with good will at any negotiations.

The problem here is that South Korea is complaining, but not putting forward any solution. Until they put forward a solution, this problem doesn't get any better. They made their own bed on this one.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

SJ

Well the Government of Japan current diplomatic and political interpretation and assessment is unequivocal.

The only valid official Judicial interpretation is clearly stated within the 1965 signed Treaty.

Any attempt to circumvent the 1965 Korea-Japan Basic Treaty through either countries own Judiciary could be construed as a breach of International Law. As articles clearly state a dispute tribunal process.

Regarding the Decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, Confirming the Existing Judgments on the Japanese Company

https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_002204.html

How did you find Park Won-soon, Korea-Japan Treaty, Breakthrough for Nation Building article?

The financial stipulations and settlement contained within the Treaty, are pivotal to achieve Korean Government signature to normalise relations. Treaties of this nature are laws based. Levels of diplomacy needed to formally negotiate their conclusion require compromise and concessions.

Park Won-soon details the political difficulties obtaining settlement in the article.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Peter14Today  05:06 pm JST

One issue turned into two. Soon it may be three. South Korea will look for something it exports to Japan that Japan needs and cant get from anywhere else, and place restrictions on it.

Japan doesn't need to import Kimchee. There are plenty of Korean-Japanese businesses in Osaka that produce Kimchee domestically.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll

Regarding the Decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, Confirming the Existing Judgments on the Japanese Company

https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_002204.html

The foreign minister Kono Taro is not an legal expert. The above statement published on October 30, 2018 is even contradicted by his own testimony in the Diet just 2 weeks later.

However, in response to Japanese Communist Party representative Kokuta Keiji in the Diet, Foreign Minister Kono Taro answered, "The individual's right to claim is not invalid because of the Japan-South Korea agreement," (Nov.14, Lower House Foreign Affairs Committee). This has brought puzzled reactions from both at home and abroad.

http://www.japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/?id=11929

Basically, the ruling of the Korean supreme court in 2012 is the same as his testimony in the Diet on November 14, 2018:

But in 2012, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision ruled that the right of individuals to seek compensation was not invalidated by the 1965 accord, sending their case back to a lower court.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/11/2801d6829d2d-urgent-s-korea-top-court-orders-mbishi-heavy-to-compensate-for-wartime-labor.html

Remember that I cite only Japanese sources here. These self-contradictory claims by the Japanese government are difficult to understand for some Japaneses here?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Easy. Enforcement is done by the executive branch. The proposals by such executive branch is making,at this moment, is " pay together( with Korean companies + government" are not exactly same as the judicial branch's order "the defendants pay". 

SK government pays on behalf of the defendants. .... and could challenge top-heavy EMOCRATS at the supreme court AGAIN and AGAIN and over AGAIN until they all get tired of this word game.

Your answer does not “overturn” the case, what Ganbare Japan suggests and what I was responding to, but rather honors the decision. The decision still stands and is not overturned

Executing a judicial order and carrying it out does not mean the decision can be moderated or amended. If the executive branch did that it would be acting on behalf of the judicial branch.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

OK, SJ, I see I will be typing for a long time today:

@SJ Today 08:02 pm JST

The scanned document was translated in 1965 by Library of Congress of the U.S., and published in January 1966, predating by 1 year the UN document registered by Japan.

According to your statement, it was translated by a third-party to the negotiations? That may be good for fairness, but not necessarily so good for detailed understanding.

The second problem is the credibility of where you sourced your quotation. Cambridge is good, but on treaty texts it can't beat something filed with the UN on authenticity. And if Cambridge isn't good enough, why do you think Wikisource, which I can edit by clicking on it, will be (not saying you can't use it to start, but if someone pulls something from the UN, you lose).

But never mind, I can work with your Wikisource Japanese sample. The main difference I can see between the two English versions is that the Wikisource/Cambridge version uses "free of charge" and places it ahead of the amounts. The UN version uses "grants" and places it after the amount.

