politics

Nippon Steel rebuffs S Korean lawyers in forced labor row

57 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

A South Korean Court Judgement can only be enforced in South Korea, a fact that any lawyer anywhere knows. The Plaintiffs would need an order issued by a Court in Japan based on Comity in order to enforce it in Japan. This "visit" to the office in Tokyo exposes just what a political dog and pony show this whole thing really is.

22 ( +29 / -7 )

Japan abducted 5.4 million Koreans into forced labor. They're mostly dead. Japan has nothing to lose except its decency in admitting what happened and compensating the few not yet dead survivors. Good grief.

-11 ( +15 / -26 )

We got an answer from them. However, it was not from the company itself, but from a contract security guard," lawyer Lim Jae Sung told reporters.

Good. And they should forever pay you dust.

Go ask your government what happened to the 1965 compensation.

21 ( +26 / -5 )

5.4 million?

"According to the Korean historians, approximately 670,000 Koreans, were conscripted into labor from 1944 to 1945 by the National Mobilization Law"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

22 ( +22 / -0 )

In Joseon Dynasty, some hungry Koreans wanted to be rich and made some plot in Japan and negotiate with another hungry Japanese who want to invade Korea. (No i am not talking about superb Kdrama Mr. Sunshine)

Korea ate Korea at that time becoming a sinkhoke but Japan became a laughing stock now.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

They started with 4, 3 have passed away, and the fourth has been waiting so long. It was War and War reparations were all made back in 1965. South Korea benefited greatly when Japan paid them $300 million, plus $500 million in various loans. The S. Korean government took the money and said they would be responsible for individual compensation. They did not compensate any of their people. They used the money to build infrastructure and industry. Pohang Iron and Steel greatly benefited also the Soyang Dam was built with this money in addition to other things. Maybe Pohang Iron and Steel will compensate them because much of the money went to them. I wonder how they were able to acquire such large sums.

24 ( +26 / -2 )

Well they will be given heroes welcomes and all expenses paid back home. But someone should tell them the debts been paid, This was all about a photo op anyways.

20 ( +22 / -2 )

Koreans do not want to build a good relationship with Japan.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

Koreans do not want to build a good relationship with Japan

Pretty sure blaming the entire nation is akin to claiming all japanese wanted to subjugate Asia during the great war. Political posturing aside, continuous denial of attrocities committed will only place japan in the worst light. Dodge and deflect can't work in the age of free flowing information.

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

the real crime here is how much those lawyers are charging their clients for going through the motions

17 ( +19 / -2 )

Japan already paid, these people need to sue the Korean government because they didn't give any money to these people.

22 ( +24 / -2 )

Japanese companies never learn the lesson.

I wonder when the new blue-collar workers will demand their rights.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

OssanJapan

A South Korean Court Judgement can only be enforced in South Korea, a fact that any lawyer anywhere knows. The Plaintiffs would need an order issued by a Court in Japan based on Comity in order to enforce it in Japan.

The lawyers met with Nippon Steel reps to negotiate the settlement before having to seize Nippon Steel's assets in Korea, which they have identified.

They don't want the spectacle of having to seize Nippon Steel's assets, but if forced to, they will. The Moon administration indicated they would not interfere.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

The time in which the forced labor began is 1944. However the time in which the 4 Korean plaintiffs insisted they worked in Japan is 1942. So at least those 4 Korean plaintiffs were NOT forced laborers.

As for the forced labor after 1944, actually the ex-forced laborers still have individual claim rights for compensation. But the billing destination is NOT the Japanese government BUT the Korean government by the 1965 treaty.

And among ex-great powers, it's ONLY Japan which already compensated for their past colonization. All of the other ex-great powers, EVEN GERMANY, have neither apologized nor compensated for their past colonizations. I've never ever seen any foreign aritcles written about the Japanese colonization from this perspective. My guess is that the other ex-great power countries are afraid of some of their past colonized countries bringing up the problems.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

OssanAmerica: Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp has a physical presence in South Korea. This means its assets can be frozen until the company complies with the court order and seized if it refuses to do so.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

They don't want the spectacle of having to seize Nippon Steel's assets, but if forced to, they will. The Moon administration indicated they would not interfere.

