politics

S Koreans declare start of Japan firm asset sale over wartime labor

27 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Opinion of Japanese legal experts on the verdict of S. Korea Supreme court regarding forced wartime labor:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html (Enlgish)

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html (Japanese)

 

Nevertheless, nowadays political demagogues instigating hatred among people are prevalent around the world. It is a sad trend.

-20 ( +3 / -23 )

"The government has called on Japanese firms not to agree to compensate the plaintiffs, in addition to requesting that Seoul come up with measures to protect the business activities of Japanese companies in South Korea."

What a stupid govt, as simple as that. The firms should be allowed to do whatever are the best interests for the companies.

-21 ( +3 / -24 )

SJ, why is a simpler matter made complicated, and a cheap solution made more expansive one ?

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Opinion of Japanese legal experts on the verdict of S. Korea Supreme court regarding forced wartime labor:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html (Enlgish)

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html (Japanese)

Too easy. Legal experts of Korean ancestry?

Who are you fooling.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Why do the Korean lawyers request negotiation?

Why don't they immidiately start to liquidate the assets?

What they are intending is comprehensive compensation for all "forced" labors, since compensation achivied by wining individual cases could support very limited number of the labors.

It was already agreed in 1965 between the two goverments that compensation to Korean individuals should be done by the Korean goverment by utilizing $800 million "economic cooperation" paid from Japan.

The Korean government preffered this treatment rather letting the Japanese goverment compensate the Korean individuals.

However, the Korean government have not compensated them, nor tried to start compensate after these cases.

The Japanese government and the firms are just following agreements, rules and laws.

Immidiate retaliation by imposing higher tariffs on imports will be difficult, since established Japanese domestics laws do not seem to support it.

Some tricks will be required, say, by accusing their dumping or by accusing that they have been breaking sanctions against North Korea.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@Bamboo

I am sure you can read English and Japanese. For your questions, read again the interpretations of Japanese legal experts until you can understand:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html (Enlgish)

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html (Japanese)

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea was signed on June 22, 1965.

Japan provided South Korea with $300 million grant in economic aid and $200 million in loans together with $300 million in loans for private trust, a total of $800 million as "economic cooperation".[5] By this Agreement, problems in regard to property and claims between Japan and Korea have been settled completely and finally.

Call me stupid, but ... settled completely and finally .... in regard to property and claims means - that's it, no more, to me.

Further,

In January 2005, the South Korean government disclosed 1,200 pages of diplomatic documents that recorded the proceeding of the treaty. The documents, kept secret for 40 years, recorded that the Japanese government actually proposed to the South Korean government to directly compensate individual victims but it was the South Korean government which insisted that it would handle individual compensation to its citizens and then received the whole amount of grants on behalf of the victims.

So, once again, settled already. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2005/01/17/SKorea-discloses-sensitive-documents/UPI-38131105952315/

11 ( +12 / -1 )

@ SJ

I already read both and I already replied you elsewhere that only 1% of lawyers support it.

By the way,

it's cleary mentioned

"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."

in

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

you may find Korean version in the left column as well.

Some say that say, "confort woman" or "forced" labor are not included in the "settlement".

Then, what do you think are included in the "settlement"?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

What the heck is SK waiting for? Why keep shouting at lonely chicken race nobody else paying attention to?

I wish SK would really break all the ties between 2 countries so that Japan and even US would realize it's not really big deal at all.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

@ SJ

My quotation has some error. I try again.

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.

If it fails again, please read Article II.1.

Also refer Article II.2 and II.3.

You also should refer Article III, where ways to resolve any dispute on this settlement are written.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Japan do as S. Korea does. Treat S. Korea the way they've been treating Japan for the last several decades.

Moon is a formal lawyer, he knows how to milk the cow called Japan. Their good at negotiating, got a great deal against America when it comes to paying their share for US troops station there.

