Japan-S Korea feud set to flare over wartime labor row

I'm sure many posters will make their usual contribution about how SK victims deserve nothing, but for the record, J-government's position that the 1965 treaty settled all matters regarding compensation for individual victims of forced labour is a recent one, under the direction of Abe.

The former prime minister also criticized the Abe administration's position on the 1965 Japan-Korea Treaty. Tokyo has said the issue of compensation for wartime forced laborers was "settled" through the treaty.

Hatoyama said the 1965 treaty does not preclude individuals from filing private claims, citing a 1991 statement from the director of the Japanese foreign ministry's treaties bureau.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/08/28/Ex-Japanese-prime-minister-calls-for-return-of-South-Korea-to-white-list/4731566992569/

It's a Korean domestic issue. The SK government is responsible for the compensation to the labours. In fact they misused the fund from Japan agreed on the 1965 treaty. SK can't make a double-charge.

Whether cash-in will soon start, Japanese businesses in SK better leave for good. It's a high-risk country.

South Korea upset over something Japanese, as predictable as death and taxes.

Will we see an ongoing boycott of Japanese goods?

Grow up!

@noriahojanen

The SK government is responsible for the compensation to the labours.

Yes, The ROK government is responsible for backwages, but not damages, which was left out of the 1965 treaty due to Japan's insistence that it did nothing wrong.

@oldman_13

Will we see an ongoing boycott of Japanese goods?

The Japan boycott is still going strong in Korea, it never subsided.

SK can't make a double-charge.

They aren't.

The individuals are.

Whether cash-in will soon start, Japanese businesses in SK better leave for good. It's a high-risk country.

Try to base your claims on reality and not sentiment.

SK is a hugely important market for many Japanese businesses. They won't pull out of SK unless somehow their main focus of business shifts away from doing business and making profits. They certainly won't pull out of a decision that costs a Japanese steel business a sum equalling a few employee's annual salaries.

As one example Uniqlo has 180 stores in SK. They have 50 stores in the USA.

Over the past few decades, Japanese have been waiting patiently for Koreans to come to their senses but now it’s obvious they never will. Trade with Korea account for a very tiny fraction of Japan’s GDP. Keep wasting your time, SK. You’re not as attractive as you think you are.

Trade with Korea account for a very tiny fraction of Japan’s GDP.

@Meiyowenti - Wow. Did you bother to look up the facts before you posted this?

In which alternate universe is your 3rd largest trading partner a 'tiny fraction' of the economy?

A trade surplus of ¥2.2 trillion.. a tiny sum? LOL

Total bilateral trade rose to ¥9.3 trillion in 2018. Only China (¥35.1 trillion) and the United States (¥24.5 trillion) have more significant trade relations with Japan.

In 2018, exports declined 3.1% year on year to ¥5.8 trillion, while imports grew 12.6% to ¥3.6 trillion, resulting in a trade surplus of ¥2.2 trillion.

https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00516/south-korea-japan%E2%80%99s-third-largest-trading-partner.html

Look I understand your pro-Japan sentiment, but your argument is so weak it's embarrassing.

Left wing, Right wing, in Korea when you get in domestic political trouble, blame Japan.

Enough. Japan has apologized. The Emperor apologized. Compensation was paid. That the South stiffed the victims is the South’s fault.

Japan and South Korea reached (in my view a pretty unfair to the South) an agreement on forced sex slaves. For better or for worse, the sovereign government elected by the people signed the deal. Then they broke it.

Enough.

And I am a “Yasukini-hater.”

There is NO feud, there is NO issue to resolve. It was settled, legally, for all time in 1965. If the notoriously corrupt succession of SK governments have chosen not to distribute the $300million in grants and $200million in low interest loans from Japan, thats their issue. Absolutely nothing to do with Japan.

a poll published by the Cabinet Office in December, 71.5 percent of respondents in Japan said they have an unfavorable view of South Korea,

You can be sure that the next poll the Abe Cabinet conducts into the dislike of SK will be well above 90%. Guaranteed.

Neighbors should be friends.

Just check the claimants age the truth will spill out

Neighbors should be friends.

No. Why be friends with your neighbors when they will always hate you. Japan has done extremely well in history without friends for neighbors thank-you.