The Japanese version has the key word after the amount. Further, on the merits free of charge is just "無償" - three glyphs are not represented. If you want a word covering all 5 glyphs, "grant" is correct. Maybe the final decision for the "Library of Congress" version is made with a nod to the Korean version (which I can't read), but as far as matching up to the Japanese is concerned the UN version seems better on this point, both in completeness (translating 5 glyphs 2 glyphs) and positioning (if possible, try to array the concepts in the same order as the original).

And you have completely missed the most important part of the argument, which is that the nitpick between "free of charge" and "grant" isn't even the main point. The main point is Article II(1), where they agreed everything is settled. It could all be nothing but loans, which would be even further from compensation, and the point still stands as long as the Koreans are willing to sign up for Article II(1).

@SJ Today 10:29 pm JST

There is no contradiction. You just lack legal knowledge to understand what was being said.

First, the Press Statement reasserts a basic point, which I doubt even you would challenge. There is a discrepancy between what Korea is doing and the demands of the text. When interpreting law, you don't start with legal theory. You start by reading the legal instrument.

Second, the individual right to claim is not extinguished. He can actually say that without saying anybody can actually claim it. It is entirely possible for someone to have the right to claim and to be legally unable to claim it to exist at the same time. A simple example might be I owe you money. You certainly have a right to claim there. However, suppose the only way to get that money is to kill me. Then you can't legally get your money back even counting only substantive law, because the value of Life is greater than Property. Maybe one day, my life won't depend on that money, so your right to claim isn't extinguished - but you can't get that money until the blockage disappears (if it disappears).

There are a number of other reasons, but the point is that such a state is possible.

Third, regardless of the validity in domestic law, international law does not care. It cares as to whether your final action, as a State, fulfills the textual requirements of the legal instrument. So you can use any reasoning you want, or even just deliberate non-execution of a domestically-valid court judgment, internally. Just do what the treaty text says.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Your answer does not “overturn” the case, what Ganbare Japan suggests and what I was responding to, but rather honors the decision. The decision still stands and is not overturned

Executing a judicial order and carrying it out does not mean the decision can be moderated or amended. If the executive branch did that it would be acting on behalf of the judicial branch.

OK my point was not whether completely overturning the court decision or not but rather about how SK could solve the issue without conflicting with separation of powers. Is the counter proposal made by SK government, "1+1" fund or "1+1+alpha" fund compatible with the court order? I hope so cause that's why SK government is proposing it, despite that, as I mentioned, we all know this idea is not exactly the same as the court decision such as "Japanese companies pay".

If it is, then, SK government paying off on behalf of Japanese defendants should be also compatible both with the court decision and with 1965 treaty. See? On behalf of ...as SK once received fund from Japan 50 yrs ago.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@quercetumToday 10:42 pm JST

Executing a judicial order and carrying it out does not mean the decision can be moderated or amended. If the executive branch did that it would be acting on behalf of the judicial branch.

If you say the executive can "moderate" or "amend" a judicial decision, in principle the moderation can be 100% (null). Perhaps a different tactic would work better.

@SJToday 07:27 pm JST

Given that you don't really understand law (I remember you claiming you don't, so you don't want to discuss your articles on the merits), you don't have much clue as to whether the sources you are using really back you up, right? Perhaps we can help...

Since I did SKR previously, I'll do Nippon.com by Kokubun Noriko.

I will point out that unlike SKR, who are clearly "pushing" the South Korean judgment (at about the competence I would expect from a housewife), Kokubun is more descriptive - she is describing the South Korean play without making too much of a positive or negative appraisal. In fact, if you read b/w the lines, you might even infer she's saying the judgment is flawed, such as:

*Under Article 217 of South Korea’s Civil Procedure Act, the final rulings of other countries’ courts are considered valid subject to certain conditions.*

In other words, while there are escape routes, in principle South Korea is supposed to accept the final rulings by its own law. This was not done.

*But the Supreme Court, *declaring

"Declaring" does not sound good. A good court judgment is reasoned, so it should have been "The Supreme Court, reasoning...". Declare implies the court made an arbitrary ruling without completing the legal reasoning processes to narrow the discretion they have as much as possible to a singularity.

