politics

S Korea rulings on wartime cases may reflect judges' conviction

16 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

The Korean Court should order the Blue House to arrange compensations to the plaintiffs. The problem arose when the Korean state officials breached the 1965 pact and embezzled the fund aimed for former labors. It's now only Korea's domestic issue, none of business to Japan.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

The ruling said that if a compulsory execution for compensation follows a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, and if an international court subsequently rules against South Korea over the case, that would damage the country's relations with Japan and the United States, and its national security.

The court went so far as to say that Japan's economic cooperation provided under the 1965 accord "greatly contributed to (South Korea's) economic growth."

There's hope yet if South Korea has more rational, mature people like this

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Is kinda funny when the court decide to fight among themselves. What's the point of rule and law then if every 2-3 years a different judge would suddenly come up with a new decision? This thing had been settle decades ago.

Is the same thing happening everywhere else. Whever a new party come into power, they reverse decisions on a whim and completely detroy the previous governments hard work. When you make a deal, you are bound by it no matter how much time has pass. Deals and promises are sacred and must be kept.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

The people "holding hope that things have changed" are very naive. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The rulings will be overturned, simple as that.

Hate sadly will never be changed by court rulings.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

This was a complete reversal from,“ we’re a country that respects our courts”, to hang those biled judges!

The Korean Court should order the Blue House to arrange compensations to the plaintiffs

this is how its actually done in normal countries with the gov taking care of its people and then going bilateral, but then SK is not a normal country.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Pro-North lefty groups are always there behind the scenes. They must involve Japan and make Japan accept their legal responsibilities for the day of unification so that North Korea can suck up all the wealth from Japan as legally-accepted compensational liability

7 ( +13 / -6 )

@noriahojanen

The Korean Court should order the Blue House to arrange compensations to the plaintiffs.

The Korean Court that has the final say on this matter, the supreme court, already ruled in 2018 that Japan was not protected from damages resulting from war crimes of Imperial Japan, triggering the current wave of lawsuits. 

So there is only one possible outcome; this verdict simply thrown out and Japanese defendants ordered to pay by the Supreme Court again.

@hiro

Is kinda funny when the court decide to fight among themselves. 

That happens all the time in countries with complete separation of power, such as the US and Korea. There is also the final arbiter to sort out conflicting rulings like this.

@Fighto!

The rulings will be overturned, simple as that.

Exactly.

-25 ( +4 / -29 )

This seems to evidence a much deeper problem with the justice system in Korea, too much political interference that is taken as "normal" and decisions based mostly on who is in power. That may be bad enough with domestic rulings, but involving international problems the consequences get amplified.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Supreme court judges in South Korea and South Korean Government has been ignoring Artcle III-2 Arbitration clause clearly stipulated in "the agreement" in 1965 as if it does not exist or their emotion override whatever stipulated in written agreement signed by both parties. None needs to discuss how to read the treaty on what covered or not covered, this single fact is more than enough to describe how this country is behaving isn't it?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Is the same thing happening everywhere else.

I can't speak for other nations but it certainly happens in the US. The law is complex and sometimes contradictory. In the US the courts are organized into districts. Within an appeals district there will be a large number of trial court districts. Most US Appeals Court Circuits hear cases from Federal Courts in several states. There are 11 Appeals Courts and 50 states. Cases heard at a trial court within their appeals court district that are appealed by the losing party go to the appeals court for further consideration. However the appeals court rules sets a precedent the trial courts are expected to follow. Often it happens that similar kinds of cases addressing the same points of law are heard on appeal by more than one appeals court and often two different appeals courts will see the matter differently and rule differently. Same point of law, but different opinions. Now you have conflicting precedents between appeals districts. Such situations beg an appeal to the US Supreme Court to settle the matter as one of the main reasons for the US Supreme Court is to settle conflicting rulings from different appeals courts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

According to one judicial source, what lay behind those rulings, which dismissed Korean plaintiffs' demand for damages from Japanese government and corporations, was judges' personal "conviction" that is unrestrained by the political winds of the day.

This is not how reality works, but rather how the world works when judges (human beings) hand down verdicts influenced by personal prejudices, political pressure and personal ambitions. Venality is the occupational hazard that vitiates justice, the latter being a concept that adults know is nothing but an abstract ideal that we teach to children who must be protected from the ugly realities of a dog-eat-dog world where the powerful always get their way.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The court went so far as to say that Japan's economic cooperation provided under the 1965 accord "greatly contributed to (South Korea's) economic growth."

From now on, this is the point of contention from South Korea..... how much did Japan contribute to South Korea's current economic state.

The interesting thing to note is, South Korea was extrememly cooperative with Japanese companies when it came to setting up and maintaining local maunfaturing and technology exchange over past decades. It was only when Sumsung-LG/Kia-Hyundai reached critical mass (in terms of global reach and output) that they turned their backs and started to deny everything associated with Japanese companies giving them a big leg-up to get where they are now. Literally biting the hand that fed it.

No that it's established that the South Koreans not only got compensated financially, but also technologically and apologetically, they will put Japan's massive contribution under the microscope and defend their total independence and "I did it my way" stance until the evidence is thrust in their faces from international sources. The Korean media cannot deny it, but they'll try very hard to do so.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

All these articles and comments about who's right and wrong are bogus on this topic in Japan.

The issue that JP has with Korea is racial and discrimatory, the other way around is true as well.

Any words or concepts are meaningless, whatever Korea does that is not in favor of the JP narrative will be bashed endlessly wether there are good or bad reasons. whatever Korea does in favor of the JP narrative will be prasied endlessly whether there are good or bad reasons. This is how this topic works.

This just shows the world why some countries shouldn't have an army, because they can''t deal with their own feeling and biases, and responsibilities afterwards... You don't give a gun to a child, you don't expect eh child to understand the extend of the problem afterwards, do you ?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is not how reality works, but rather how the world works when judges (human beings) hand down verdicts influenced by personal prejudices, political pressure and personal ambitions.

I don't know what the laws in South Korea say but in the US, the Equivalency Clause of the Constitution makes any treaty signed by a President and ratified by the Senate the equivalent of a Federal law fully enforceable by the courts. Applying that principal to the case in South Korea that would mean the 1965 San Francisco Treaty has the force of Korean law and the plaintiffs would have no standing to sue as the treaty settled such matters for all time. Such a judgement by a court in the US would not be a display of emotion. Far from it. It is how the law, in this case a signed treaty, is written. Any other verdict would be in violation of the law.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Desert Tortoise

Applying that principal to the case in South Korea that would mean the 1965 San Francisco Treaty has the force of Korean law and the plaintiffs would have no standing to sue as the treaty settled such matters for all time

You don't get it.

1) San Francisco Treaty of 1951 got nothing to do with it.

2) Basic Treaty of 1965 DOES NOT COVER DAMAGES FROM WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Of course Korean plaintiff have every right to sue Japanese state and companies as ruled by the Korean supreme court of 2018; the wording of 1965 treaty left out provisions for damages claims.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Basic Treaty of 1965 DOES NOT COVER DAMAGES FROM WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Sigh. The 1965 treaty settle all such claims for all time.

"The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally."

Universal Jurisdiction only applies to the arrest and trial of individuals accused of crimes against humanity. It is not a method to sue firms and obtain damages. Example, a nation might arrest and prosecute the WWII era owner of a Japanese company that engaged in slave labor using Universal Jurisdiction but UJ cannot be used to sue firms. That is established law.

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