The underlying meaning on this case of lawsuit is one of anti-Japanese feeling ?

Although this lawsuit has last for decades, it had been for South Koreans government. 

Because the compensation (which was already paid by Japan in 1965 along with the agreement ) hasn’t been paid directly to the victims yet.

So it’s clear that this argument should be discussed within South Korea I think

No South Korean, or Japanese Government, Court, Prime Minster or Politician, past or present can interpret Treaty Law.

Only the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

Through an agreed Treaty Arbitration and Disputes mechanism clearly defined in The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea was signed on June ...

Tokyo Convention (1963); Japan–South Korea Treaty (1965)……….

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. 2. 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.*

It was undoubtedly a deal signed in haste, however the only course of action open for the South Korean Government is the arbitration and dispute clause.

The alternative, and the foolish hapless Moon Jae-in is politically stumbling headlong into, is business diplomatic protection measures which could result in punitive sector wide seizure of SK assess.

Just don’t go there.

It was undoubtedly a deal signed in haste, however the only course of action open for the South Korean Government is the arbitration and dispute clause.

If this was a dispute between the Korean and Japanese governments over the terms of the treaty that would be correct. Or, in the article you cite, a dispute between the national of one country and the government of the other. But it isn’t. It is a private dispute between 4 former laborers and Nippon Steel. The treaty doesn’t cover those types of disputes.

It was undoubtedly a deal signed in haste, however the only course of action open for the South Korean Government is the arbitration and dispute clause.

I agree, and this is the most reasonable course available for SK. In fact, the Japanese side already has proposed setting up an arbitration panel. The SK officials have been rejecting it.

It's said that cash-in will take further time. I doubt if the plaintiff lawyers are really practical, willing to solve the case for the sake of aged clients. They could have get it done much sooner without any dispute had they requested a compensation from the SK government (other than practicality, it is also relevant approach).

Sorry rainyday, that is a matter for the ICJ.

The Government of Japan offered to institute binding independent third party dispute arbitration.

Governments should not even contemplate signing a Treaty of this nature if there was any chance or a future possibility to breach or rescind.

The Treaty in question is legislatively set in stone. A Treaty that's primary goal is to quote. Restore Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea......

To achieve this requirement there is going to winners and losers.

Indeed it is a private matter, between the alleged victims and the SK Government. That refused/neglected to pass on the agreed compensation.

I think it can be a good thing to just pay those individuals, it's not a huge amount anyway.

We know Korea has a lot of frustration about the past - let's take the lead in stepping back and do what we can to repair past wounds. It can be a good diplomatic move for a stronger future relationship.

@Kuruki

I think it can be a good thing to just pay those individuals, it's not a huge amount anyway.

Japanese companies offered to do just that, settle out of court. Settlement is far cheaper and faster than legal fees incurred fighting this out in court.

Abe san forbad Japanese companies from settling with Korean damages claimants, however.

Sorry rainyday, that is a matter for the ICJ.

Sorry, it's not. For the reasons I stated above. There might be a matter for the ICJ in the dispute between Japan and South Korea, but not in the dispute between the laborers and Nippon Steel. The ICJ can only hear disputes between states, this is a dispute between two private parties. There is of course a political dispute between Japan and South Korea over the issue, but that is separate from the legal dispute in this case, which is between the laborers and Nippon Steel.

The Government of Japan offered to institute binding independent third party dispute arbitration.

Again, that applies to the dispute between Japan and South Korea, not the dispute between the laborers and Nippon Steel.

Governments should not even contemplate signing a Treaty of this nature if there was any chance or a future possibility to breach or rescind.

Again, the treaty didn't cover the dispute in question. Read the part you quoted again.

The Treaty in question is legislatively set in stone. A Treaty that's primary goal is to quote. Restore Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea......

Yup, and as I've said several times, if this was a legal dispute between Japan and South Korea, or between a national of one contacting party and the government of the other I would agree. But it isn't.

To achieve this requirement there is going to winners and losers.

Sure, so?

Indeed it is a private matter, between the alleged victims and the SK Government. That refused/neglected to pass on the agreed compensation.

No, the specific legal case here is between the four laborers and Nippon Steel, they are the parties to it.