If 60 years of apologies and compensation has made relations this bad... Than its time to try a different approach to the Korea issue.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

"The plaintiffs are still waiting, and as they are really old, they could become unhealthy sooner or later," the lawyer said, adding that if Nippon Steel refuses to engage in talks, "we will start taking steps as soon as we come back."

Government-sanctioned extortion, pure and simple.

The Korean government is hiding behind the courts, when in fact, the courts are doing their dirty work for them.

So, the plaintiffs can now go to the Japanese companies and say.... "pay up or else".

Say whatever you want to say about the Japanese annexation and occupation, but the government-to-government agreements are binding. If an international agreement can just be disregarded, then what is the point of having agreements?!

The party in the wrong here is the South Korean government. Who settled with Japan because they wanted money, money that they didn't share with their own people. THAT is on THEM.

If Japan had any backbone, they would be ruthless in retaliation for this ongoing shakedown scheme by the South Koreans!!

And that is what this is!!

I think what Japan did in Korea was despicable. But an agreement was signed.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@Bamboo

Why do the Korean lawyers request negotiation?

Nippon Steel refused to negotiate citing that Abe administration told them not to.

It was already agreed in 1965 between the two goverments that compensation to Korean individuals should be done by the Korean goverment by utilizing $800 million "economic cooperation" paid from Japan.

That 1965 treaty was only for the backwages.

Damages resulting from the illegal conscription of people in the occupied territory was not covered by the 1965 treaty(Japan refused the Korean offer to include the word damages in the treaty text claiming that Japan's action of forced conscription was legal) and this is what the current wave of damages claim lawsuits are for.

@theFu

problems in regard to property and claims between Japan and Korea have been settled completely and finally.

Not the damages claims.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@bamboo

Even you do not understand the legal interpretations of Japanese lawyers, how can you dare to interpret arbitrary the various international treaties? Even professional lawyers have challenging difficulties in interpreting international treaties in relation to domestic laws. Like other a few brave but layman Japaneses here, I will no longer reply to such baseless and arbitrary claims without citing external sources.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The solution is for Japanese companies to pull out of South Korea. Protect their companies from retaliation from the Koreans.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The legal steps that Korea is taking is a form of bullying. Typically big countries such as Japan, America, and European nations shy away from such actions such as suing a country or company for war time actions. When people from New York wanted to take legal action against the middle east, there was a big reason why the President shut it down. When you open a door such as that where you committed more war crimes or war actions than those that have happened to you, it opens you up to a bigger loss because now several other countries will view the green light to go ahead and take such actions. That is one of the big reasons why other countries are not involving themselves in this particular battle. Should Japan try to take this to the International Court of Justice, it would become a disaster because it would put allies against each other and create an international disaster. Korea would not want that as well. I think they are hoping that the government steps in and offers to pay some kind of settlement.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Nevertheless, nowadays political demagogues instigating hatred among people are prevalent around the world. It is a sad trend.

Sad indeed, but started in Japan.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

On a straight reading of "claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples", it does not make any exclusion for "damages" or any other category of claims. Apologists are encouraged to remember the following:

VCLT Article 26: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

VCLT Article 27: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

YES, S. Korea have taken the right actions, other Asian countries should do so too. How do anyone feel if for example , India did the same actions as the Japanese did to their families ???.This is just money compensation, how abt the lives taken ???. The dead will never come back and being murdered ???.by torture and made insult of ???. Pay up , a eye for a eye.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

@SJ Today 03:20 pm JST

arbitrary claims without citing external sources.

What kind of sources do you want? Between the rounds, I think you've already been offered sources that point out how their citations do not really support them (thus on their merits). You've also been provided links that show that they are hardly likely to be a neutral or majority opinion.