As far as Japan is concerned, Korea is more than welcome to do so. Many Japanese are so fed up with constant harassments by Koreans esp during past two decades, so that would finally end our relationship once and for all :)

8 ( +12 / -4 )

My guess is that the other ex-great power countries are afraid of some of their past colonized countries bringing up the problems.

Actually colonialism is talked about all the time in American universities and by the substantial social justice activists that permeates all sectors of American society. There are a great number of Americans and Europeans who hate their own countries, their own culture, and even themselves for a perceived stain that they personally carry due to past injustices. I don’t get the impression that this same self-hatred exists among Asians who have wronged other Asians.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

melonbarmonsterToday  06:56 am JST

Japan abducted 5.4 million Koreans into forced labor. They're mostly dead. Japan has nothing to lose except its decency in admitting what happened and compensating the few not yet dead survivors. Good grief.

Firstly, I am not sure where the 5.4 million came from. Maybe cite where you got this information?

And secondly, Japan did admit, signed a treaty back in 1965 that takes care of all compensation and reparation for causing the war. What part of that treaty was unclear to the Koreans? (same goes with comfort women issue. ) The purpose of the treaty is to avoid dragging these kinds of crap for years and move on.

Time to move on because this generation of Japanese have nothing to do with wars and doing this not help gain any sympathy nor support.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

It seems Korea would not be able to seize any Nippon Steel's assets until they get an approval of ICJ (Japan applies for) as long as there is clear 1965 treaty settlement. It would be not so easy to seize their assets.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Wolfpack Today 09:23 am JST

My guess is that the other ex-great power countries are afraid of some of their past colonized countries bringing up the problems.

Actually colonialism is talked about all the time in American universities and by the substantial social justice activists that permeates all sectors of American society. There are a great number of Americans and Europeans who hate their own countries, their own culture, and even themselves for a perceived stain that they personally carry due to past injustices. I don’t get the impression that this same self-hatred exists among Asians who have wronged other Asians.

You miss the point

And among ex-great powers, it's ONLY Japan which already compensated for their past colonization. All of the other ex-great powers, EVEN GERMANY, have neither apologized nor compensated for their past colonizations. I've never ever seen any foreign aritcles written about the Japanese colonization from this perspective.

The Japanese colonization on Korean peninsula should be discussed in the relation/comparison with other ex-great power's colonizations. At this point, the 1965 treaty is epock-making and should be highly valued while all of the other ex-great powers have neither apologized nor compensated for their past colonizations.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Apologists galore I see. Don't quite understand the desire to whitewash something that's amply documented. Baffles the mind.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Well there's a surprise.  Another historical issue that will run and run.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

KabukiloverToday  09:16 am JST

OssanAmerica: Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp has a physical presence in South Korea. This means its assets can be frozen until the company complies with the court order and seized if it refuses to do so.

Correct that a South Korean judgement can be enforced against the defendant's assets within South Korea. And that is where this group of South Korean scheisters should be going. However, a "Physical presence" as in Branch Offices usually have very few assets besides furniture and office equipment. And if a foreign steel company has actual production facilities in South Korea it will invariably be incorporated as a separate entity from the parent company in it's home country. So for the purpose of a great photo op they went to Japan where the South Korean judgement can not be enforced to put on a "show".