I should note also that South Korea is not under any obligation to subject itself to either arbitration or the jurisdiction of the ICJ if it doesn't want to (and likewise Japan has that right as well).

For the ignorant masses, I post again the comments made by UN experts re 1965 treaty.

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_COMMENT_ID:2218404

"The Government of Japan’s attempt to escape liability through the operation of these treaties fails on two counts: (a) Japan’s direct involvement in the establishment of the rape camps was concealed when the treaties were written, a crucial fact that must now prohibit on equity grounds any attempt by Japan to rely on these treaties to avoid liability; and (b) the plain language of the treaties indicates that they were not intended to foreclose claims for compensation by individuals for harms committed by the Japanese military in violation of human rights or humanitarian law"

Fact. The 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. 

Fact. All the previous Japanese governments acknowledged that individual claims by forced laborers and comfort women were not extinguished by the treaty.

Fact. 100 Japanese lawyers all agreed that the rulings made by South Korea's Supreme Court is correct and in line with the terms of the 1965 Treaty.

Grow up Japan!

My opinion is irrelevant, rainyday, you have made up your mind.

I state the inevitably restrictive consequences legislatively, in attempting to circumvent:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

The Treaty legally binds every eventuality, because upon signing the treaty, both parties, Japan and South Korea are agreeing to a number of conditions.

What is deemed morally/emotionally, in this case, a dispute between the laborers and Nippon Steel, is deemed within the treaty as ex post facto/locus in quo, in essence covered within the prescribed /defined treaty time frame period.

If this was not the case the SK Government would not hesitate to challenge….

Moon Jae-in, ideological goal is political, he has convinced his party and judiciary of/to primarily re-establishing social justice.   

rainyday please read this compromise, Korea.net essay….  

Yoo Euy-sang, diplomat and author of 'Diplomatic Propriety & Our Interests With Japan.

'1965 Korea-Japan agreement should be re-estimated'…..

http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=134245

I want to leave you with the last word to save us going round in circles.

My opinion is irrelevant, rainyday, you have made up your mind.

I honestly don't care what your opinion is. I am a legal professional who understands international law and I'm simply trying to explain why a lot of what you are saying is irrelevant to the case at hand rom a legal perspective. You simply don't understand how these laws you are citing actually work.

No legal professional I have been acquainted with, so many I have lost count, would stoop to personal rudeness. rainday, debate the subject not the person.

Sorry that's rainyday, the Legal Eagle.

I think it can be a good thing to just pay those individuals, it's not a huge amount anyway.

We know Korea has a lot of frustration about the past - let's take the lead in stepping back and do what we can to repair past wounds. It can be a good diplomatic move for a stronger future relationship.

I hope you are not being serious. It does not matter how much or how often the Japanese government pays South Koreans as compensation, it is never enough. Why offer any amount of money, when the government will in a few years stab Japan behind in the back and negate the compensation amount with some ridiculous excuse?

Look at what happened with the second round of official compensation and apologies to the South Korean comfort women in 2015. Wasn't the South Korean president herself crowing that this was the final chapter in the issue of comfort women and Japan? Yet look what happened as the succeeding administration reversed and nullified the decision so everything is back to square one (and a South Korean in charge of the funding that was in limbo, committed suicide due to accusations of improper use of the money for personal gain, how despicable is that?).

This is all a sick game to the South Korean government, an opportunity to perpetuate the irrational hatred of all things Japanese.

No legal professional I have been acquainted with, so many I have lost count, would stoop to personal rudeness. rainday, debate the subject not the person.

I'm sorry, but I didn't say anything rude, I just pointed out that you misunderstood the law. If you are offended by that I apologize.

rainyday, apology accepted, no offense taken.

I do have a thorough grounding in all aspects of international law in contractual analyses of financial market transactions, commercial banking, quant/capital markets, asset management and derivatives. I cannot afford to misunderstand.

rainyday, apology accepted, no offense taken.

Good, no offence intended.

Just for clarity, I'm not saying that there isn't a legal dispute between Japan and South Korea as to the interpretation of the treaty, and I agree with you that such disputes have to be handled by resort to binding arbitration.

But that dispute is legally distinct from that between the four laborers and Nippon Steel before the Korean courts which is the subject of the article.