This impliance seems consistent with the displayed facts, since the Japanese court's rationale does not even really depend on the legality of the 1965 Treaty (based on Statute of Limitations), yet the Korean Supreme Court just declared it has to do with it. It is not clear how a ruling dependent on the statute of limitations can be so clearly against the constitution it qualifies for those exceptions.

*The court also declared that the state cannot liquidate an individual’s claim rights without the individual’s consent; it can only abandon diplomatic protection rights.*

Again with that "declare". Kokubun states facts when she says this formulation is similar to what the Supreme Court of Japan went for. However, it doesn't really cover the small problem of how to square it with the clear meaning of the text.

The Supreme Court also noted these four points: (1) The view that the rights of individuals to make claims had been settled by the 1965 claims agreement had been prevalent within South Korea.

In other words, it admits it is going against its own system's traditionally held theories. Encouraging.

*in its view** that the defendant’s allegation that the statute of limitations had expired was contradictory to the principle of good faith and an abuse of rights.*

In other words, it used discretion again - rather than reasoning it out properly. Sure, sometimes you need to use discretion to fill gaps where there is no case law / jurisprudence so you can't bring things down to a dot, but it is a weak basis to make karate kicks into internationally agreed text.

*The Supreme Court took a lenient view of the causes for delay in application of the statute of limitations and made bold use of the legal principles of violation of good faith and abuse of rights*

In other words, the Supreme Court deliberately expanded the targeting circles of these to put MHI into its crosshairs where a less biased view might well have put them outside it. "Bold" means "Forced", OK?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

The main point is Article II(1), where they agreed everything is settled.

Of course, I am not a legal expert, and this is why I always cite external sources.

The clause like "everything is settled" is just a meaningless rhetoric, not a legal expression. To be legally effective, the scope should be specified. This is one reason why the 1965 treaty should be drafted and signed again.

Again, to contradict the two opinions of Japanese legal experts I linked above, you need to cite external links of such legal interpretations supporting your claim.

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

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a02703/

I am eager to see what other Japanese legal experts say regarding the 2012 ruling of the S. Korean supreme court.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

S. Korea can fix this if they choose to do so. If they choose to follow the agreements already signed, paid for, apologies given over 50 which Korea says it never happened.

On every turn S. Korea has allowed relations with Japan to get worse because they never suffered any consequences, they benefited from it.

Moon became president by promising to be aggressive against Japan, he was a lawyer and he understands the loopholes S. Korea can use to constantly squeeze another apology another compensation from Japan.

This will never end if you let them get away with it, getting out of agreements, radar lock on in Japan Sea, making inappropriate comments about the Emperor, illegally occupying our Island, Comfort women statues built around the world. Redicuolous dealing with this country and they want to be on the white list. Lol

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@SJ

The clause like "everything is settled" is just a meaningless rhetoric, not a legal expression.

Oh Yes? Who said so? an unknown legal expert?

To be legally effective, the scope should be specified.

Not only It was specified pretty much in the list of 8 items demanded by SK but also the treaty covered

unknown and unexpected claims (in 1965) by "everything is settled completely and finally"

And South Korea signed.

This is one reason why the 1965 treaty should be drafted and signed again.

So? is SK government pushing for it?

Again, to contradict the two opinions of Japanese legal experts I linked above, you need to cite external links of such legal interpretations supporting your claim.

And it has to be readable in English, doesn't it? The best and the quickest for you to read minority opinions

within the verdict of SK top court as I said before.

Honestly I don't understand why you are stuck on the same link for this long?

Besides, Noriko Kokubun takes neither sides.

I am eager to see what other Japanese legal experts say regarding the 2012 ruling of the S. Korean supreme court.

You might be in the wrong forum unless you can afford to listen to nothing but what legal experts say or with external links to those.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@SJ

You had better answer to this question at least. What " free of charge money" was granted for?