9 ( +10 / -1 )

They are correct. These people were Japanese subjects by virtue of Japan invading their country and forcing them to obey occupation law, use the Japanese language and revere the emperor. They were conscripted and forced to work as slaves. That Japan now prefers not to acknowledge the truth of the matter has nothing to do with it.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

These 4 plaintiffs claim to have been "forced" into labor in 1942. Yet it is an established fact that the compulsory labor program "National Mobilization Law" ran in 1944/45. Clearly this a political show.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

@expat: But Japan did, in 1965, apologised and gave financial reparations. The Korean government used the money for public works to improve the nation (which actually worked) but no money was given to the people. While there are no winners in wars, the Korean government has convinced their people into thinking Japan is being unfair when they need to ask hard questions to the their own government and how they spent the money.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

According to the treaty, Japan already paid very all compensations including forced labors for whole Korea, why not demand to the S Korean government about such compensation. The K government did/does know it must give some money to individuals. Probably K government forgot it over time somehow. The biggest problem was it did not explain details of the treaty for people in 1965. That's why Koreans' misunderstanding continues until today.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Its such a long time ago. Just move on. Anyway, Japanese corporations do not have to follow South Korean Law. Stand up to these SK government bullies, Nippon Steel. I agree with OssanAmerican 100 percent (as always).

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Fools always agree with fools, 100%. As long as the drag on is good for both sides, it will drag on.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

look Im no fan of Japans continued whitewashing of its history, but if Korea and Japan both signed an agreement under international law in 1965 then this matter is close. The only way for Japan to force the issue is take Korea to an international court and let them decide if their case is legal under international law.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It is beneficial to review the completed, signed treaty in its entirety

The 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation Between Japan and the Republic of Korea, No. 8473.

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

When Governments undertake settlements within the confines of a Treaty, to quote, agreement on the settlement of problems concerning property and claims and on economic co-operation, the treaty is enshrined into international law, this is sacrosanct. There is no protocol that allows a/any Supreme Court to rule that the 1965 treaty did not terminate individuals’ rights to claim damages.

This a contemptuous breach of International Law. The Korean Supreme Court judgment is poisonous, blatant thrusting into politics.

Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (with annex). Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969 ….

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

The Government of Korea, refuses to accept previous administrations failings of statecraft to deal with relations between Japan and South Korea in a manner befitting adequate discernment for diplomatic dialogue.

The full extent to Government of South Korea duplicity, is summed up when viewing 2005 declassified documents relating to the 1965 Korea-Japan Basic Treaty were published.....

Compensation for Colonial Victims Is Not Just a Legal Problem.......

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2005/01/17/2005011761043.html

The Irony is that South Korean President Moon is quite conent to hug and shake the hand with Pyongyang's murderous dictatorship than embrace a modern day Japan devoted to peaceful coexistence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/beatings-killings-gulags-north-korea-rights-abuses-likely-to-be-ignored-at-summit

10 ( +10 / -0 )

It depends on whether Japan wants to have a good relationship with South Korea, warts and all, and at what costs. There are a lot of benefits. If not Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp wouldn’t be there.

Japan, if you don’t like it, go back to Japan. This is Korea! (dws)

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Ganbare Japan!

Anyway, Japanese corporations do not have to follow South Korean Law.

They do in Korea.

Since Nippon Steel has assets in Korea worth $25 million, this asset is subject to seizure to pay the claimants. The lawyers in question notified Nippon Steel of their intention to seize this asset and "requested" that Nippon Steel just pay up $350K that the Korean Supreme Court awarded to the claimants. Nippon Steel refused, citing that they were under instruction fro Abe government to not comply.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@kwatt

According to the treaty, Japan already paid very all compensations including forced labors for whole Korea, why not demand to the S Korean government about such compensation.

The treaty doesn't cover damages, this fact is not being reported by Japanese press.

The claimants were awarded damages for the illegal actions taken by the occupying force known as Imperial Japan, not backwages. The backwages part was ruled as settled per the 1965 treaty by the Korean supreme court.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@gogogo

the Korean government has convinced their people into thinking Japan is being unfair when they need to ask hard questions to the their own government and how they spent the money.

The press control doesn't work in Korea. Korea has a freer press than the US according to the RSF ranking. https://rsf.org/en/ranking

It was the Korean press that informed the Korean public that Dictator Park signed their properties, bank deposits, and backwages away with the 1965 Treaty.

It is also the Korean press that informs the Korean public that the damages part was not covered by the 1965 treaty.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

@Takeshi Hasegawa

There is a huge cultural difference in how Western countries believe past wrongs should be addressed. 