Now, the two are not unrelated. Japan's position seems to be that the South Korean government had an obligation under the treaty to pass legislation which would have extinguished all rights to sue for wartime related issues. Its failure to do so constituted a breach of its obligations under the treaty.

Even if one agrees with that position though it doesn't have any direct bearing on the outcome of the case before the Korean courts, which are basically applying existing Korean law as they should be.

Personally though I don't buy the argument that there was any breach of the treaty by the Korean government related to this case. The treaty clearly intended to resolve property disputes that might arise out of the end of the Japanese occupation of Korea (this is directly stated in the preamble, and also in the very title of the treaty). But the plaintiffs here aren't suing for a violation of any property or even contractual rights, they are suing in tort, which is not covered at all by the treaty, nor do I think there is any reasonable interpretation of it that would lead to the conclusion that it intended to extinguish all tort claims.

This is just my opinion on the law, not the politics. I get that there is a lot of frustration on the Japanese side with Korean politicians constantly using Japan as a punching bag and I think that is regrettable and kind of obnoxious. But in this case I don't actually think the Korean court is wrong, even though this creates a huge problem for relations between the two countries.

People tend to point out that apologies were made in the past by different Japanese politicians. Sure they did. But countries, like individuals, can always turn to the position of "I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry" or "I was sorry, but I'm no more". And to my knowledge that's not an apology at all.

Koreans do not demand a reminder that Japanese especially their government feel sorry for that past wrongdoings just to feel good about themselves. Koreans want to make sure Japanese have learned their lessons from the imperial past/the War, and are ready to build a democracy of peace and bilateral respect. :)

But the plaintiffs here aren't suing for a violation of any property or even contractual rights, they are suing in tort, which is not covered at all by the treaty, nor do I think there is any reasonable interpretation of it that would lead to the conclusion that it intended to extinguish all tort claims.

I am assuming then you are Korean based law/attorney.

My I ask a questions, not a trick ones.

Have you had any briefs necessitating a requirement to interact/review Foreign and comparative law? Specifically the relationship between customary and treaty law?

My own experience only refers to the Lisbon treaty in respect to regulatory process in financial services. Many member states have undertaken local customary interpretation only to be held in breach at the ECJ.

The Government of Japan will view the South Korean Court action as a breech of International Law.

As a Lawyer what remedial, retaliatory action would be expected?

rainydayToday 01:35 pm JST

I honestly don't care what your opinion is. I am a legal professional who understands international law and I'm simply trying to explain why a lot of what you are saying is irrelevant to the case at hand rom a legal perspective. You simply don't understand how these laws you are citing actually work.

What a hapless armchair statement.

There are no actual lawyers that practices international law since there are no bar associations that grants certificates to practice international law except UN related courts like the ICJ.

The basic flaw in your argument is that the ROK court had interpreted the 1965 treaty between two nations which cannot be done by any single nation's court. If you actually understood international law you would see the flaw in ROK court's logic which you ignored out of ignorance or by choice.

Which ever the case you're statement is flawed.

I am assuming then you are Korean based law/attorney.

I don’t want to get too much into my resume, but I am based in Japan.

Have you had any briefs necessitating a requirement to interact/review Foreign and comparative law? 

Yes. I went to law school and practiced in another jurisdiction, now I work in Japan for a major institution so I am familiar with the study of foreign and comparative law because I’ve had to work with the laws of multiple jurisdictions. Which means I am also aware of the limitations of my knowledge of Korean law - I haven’t read the court’s decisions so am just going off of press reports.

Specifically the relationship between customary and treaty law?

Yes, I know the difference between customary international law and treaties. The ICJ can apply both.

The Government of Japan will view the South Korean Court action as a breech of International Law.

I am sure it will.

As a Lawyer what remedial, retaliatory action would be expected?

Japan’s available options are diplomatic rather than legal. Recourse to arbitration requires consent by both parties, which SK refuses, so that is a dead end. Likely instead it’ll just be more of the punitive trade measures that accompanied the 2018 decision.

What a hapless armchair statement.

OK, touche.

There are no actual lawyers that practices international law since there are no bar associations that grants certificates to practice international law except UN related courts like the ICJ.

Didn’t say I was an international lawyer, I said I understood international law. Because I studied it at law school and have to work with it in my day job.