What could possibly have Japan give you " free of charge money" which was about the size of SK national budget at the time?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Moon needs to do the right thing and pay the victims of force labor with the money Japan already paid in 1965 aggrement to cover such claims.

S. Korea has benefited tremendously from Japans technology and economic support, a trade surplus runs in S. Korea favor for decades now, over 600 billion in the last 54 years.

I want better relations with S. Korea, the path they want to take hasn't worked and has made relations worse, apology and compensation didn't work.

A more aggressive approach is the way to take if you love S. Korea and want better relations than we had for the last 70 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Moon needs to do the right thing and pay the victims of force labor with the money Japan already paid in 1965 aggrement to cover such claims.

S. Korea has benefited tremendously from Japans technology and economic support, a trade surplus runs in S. Korea favor for decades now, over 600 billion in the last 54 years.

I want better relations with S. Korea, the path they want to take hasn't worked and has made relations worse, apology and compensation didn't work.

A more aggressive approach is the way to take if you love S. Korea and want better relations than we had for the last 70 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Moon needs to do the right thing and pay the victims of force labor with the money Japan already paid in 1965 aggrement to cover such claims.

S. Korea has benefited tremendously from Japans technology and economic support, a trade surplus runs in S. Korea favor for decades now, over 600 billion in the last 54 years.

I want better relations with S. Korea, the path they want to take hasn't worked and has made relations worse, apology and compensation didn't work.

A more aggressive approach is the way to take if you love S. Korea and want better relations than we had for the last 70 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Moon needs to do the right thing and pay the victims of force labor with the money Japan already paid in 1965 aggrement to cover such claims.

S. Korea has benefited tremendously from Japans technology and economic support, a trade surplus runs in S. Korea favor for decades now, over 600 billion in the last 54 years.

I want better relations with S. Korea, the path they want to take hasn't worked and has made relations worse, apology and compensation didn't work.

A more aggressive approach is the way to take if you love S. Korea and want better relations than we had for the last 70 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

SJ - what is it that Korea even wants?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/WTO-agrees-to-discuss-Japan-s-export-curbs-on-South-Korea

WTO agrees to discuss Japan's export curbs on South Korea

Seoul and Tokyo get chance to win 'sympathizers' during two-day session in Geneva

GENEVA -- The World Trade Organization has stepped into the latest flashpoint between South Korea and Japan, agreeing to formally discuss Seoul's grievances over Tokyo's restrictions against exports of semiconductor materials later this month.

WTO decided to intervene and discuss on Japan's export control as it is illegal under WTO rules.

Korea's plan is to formally charge Japan of WTO trade rule violations after Japan's election.

Korea is expected to win by most legal experts as WTO clearly ruled in the past that export control is illegal except in cases of war.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They should have just cancelled this meeting. Embarrassing for both sides - like 4 elementary school kids being forced to sit down and fix their quarrelling.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The clause like "everything is settled" is just a meaningless rhetoric, not a legal expression. To be legally effective, the scope should be specified. This is one reason why the 1965 treaty should be drafted and signed again.

Finally SJ, a defined agenda we can all recognise, contained in the above paragraph final sentence.

Renegotiation, to correct an implied failure of the 1962 Treaty?

President Moon Jae-in actions, behaviour, politically have all but scuppered this strategy. Trust is the life blood underpinning Treaty Law.

The danger and implication in failure to repect Treaty Law are contained in Foreign Minister Taro Kono linked statement.....

Here.....

This decision clearly violates Article II of the Agreement and inflicts unjustifiable damages and costs on the said Japanese company. Above all, the decision completely overthrows the legal foundation of the friendly and cooperative relationship that Japan and the Republic of Korea have developed since the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1965.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Second, the individual right to claim is not extinguished. He can actually say that without saying anybody can actually claim it. It is entirely possible for someone to have the right to claim and to be legally unable to claim it to exist at the same time.

 

At least, you agreed that the individual right to claim is not extinguished, the 2012 ruling of the Supreme court of S. Korea, which Kono Taro also agreed on.