Japan issues an apology, pays some money, then tries as hard as possible to forget the whole thing. Far from "epoch-making," to Western countries this seems to be severly inadequate.  

Western countries generally believe it is more important to remember past wrongs, understand why they happened, and teach their children the horrible truth to instill a sense of remorse and humility.

In short, Westerners believe it's better to actually BE sorry than to just SAY sorry. 

This probably sounds empty to you, but consider that Western countries all have good relations with former colonies, whereas Japan can't get along with it's neighbors. (I'm not saying it's all Japan's fault; Korea and China teach their children to hate Japan, which is outrageous).

My only point is that your assertion, that Japan has done more than Western countries to atone for the past, is far shakier than you seem to realize.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Samit Basu Today 04:11 pm JST

@gogogo

the Korean government has convinced their people into thinking Japan is being unfair when they need to ask hard questions to the their own government and how they spent the money.

The press control doesn't work in Korea. Korea has a freer press than the US according to the RSF ranking. https://rsf.org/en/ranking

It seems like someone doesn't even know that Korean news outlets hardly criticize the evil deeds committed by the Chinese government.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Capt USA Today 04:28 pm JST

@Takeshi Hasegawa

There is a huge cultural difference in how Western countries believe past wrongs should be addressed. 

Japan issues an apology, pays some money, then tries as hard as possible to forget the whole thing. Far from "epoch-making," to Western countries this seems to be severly inadequate.  

Western countries generally believe it is more important to remember past wrongs, understand why they happened, and teach their children the horrible truth to instill a sense of remorse and humility.

In short, Westerners believe it's better to actually BE sorry than to just SAY sorry.

I highly doubt if how many American and British know what their ancestors did in their past colonized countries. Especially British completely whitewashed their past evil deeds from their textbooks and public places.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

That is a completely ridiculous statement.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Capt USAToday 04:28 pm JST

Western countries generally believe it is more important to remember past wrongs, understand why they happened, and teach their children the horrible truth to instill a sense of remorse and humility.

In short, Westerners believe it's better to actually BE sorry than to just SAY sorry.

> Capt USAToday 05:34 pm JST

That is a completely ridiculous statement.

Off course remembering past wrong doings, understanding how those happened and teaching them to the youngers are so important. But it's another story. It does not mean that you are allowed to get away with apology and compensation for it. That's one thing, this is another.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Samit Basu

The treaty must have covered all kinds of damages during colonial period and the war. If it did not cover such damages, then really NO MEANING of agreement of the treaty. Frankly treaty means let's forget past bad things but in return Japan pays all compensations to victims. In other words, treaty means "reset switch" to move on for bright future.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@kwatt

The 1965 treaty does not cover damages because it is not mentioned anywhere in the treaty.

The reason for this is that Japanese negotiators claimed that there were no damages to claim since the Japanese rule was legal, hence the forced conscription was legal as well. While the Korean side considered the 1910 annexation treaty null and void from Day 1 hence the entire Japanese occupation was illegal and subject to damages claim.

The Korean side offered to include the word damages in the treaty and it was the Japanese side that refused, thereby creating a legal loophole that’s being exploited by Korea today.

If this case goes before the ICJ, then the ICJ will have to rule on whether the 1910 annexation was legal or not, so Japan has a lot more to lose than money if this case was heard before the ICJ and Japan lost.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Samit BasuToday 04:08 pm JST

The treaty doesn't cover damages, this fact is not being reported by Japanese press.

Sorry but the Japanese people has little tolerance for being told lies, that is why they did not report it.

The Japanese press did report that the SK supreme court interpreted the treaty did not cover damages which in a democratic society of separation of power in which the court is not ALLOWED to interpret diplomatic agreements only can pass judgement whether the treaty was abiding the constitution or not which the SK supreme court did not.