The basic flaw in your argument is that the ROK court had interpreted the 1965 treaty between two nations which cannot be done by any single nation's court. If you actually understood international law you would see the flaw in ROK court's logic which you ignored out of ignorance or by choice.

National courts interpret treaties all the time. Their interpretations are not binding on other countries of course, in this case the decision is only binding in Korea. How does that make my argument flawed? I didn’t say the decision binds Japan, it just binds the parties to the case, the laborers and Nippon Steel.

National courts interpret treaties all the time. Their interpretations are not binding on other countries of course, in this case the decision is only binding in Korea. How does that make my argument flawed? I didn’t say the decision binds Japan, it just binds the parties to the case, the laborers and Nippon Steel.

The only interpretation a domestic court can do against a international treaty is if the treaty between two nations is abiding or violation of the constitution.

If the court finds it's a violation the court is required to appeal against the government to amend the treaty as a whole with the other nation.

You now why?

Because the court of a nation does not have jurisdiction against an international treaty bonded by two nation.

NO, a court of one nation has no saying and cannot give decision since it has no jurisdiction to interpret an international treaty in part which the ROK court is doing. Why?

Because separation of power, the court is only given power to interpret laws that is set by the domestic government within one's nation, not a binding treaty between two governments. The court only can only rule if the treaty as a whole goes or against the constitution. At that point the court can only provide ruling against the government to renegotiation with the other contracting nation to amend the treaty.

You fail in the fundamental understanding the separation of power which is the key element in human law.

S. Korea will never stop.

S. Korea is the only country left in Asia and the World talking about Japan past, asking for money, asking for apologies, going back on agreements, going back on promises made, papers signed.

The moment S. Korea was backing down, Japan pulled back. Add more items to the list, instead of 1 or 2 Add 10 or 15.

Apply maximum pressure on S. Korea is the only way to make them understand that you wont benefit anymore by anti-Japan propaganda, you won't get paid again, you won't get another apology, you won't get another island.

We Will Treat You The Same Way You Treat As in Return.

The only interpretation a domestic court can do against a international treaty is if the treaty between two nations is abiding or violation of the constitution.

No, that is incorrect. What a court can and cannot do varies by legal system. The powers of the court to interpret any law depend on the Court’s own rules, but in most countries at a very minimum they have to interpret treaties in order to determine if domestic legislation complies with treaty commitments.

If the court finds it's a violation the court is required to appeal against the government to amend the treaty as a whole with the other nation.

Courts don’t appeal to other branches of government. Nor do they make requests to amend treaties since in almost all countries treaty making power is in the hands of the executive and legislative branches of government.

Because the court of a nation does not have jurisdiction against an international treaty bonded by two nation.

Like I said before, a court of one country cannot impose its interpretation of it on other countries. This is what you mean, yes? That is not the same as saying courts don’t interpret treaties though.

Because separation of power, the court is only given power to interpret laws that is set by the domestic government within one's nation, not a binding treaty between two governments. The court only can only rule if the treaty as a whole goes or against the constitution. At that point the court can only provide ruling against the government to renegotiation with the other contracting nation to amend the treaty.

Kind of. You seem confused about the difference between a court interpreting a treaty on the one hand and its ability to impose that interpretation on other countries on the other. You are correct that the Korean courts cannot impose their interpretation of the treaty on Japan, but they aren’t actually trying to do that. To the extent that they are simply interpreting it (and having not read the decision I don’t know that they have) to determine if Korean domestic law is consistent with it, I don’t see what the problem is that you are trying to get at.

You fail in the fundamental understanding the separation of power which is the key element in human law.

I don’t think I have, if you would actually read what I have written carefully.

" the sovereign government elected by the people signed the deal. Then they broke it."

While I agree with most of your post keep in mind in 1965 Korea was not electing their leaders. They were ruled by a harsh dictator, Park Chung-hee. He came to power originally in a military coup in 1961. He installed himself as President in 1963 and held that position until he was assassinated in 1979. Park did whatever he wanted and the South Korean people suffered greatly under him.

"S. Korea is the only country left in Asia and the World talking about Japan past, asking for money, asking for apologies, going back on agreements, going back on promises made, papers signed."