Even you do not understand the legal interpretations of Japanese lawyers

One problem of that is that they did not even really get to the point of legal interpretation, which will involve actually working with the text, including dealing with the parts that are not in your favor (rather than hoping that nobody will bother clicking on the link). I will show you a simplified example of how this can be done (in other words, I'll try to do those incompetents' work for them):

You want to say that this is a human rights issue and you want to use ILO Forced Labor Convention as your support. All right. You start with something like this (note usage of exact articles):

"The permissible limits of forced labor during the period at hand is stipulated in ILO FLO 1930. Article 12 stipulates 'The maximum period for which any person may be taken for forced or compulsory labour of all kinds in any one period of twelve months shall not exceed sixty days, including the time spent in going to and from the place of work.' A15 stipulates ' The normal working hours of any person from whom forced or compulsory labour is exacted shall be the same as those prevailing in the case of voluntary labour' "

"According to the facts accepted by the court, they had been forced to work 20-hour days for a year, without rest. The prevailing norm at that time is 12-hour days [I made up these facts, but they'll be the kind of thing claimed and possibly accepted by the Korean judge.] This constitutes a clear, objective violation of Article 12 and 15."

And you don't escape from the weaknesses:

"Admittedly, the period at hand is wartime, for which an exclusion is included in Article 2: (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war... whole or part of the population;"

Generally, the play for inconvenient text is to try and read it down, such as:

"From a legal positivist point of view, it is admittedly not impossible to read this as a blanket exclusion. However, from the viewpoint of the text's intent and the demands of natural justice, it would seem unreasonable, even absurdist to claim such. It is more reasonable to Article 2 as a limited immunity conditioned on the principle of proportionality - that is to say, forced labor exceeding the limits of Articles 12 and 15 should be limited to that absolutely necesary for the 'cases of emergency'... (blah, blah, blah)"

Now, I'm not saying this is a winning argument, but it is a concept for an argument, which a professional will try and firm up (or realize it can't be done after all) by legal research into the jurisprudence. You might notice yours never even got to this "concept" point.

I end by linking to an amicus curae. It is for a completely different issue, specifically wrangling over the interpretation of a single clause. Personally I think it is a loser and the court's logic superior (I'll be fair and note that the ECHR will likely dissent with me), but what I want you to notice is to sheer chasm in quality and detail between this and what you quoted:

http://ilpp.ru/netcat_files/userfiles/Litigation_Treinings/Amicus/ENG_Anchugov-Gladkov_FINAL.pdf

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@ vinarious

So are you saying that all the constant wars started by Europe, America, and some Asian countries against those in the Middle East means we should also seek monetary indemnification?

Because of our oil reserves and lack of conformity towards western powers, we constantly labeled at terrorist, have our countries attacked, and governments toppled until they find a leader they like.

In America the numerous injustices against Native Americans, Hispanics, and Blacks. Histories and cultures destroyed. Wrongful confinements, and so much more. Their cases will never be heard or properly tried in court because America is a Western power country

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Great, liquidate those assets

The plaintiffs and their legal team won't be bullied by the Japanese Government

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

You give an inch, they take a foot.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

If you are a top professional lawyer in Japan, you first have to respect any verdict of the Supreme court of any country. If you do not, you are just a layman vulnerable to manipulation and brainwash by political demagogues. You have never provided any external source expressed by professional lawyers to support your arbitrary claims and interpretations. It is your opinion, not of professional lawyers. Of course, you have the right to express your opinion whatever it is.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

In America the numerous injustices against Native Americans, Hispanics, and Blacks. Histories and cultures destroyed. Wrongful confinements, and so much more. Their cases will never be heard or properly tried in court because America is a Western power country

The audacity you have as an Arab to complain about others history of genocide and slavery is amazing. They may not teach it in schools, but your people aren't so innocent either, Amir.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The official response of the Korean government on the Japanese government claims.

http://overseas.mofa.go.kr/rw-en/brd/m_9983/view.do?seq=758681

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

While a few Japanese tabloid-like newspapers such as Sankei distort the legal interpretations and instigate anti-Korean sentiment among Japaneses, a Korean newspaper introduced the historical contexts of this verdict and the Japanese government response.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/870655.html

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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