Basically without passing a verdict whether the treaty was constitutional they are grossly over stepping their jurisdiction.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Samit BasuToday 07:44 pm JST

If this case goes before the ICJ, then the ICJ will have to rule on whether the 1910 annexation was legal or not, so Japan has a lot more to lose than money if this case was heard before the ICJ and Japan lost.

Since you are rehashing the same claim I will simply repost the related passage within the treaty;

Article 3 paragraph 1.

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

The court is grossly overstepping their authority and the SK government had not made any moves either domestically or internationally to mediate the situation which is again a major failure of the SK government.

As for legality;

Again here is another post I made;

Not according to an international conference, that was hosted by the Harvard University Asia Center on November 16- 17, 2001.

The gathering was funded by an international interchange foundation affiliated with the Korean government and organized by Korean scholars. Its attendees hailed from the US, the United Kingdom, Japan and Korea.

Cambridge University Professor James Crawford, a specialist in international law, challenged the Korean claim.

He said that at the time of the annexation, it was not rare for one country to assume control of another if the latter could not survive on its own, from the perspective of preserving international order. He added that the Japan - Korea Annexation Treaty was not illegal in terms of international law.

Unsurprisingly, the Koreans voiced strenuous objection, contending that Korea had been coerced into annexation.

Crawford dismissed their argument, stating that coercion, if indeed there was any, had no connection with the legitimacy of the treaty.

When the Koreans argued that Gojong neither signed nor gave formal consent to the treaty, the British scholar replied that international law did not require those actions.

This group compiled a very comprehensive argument concerning the whole annexation of the Korean peninsula which all should read.

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/89_S4.pdf

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Especially British completely whitewashed their past evil deeds from their textbooks and public places.

There is a museum dedicated to the horrors of slavery in my hometown, a city deeply involved in the slave trade, in the UK.

I learned about the slave trade as a schoolboy in the UK. We debated the actions of Bomber Harris at school.

I don’t want to bore people here and I’ll stop, but I can give you more examples if you want.

Just let me know.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Samit Basu

The 1965 treaty does not cover damages because it is not mentioned anywhere in the treaty.

The reason for this is that Japanese negotiators claimed that there were no damages to claim since the Japanese rule was legal, hence the forced conscription was legal as well. While the Korean side considered the 1910 annexation treaty null and void from Day 1 hence the entire Japanese occupation was illegal and subject to damages claim.

Let's face it. No matter how Korea tries to distort the history, the fact of matter is Korea was not in the state of war against Japan during WW2, therefore, Japan was not obligated for War reparation nor Compensation hence Japan and ROK settled the issue in the form of Economic Aid.

Here is the dialog between ROK and the U.S. as to why Korea was not included in SF treaty. This is pretty funny how Korea desperately demanded to be included in the UN side by explaining BS stories as if entire Korean ethics were fighting against Japan throughout the occupation period and miserably turned down by the U.S.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Conversation,_by_the_Officer_in_Charge_of_Korean_Affairs_in_the_Office_of_Northeast_Asian_Affairs_July_9,_1951

Ambassador Dulles pointed out to the Korean ambassador that the ROK Government would not be a signatory to the treaty, since only those nations in a state of war with Japan and which were signatories of the United Nations Declaration of January 1942 would sign the treaty. He pointed out, however, that Korea would benefit from all of the general provisions of the treaty equally with other nations. Ambassador Yang expressed his surprise that ROK would not be included as a signatory, and protested that the Korean Provisional Government had, in fact, been in a state of war with Japan even for many years prior to World War II. He stressed that there had been a Korean division in China which had fought against the Japanese and that a declaration of war against Japan had been made by the Korean Provisional Government. The Korean ambassador therefore, considered on this basis that Korea should be a signatory. Mr. Frearey pointed out that the Unites States Government had never given recognition to the Korean Provisional Government.

Nevertheless, Japan did take a consideration to pay for personal damages including psychological pain and suffering, yet, Korea kept insisted to manage the compensation to individual domestically.

http://www.f8.wx301.smilestart.ne.jp/honyaku/honyaku-2/718.pdf

You can't keep complaining just because the word, damage, was not mentioned in the treaty. There are full resources to disprove your argument here.