Do not forget China still wants revenge for WWII. My wife is from Shanghai and I have some insight into how the Chinese view Japan. We actually get in arguments over it.

is there an election coming up Moon? Usually this only gets this high profile when the S. Korean election mill starts gearing up and Moon is probably keen to distract again from the dire job he's doing as PM.

Thank you rainyday, I was just enquiring to gain a clearer picture into your experience in the application of Treaty Law.

I have to point out, I have personally yet to come across a single instance

in respect to the Lisbon treaty when regulatory process in financial services has been misinterpreted by a EU member state, that a domestic court has supremacy over ECJ justification.

The manner is which Treaty Law is established, then implemented, in plain terms the Supremacy Clause. These are defined as traditional instruments of international law.

The reason why I believe/suggest that Moon Jae-in motivation is political ideology.

Yoo Euy-sang, detailed analysis, gives a experienced diplomatic insight into the legal rigidity 1965 signed Korea-Japan agreement represents.

Yoo Euy-sang, diplomat and author of 'Diplomatic Propriety & Our Interests With Japan.

'1965 Korea-Japan agreement should be re-estimated'…..

http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=134245

Yoo Euy-sang, diplomat and author of 'Diplomatic Propriety & Our Interests With Japan,' says that the 1965 Korea-Japan agreement is a significant moment in the diplomatic history of Korea, and that it should be comprehensively re-estimated considering all the factors. These include the political background at the time, the other party's interpretation of history, its willingness for meetings, third party intervention, Korea's then very weak diplomatic infrastructure and Korea's economic status at the time.

The course of action Moon Jae-in Government is following will have profound negative effects not only on South Korean nationals employed in Japan, also presents the risk that the Government of Japan will take punitive action to freeze assets and seize investment capital, and institute currency restrictions.

Joyridingonthetitanic,, I understand a presidential election will take place in South Korea in 2022.

Thank you rainyday, I was just enquiring to gain a clearer picture into your experience in the application of Treaty Law.

I have to point out, I have personally yet to come across a single instance

in respect to the Lisbon treaty when regulatory process in financial services has been misinterpreted by a EU member state, that a domestic court has supremacy over ECJ justification.

The manner is which Treaty Law is established, then implemented, in plain terms the Supremacy Clause. These are defined as traditional instruments of international law.

The reason why I believe/suggest that Moon Jae-in motivation is political ideology.

Yoo Euy-sang, detailed analysis, gives a experienced diplomatic insight into the legal rigidity 1965 signed Korea-Japan agreement represents.

Yoo Euy-sang, diplomat and author of 'Diplomatic Propriety & Our Interests With Japan.

'1965 Korea-Japan agreement should be re-estimated'…..

http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=134245

Yoo Euy-sang, diplomat and author of 'Diplomatic Propriety & Our Interests With Japan,' says that the 1965 Korea-Japan agreement is a significant moment in the diplomatic history of Korea, and that it should be comprehensively re-estimated considering all the factors. These include the political background at the time, the other party's interpretation of history, its willingness for meetings, third party intervention, Korea's then very weak diplomatic infrastructure and Korea's economic status at the time.

The course of action Moon Jae-in Government is following will have profound negative effects not only on South Korean nationals employed in Japan, also presents the risk that the Government of Japan will take punitive action to freeze assets and seize investment capital, and institute currency restrictions.

Joyridingonthetitanic,, I understand a presidential election will take place in South Korea in 2022.

Thank you rainyday, I was just enquiring to gain a clearer picture into your experience in the application of Treaty Law.

I have to point out, I have personally yet to come across a single instance

in respect to the Lisbon treaty when regulatory process in financial services has been misinterpreted by a EU member state, that a domestic court has supremacy over ECJ justification.

The manner is which Treaty Law is established, then implemented, in plain terms the Supremacy Clause. These are defined as traditional instruments of international law.

The reason why I believe/suggest that Moon Jae-in motivation is political ideology.

The course of action Moon Jae-in Government is following will have profound negative effects not only on South Korean nationals employed in Japan, also presents the risk that the Government of Japan will take punitive action to freeze assets and seize investment capital, and institute currency restrictions.

Joyridingonthetitanic,, I understand a presidential election will take place in South Korea in 2022.

I have to point out, I have personally yet to come across a single instance

in respect to the Lisbon treaty when regulatory process in financial services has been misinterpreted by a EU member state, that a domestic court has supremacy over ECJ justification.