But, Abe said like this:

 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dismissed the court decision and showed a defiant attitude to Seoul, insisting that the issue of wartime drafted workers’ right to claim compensation was “completely and finally” resolved by the 1965 agreement between Japan and South Korea which concerns the right to claim for damages as well as economic cooperation. Abe added that this ruling is “totally unacceptable in light of international law”.

http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jcpcc/blog/2018/11/jcp-calls-for-fair-resolution-20181101.html

 

Again, the clause like "completely and finally resolved" is not a legal statement. It should have been replaced with the term like "waive". Compare it with the article 14(b) of the 1951 San Francisco treaty.

 

Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20136/volume-136-i-1832-english.pdf 

If the meanings of "completely and finally resolved" is the same as "waived", your opinion contradicts the Abe's statement.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Again, the clause like "completely and finally resolved" is not a legal statement. It should have been replaced with the term like "waive".

No it shouldn't. It was a statement of intent, they are placed into contracts all the time for context.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

At least, you agreed that the individual right to claim is not extinguished, the 2012 ruling of the Supreme court of S. Korea, which Kono Taro also agreed on.

That's why they should go and claim to South Korean Government, as simple as that.

Again, the clause like "completely and finally resolved" is not a legal statement. It should have been replaced with the term like "waive". Compare it with the article 14(b) of the 1951 San Francisco treaty.

You're basically tracing the discussion process done by supreme court judges to come up with the verdict to the people who fully know it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Another opinion on the 2012 ruling of S. Korean supreme court published by a Japanese legal expert (in Japanese):

http://justice.skr.jp/seikyuuken-top.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@SJ

If they pass national bar exam, does SK allow Japanese citizen to work as lawyers over there?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@SJ July 15 08:50 am JST

But, Abe said like this:

For one thing, that was a summary. For another thing, I can't really blame Abe if he simplified it this exact way because it is so hard tor the unwashed masses (like you) to wrap their heads around complicated concepts like the international/domestic law division or how there can be cases where you have the right to money but can't legally get it.

Again, the clause like "completely and finally resolved" is not a legal statement.

1) That's an opinion. 

2) the idea that it was "waived" clashes with the money being thrown back and forth in Article 1. That's likely why they finally went with the present formulation.

3) What makes you think this hypothetical change will change the Korean Supreme Court's mind. If you agree with their concept that states cannot sign away individual's rights to money, substituting "waive" for "resolved" isn't going to change the validity of this argument.

@SJ July 15 08:05 pm JST

Did you notice they are the same darn guys, and you are quoting from something's whose language link is Korean? (Usually, if Japanese websites have another language, it'll be English first). In content, it isn't really too different from the link you usually give. But OK, merits (now that you have proposed a revolutionary "merit" based argument of your own, surely you can no longer stop me from indulging in actually appraising a source on its quality of reasoning):

The author confuses the conclusion (operative part) and the narrative part expanding on the exact legal reasoning used, which obviously may evolve over a period of decades.

The author is derelict in not defining 外交保護権 more precisely for the lay audience despite the fact this is a key concept. Perhaps they are hoping that lay audiences will interpret it narrowly based on the common image of 外交 as diplomats making requests and negotiating, but the concept of diplomatic protection is much wider and includes "judicial or arbitral proceedings or other forms of peaceful dispute settlement".

Three to four expand 2's concept.

The conclusion (sorry, no money) is the same and the reasoning is but a refinement of the older formulation. The substantive right is not lost - the power to use judicial means to get it is. Which is basically similar to the "diplomatic protection" formula.

So, the Koreans were actually even harsher to start with, having extinguished their citizen's substantive right. Having extinguished it once, to reverse and revive it is effectively a violation of estoppel. Not that we can expect such a wonderful source to even discuss this... and the rest is basically a rundown as to how the Koreans opportunistically warped their own position within a few years and a single paragraph.

The idea they still have substantive rights, in domestic law, does not in any way justify a brutal text violation in international law. In fact, even this article does not try that far, just proposing the Koreans have some rights to money that might somehow be rewarded.
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