The Korean side offered to include the word damages in the treaty and it was the Japanese side that refused, thereby creating a legal loophole that’s being exploited by Korea today.

As I mentioned, there is no damage upon Korea during WW2, hence, it is totally understandable if Japan rejected to include the word damage in the treaty.

If this case goes before the ICJ, then the ICJ will have to rule on whether the 1910 annexation was legal or not, so Japan has a lot more to lose than money if this case was heard before the ICJ and Japan lost.

What makes you think ICJ would rule 1910 annexation as illegal? In case you didn't know, Korea already attended and failed before. (Of course, this kind of inconvenient information is never openly publicized in Korea)

A Reconsideration of the Japanese Annexation of Korea from the Historical and International Law Perspectives, an international conference, was hosted by the Harvard University Asia Center on November 16-17, 2001. The gathering was funded by an international interchange foundation affiliated with the Korean government and organized by Korean scholars. Its attendees hailed from the US, the United Kingdom, Japan and Korea. , Cambridge University Professor James Crawford, a specialist in international law, challenged the Korean claim. He said that at the time of the annexation, it was not rare for one country to assume control of another if the latter could not survive on its own, from the perspective of preserving international order. He added that the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was not illegal in terms of international law. Unsurprisingly, the Koreans voiced strenuous objection, contending that Korea had been coerced into annexation. Crawford dismissed their argument, stating that coercion, if indeed there was any, had no connection with the legitimacy of the treaty. When the Koreans argued that Gojong neither signed nor gave formal consent to the treaty, the British scholar replied that international law did not require those actions. At the same conference, Prefectural University of Hiroshima Professor Harada Tamaki stated that Emperor Gojong approved of the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty, and overrode Cabinet ministers critical of the treaty. Professor Harada’s presentation (based on the analysis of sources like Ilseongnok (diaries of the Joseon kings) and Seungjeongwon Ilgi (records of the Royal Secretariat)) garnered considerable attention, and deeply disappointed the Korean attendees, who had failed to prove their case. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the annexation of Korea. Koreans are intent on convincing Japan to admit that the annexation was illegal. But both they and the Japanese should be mindful that today, as in 1910, the international community recognizes the legitimacy of Japanese control of the Korean peninsula.

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/89_S4.pdf

If you think there even is a slightest chance for Korea to win based on information provided above, you should urge your ppl and gov to settle this matter in ICJ like a real civilized nation. Though, Korean gov probably know much better how the outcome would be, so my guess is they will never show up in ICJ just like they keep refusing to show up to settle Liancourt Rocks dispute.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

There are a number of issues to be separated from this issue.

1) This is a labour problem between a number of people affected and private companies.

2) The solution to this problem is exclusively a private matter. And you have to pay only with private money.

3) Neither Japan nor the Japanese government has to pay anything at all.

4) Just like you don't have to earmark taxpayer money to make this payment.

5) This is a private problem mixed with politics. For both Abe and Moon will use this issue for purely electoral purposes. To win votes in the next general elections in their respective countries. This is the real reason for this scandal. Only to mobilize the nationalist vote for the interests of the LDP and The Minjoo Party of Korea.

6) This is not a diplomatic problem. That was already solved in the 1965 treaty. Countries and their governments should not intervene. Japan as a country has not been convicted in this trial. Neither has its government.

7) Sentences must be served. Because it was shown that these people worked as forced slavery. And these companies have to pay. In this case the subsidiaries of these companies in South Korea.

8) People in this forum confuse forced slavery with hard labor. They're two completely different things.

These are the things I want to clarify on this issue. I just ask that we do not mix the concepts and consequences of this judgment.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Sorry but wrong on all accounts since the court has made a verdict based upon interpretation of an international treaty which the supreme court does not have authority. Based on separation of power the supreme court can only rule if the treaty abides or goes against the constitution in which case they can order the government to revoke the treaty. Any and all interpretation of international treaties as well as binding of treaties between states can only be done by the government.