To be clear, I've never stated that a Korean court's interpretation has any sort of effect outside the borders of Korea. It has no power at all to bind the Japanese government.

The course of action Moon Jae-in Government is following will have profound negative effects not only on South Korean nationals employed in Japan, also presents the risk that the Government of Japan will take punitive action to freeze assets and seize investment capital, and institute currency restrictions.

I don't have an opinion on the Moon Jae-In government, but its important to note that the courts in Korea are independent of the executive, the same as they are in all democracies. So a court ruling in itself isn't part of a government's policy. Moon might well be in agreement with the decision, but its not a decision of his administration.

All logic and common sense quickly evaporates in a society/culture that loss of face is the ultimate humiliation.

I am not totally convinced that any judicial system is independent of political interference.

I was educated and brought up in the UK.

For a short period of time as a research assistant, earning a crust to help pay my tuition fees. I was aghast at the manner in which the so called Political establishment would lobby and whisper the upper chamber.

Law Lords, in private members clubs.

I am not totally convinced that any judicial system is independent of political interference.

True, formal independence and freedom from political influence are not the same. The Japanese Supreme Court is technically independent but shows extreme deference to the government which is probably partly explained by politics, for example, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was similar in Korea.

But that doesn’t mean you can ascribe every court decision to political influence by the executive. Quite the opposite in this case I think. While ideologically the government might agree with the decision, it also puts the government in a very difficult spot which it probably doesn’t want to be in. This is just inflaming tensions between it and Japan and is likely going to result in trade retaliation that the South Korean government does not want. Politically of course they have to support the decision, but behind the scenes this is probably a headache they don’t want at all.

@rainyday

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was similar in Korea.

Not at all, Korea's highest courts are indeed completely independent. Korea has a complete separation of powers unlike Japan, hence what Abe san dreams of, the executive flipping a judiciary's decision, is simply not possible.

Korea and Japan are polar opposites of each other in many ways, such as democracy, free press, judiciary independence, human rights, rule of law, English proficiency, etc.

Not at all, Korea's highest courts are indeed completely independent. Korea has a complete separation of powers unlike Japan, hence what Abe san dreams of, the executive flipping a judiciary's decision, is simply not possible.

I think you are correct about the courts, I mis-spoke on that point. Korea established a separate constitutional court specifically to avoid political interference, which Japan hasn't done. Also Japan has been very close to a one part state since the 1950s which has allowed the LDP to have a level of influence over the judiciary which a country like Korea, where power between parties, doesn't.

Korea and Japan are polar opposites of each other in many ways, such as democracy, free press, judiciary independence, human rights, rule of law, English proficiency, etc.

I don't think I would agree with that characterization. The two are different but I wouldn't hold Korea up as exemplifying ideals that Japan doesn't. In a lot of areas its society is much more regressive than Japan's - its one of the few countries in the world where gender equality is actually worse than Japan for example. Corruption is also a bigger problem there. I'm not trying to bash Korea here, but I wouldn't agree that it is somehow the polar opposite of Japan. In many ways their societies are similar, and where they differ sometimes Korea looks better and sometimes Japan does.

You can defend South Korea all you want, but the fact remains that the decision handed down by the South Korean Supreme Court is a complete disregard for the 1965 treaty.

1) Japan developed Korea and made the infrastructure such as 4,000 schools. It's not colony.

2) Japan didn't fight against Korea in WW2 but paid $500M as compensation including this issue though no other country paid compensation to colonized country.

3) If the treaty in 1965 is nullified, Japan would demand above cost like other countries. It would exceed $500M by far.

If South Korea believes that the 1965 Treaty does not cover this issue, then they need to show some integrity by agreeing to the Arbitration Clause in that Treaty which exists for the very purpose of resolving differences in interpretation. South Korea is failing to act in good faith and Japan has has the right to declare the 1965 Treaty null and void., and demand the return of all funds given. Let South Korea start from level one and see how far they get negotiating a new treaty with Japan after they have destroyed any good will between the two countries.

The 1965 treaty does NOT nullify back owed to Korean individuals who were slaved by Japanese corporations. The governments would not even have the authority to do that in a remotely sane world.