SO NO it is not a simple labor issue and if it was the statue of limitation would have long expired.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There procedural issues for referral to the Intentional Court of Justice …....

Within the first protocol, Article V, paragraph 8 of 1965 Agreement, there is a defined dispute resolution mechanism.....

8. In the event that any dispute arising out of or in connection with a Contract

has not been settled by arbitration or that the arbitration award rendered has not

been complied with, the matter may be taken, as a last resort, to the appropriate

court located in the area where the Contract concerned has been concluded. In

such a case and solely for the purpose of whatever judicial proceedings may be

necessary, the person holding the position of Chief of the Legal Section of the Mission

may sue or be sued with regard to the contracts mentioned in paragraph 2 (6), and

accordingly he may be served with process and other pleadings at his office in the

Mission. However, he shall be exempt from the obligation to deposit bonds for the

costs of legal proceedings. While the Mission enjoys inviolability and immunity as

provided for in paragraphs 4 and 6, the final decision rendered by the appropriate

judicial body in such a case will be accepted by the Mission as binding upon it.

Settlement of disputes mechanism under the convention Article 287

choice of procedure article one is detailed below.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm

Which could explain the reasoning behind these lawyers pursued the case through the judicial system of the Republic of Korea.

The cynic in me wonders who or which entity is financing this lawsuit? Also the political motivation in seeking this means of legal recourse?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This dispute mechanism is also defined/referred to in article 3 paragraphs 2/3.....

2. Any dispute which fails to be settled under the provision of paragraph 1 shall be referred for decision to an arbitration board composed of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the Government of each Contracting Party within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt by the Government of either Contracting Party from the Government of the other of a note requesting arbitration of the dispute, and the third arbitrator to be agreed upon by the two arbitrators so chosen within a further period of thirty days or the third arbitrator to be appointed by the government of a third country agreed upon within such further period by the two arbitrators, provided that the third arbitrator shall not be a national of either Contracting Party.

3. If, within the periods respectively referred to, the Government of either Contracting Party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or the third arbitrator or a third country is not agreed upon, the arbitration board shall be composed of the two arbitrators to be designated by each of the governments of the two countries respectively chosen by the Governments of the Contracting Parties within a period of thirty days and the third arbitrator to be designated by the government of a third country to be determined upon consultation between the governments so chosen.

These Treaties by definition are from a legal stand point bullet proof. There is no Country, State walk around.

*
3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Triring

Sorry but the Japanese people has little tolerance for being told lies

Actually Japanese people have great tolerance for being told lies.

For example, Japanese people are told that Fukushima is safe to return and Fukushima produces are safe to consume, yet I don't see a massive protest against Abe administration's blatant lies in Tokyo. Most foreigners would never visit Fukushima and eat Fukushima food.

Same goes for Japan's "scientific research" whaling, which is being laughed at by the world yet the Japanese public seem to believe government explanations.

So Japanese public being told lies about the 1965 treaties is nothing.

The Japanese press did report that the SK supreme court interpreted the treaty did not cover damages which in a democratic society of separation of power in which the court is not ALLOWED to interpret diplomatic agreements only can pass judgement whether the treaty was abiding the constitution or not which the SK supreme court did not.

What are you talking about? In a fully democratic country with clear separation of powers like Korea, the judiciary can render its own interpretations of laws and treaties irrelevant of the administration's foreign policites. The Korean Supreme Court analyzed the 1965 treaty and concluded that it did not cover damages, so it awarded damages to forced laborers and denied backwages claims which the court found was covered by the 1965 treaty. That is what Japanese can't understand, since the Japanese judiciary is not independent unlike Korea and plays second fiddle to the administration policies.

Any independent legal scholar will come to same conclusion after analyzing the text of 1965 treaty.

He said that at the time of the annexation, it was not rare for one country to assume control of another if the latter could not survive on its own

What makes you think Korea couldn't survive on its own in 1910?

Crawford dismissed their argument, stating that coercion, if indeed there was any, had no connection with the legitimacy of the treaty.

This interpretation is wrong, no treaty signed not of free will and under military threats is valid and legal by international standard. Hence the 1910 annexation treaty is considered null and void from Day 1. No reputable legal scholar would even suggest that the coerced treaty signed under personal threats against those signing it is legal.

@tictactogo

the fact of matter is Korea was not in the state of war against Japan during WW2

Actually the ROK government in exile declared war against Japan in the 1941. This exile government was backed by KMT and the US. The exile government was the official channel to which China and the US discussed Korea issues during the course of war, and the head of the exile government, Lee Sung Man, was later made the president of the ROK by the US.

What makes you think ICJ would rule 1910 annexation as illegal?

Because it was signed under military threats, with the Japanese troops posted outside the building and the Korean officials threatened of "consequences" if they refused? 

Anyhow, the 1965 Treaty declared the 1910 treaty ALREADY NULL AND VOID. The ICJ will now have to determine when that was, 1910 or 1945.

Sorry but wrong on all accounts since the court has made a verdict based upon interpretation of an international treaty which the supreme court does not have authority

It does.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Does having good relations with Japan mean ignoring rightfully due compensation for forced labor?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Triring Nov. 13  10:10 pm JST

Sorry but wrong on all accounts since the court has made a verdict based upon interpretation of an international treaty which the supreme court does not have authority. Based on separation of power the supreme court can only rule if the treaty abides or goes against the constitution in which case they can order the government to revoke the treaty. Any and all interpretation of international treaties as well as binding of treaties between states can only be done by the government.

SO NO it is not a simple labor issue and if it was the statue of limitation would have long expired.

The 1965 international treaty only covers compensation between public entities and public money. And Japan has already paid all its debts under that treaty.

The sentence does not question that treaty per se. It only indicates that it does not cover compensation from private companies to those affected. Victims affected by these companies have the right to ask for compensation if they are true. And as they have been proven to be true. They have to comply with the sentence handed down by the supreme court.

Now, the money in that indemnity must be private capital. Exclusively private money.

It is the Japanese government that has elevated this matter to an international diplomatic conflict. When it should not have done so. It is only a problem between private companies and 4 people in a personal capacity. If the Japanese government had not said anything and those companies paid in compliance with that sentence. This discussion would not exist.

We're mixing up a lot of things in this simple matter. And all for the nationalist political parties of both countries. They get more votes in the next elections.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I'm not a historian. Seems better let ICJ determine whether 1910 annexation is illegal or legal and other problems. heard Japan is ready to bring it to ICJ but SK is not sure yet. Talk a lot about this but get nowhere.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Samit BasuToday  02:17 am JST

What are you talking about? In a fully democratic country with clear separation of powers like Korea, the judiciary can render its own interpretations of laws and treaties irrelevant of the administration's foreign policites.

With this statement alone it shows how ignorant you are in the meaning of separation of powers so it is worthless to continue this argument. Same with the whole issue, which is why JP needs to take it up to ICJ or at least International Court of Arbitration. They will accept a case without SK's consent.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

Curious that the Wikipedia has an article on "Slavery in Japan" that takes up forced labour but it does not have an article on "Slavery in Germany" or "Slavery in the USSR." Both Germany and and the USSR used forced labour on a vastly larger scale than did Japan. Communist China also had (some say still has) forced labour camps especially for its Muslim minority.

One standard for Japan and another for all other countries?

Further, the 5.4 million figure is patently ridiculous. If that many Koreans had been mobilised for labour in Japan, they could have taken over the country because so many Japanese men were outside Japan in military operations spread all over the Pacific, China, and South East Asian countries.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The sentence does not question that treaty per se. It only indicates that it does not cover compensation from private companies to those affected. Victims affected by these companies have the right to ask for compensation if they are true.

This is in itself is a violation of the treaty since the court is interpreting the treaty which part is covered and which part is not .

As stipulated within Article 3 paragraph 1.

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

A court ruling is not a diplomatic channel.

3 ( +3 / -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