politics

S Korea's actions not helpful in resolving export spat, Japan says

29 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

Japan's actions look even less helpful. Sad, very sad.

-18 ( +8 / -26 )

The only measture left for Abe to recover the support from Japanese voters is provoking S. Korea to instigate anti-Korean sentiment, which already became banal, but I would be not surprised he gets it again.

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

Ties between the Asian neighbours have been on particularly rocky ground since South Korea's top court made a series of decisions ordering compensation for workers ruled to have been forced to toil in Japanese factories during the 1910-1945 period of Japan's colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

Japan argues the issue of compensation was settled for good by a 1965 bilateral agreement and has criticized the seizure of Japanese companies' assets in South Korea.

These two paragraphs reach right to the heart/crux of the matter.

However, the 1965 bilateral agreement is in fact a Treaty, where both sovereign states are bound by International law.

Most important, South Korea's top court, has no jurisdiction to interpret or redefine the context of this agreement/treaty.

This is a matter for the treaty dispute resolution either by arbitration, or ultimately the ICJ.

Regrettable, extremely regrettable, whether humongous or gargantuan in nature, the Government of South Korea will have to accept this fact before both Counties/Peoples will be able to move on.

International Treaties: Features and Importance from International Law Perspective

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359978

14 ( +19 / -5 )

We gave them...wartime rape and slavery, invasion, and a ton load of Fukushima radiation.

they gave us Korean BBQ and K-pop and Yun-Sama.

why can’t we trade equally.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

At issue are illicit trading and arms proliferation. WHO doesn't deal with this domain.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Korea is done playing games with Japan.

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

Putting aside how childish the South Korean government acted for the past years, Japan shouldn't just say it will continue to hold dialogues without any substantial progress. It will be meaningless and empty for both sides.

That is, if Japan actually cares enough to bother with Korea.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Samit BasuToday  10:52 am JST

Korea is done playing games with Japan.

Agree. South Korea is playing with itself.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

Time for Japan to be a bigger man, out play Korea by admitting its past, again I know but a serious apology not followed with a visit to the abhorrent Yashcuni Shrine. Pay out the slaves that were forced to work. Cheeper than this on going childish behaviour. Want to be a leader act like one.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Why so many people are angry with Korea asking for a referee to sort out this dispute? Strange way of thinking, or lack thereof.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Agree with @cricky.

apoligise, shake hands (bow in covid19 times) and move along.

The price of the crappy two masks is enough to pay compensation.

young people don’t care. Both Japanese and SKoreans like each other, just the dinosaurs...

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

If South Korea doesn't like what its neighboring country from across the Sea of Japan, here are my proposals. Short and sweet.

One, South Korea can simply improve relations with your cousins across the Yalu River - i.e, the People's Republic of China - for starters. As you and I know, the PRC are definitely nicer and more benevolent than the Japanese. Remember what they did to you during the THAAD issue?

Two, simply learn to develop your own S.Korean scientific, research and development base, otherwise no one really takes you guys seriously.

Sorry, South Korea, beggars can't be choosers!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I'd love Japan to take the 1965 treaty to the ICJ and get a final judgement on this. It would be a huge embarrassment (loss of face) for South Korea.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

" South Korea's top court made a series of decisions ordering compensation =--"

Why now again and again. Is the supreme court in SK under every govt.?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Japan argues the issue of compensation was settled for good by a 1965 bilateral agreement and has criticized the seizure of Japanese companies' assets in South Korea.

They have to argue that individual claims are not possible because it's not explicitly mentioned in the text and even Hatoyama said it was the view of the Japanese government that it was possible.

If it was precluded, they could just point it out. You can read it all in English, Japanese and Korean so if you can find the exact part where it says individual claims are not permitted then please post it here

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@inspectorgadget

So why doesn't Japan take it's case to the ICJ? That is what the ICJ is for. Afraid they may lose?

And why does Japan complain when Korea goes to the WTO? That is what the WTO is for. Afraid they may lose?

Please give me - 20

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I'd love Japan to take the 1965 treaty to the ICJ and get a final judgement on this. It would be a huge embarrassment (loss of face) for South Korea.

Blinded by pure ignorance and abenarratives.

If you read the following report by UN experts, the 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. Even the previous Japanese governments acknowledged the 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. You think the ICJ will rule differently? Sorry buddy, but Abe is a conniving POS.

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"

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

People here are mixing several very different themes.

South Korea's complaint to the WTO. It is unfounded because it wants to demand another international government. The preferential use of industrial materials whose patent resides solely with Japanese companies. Where Korean companies are merely users of such materials, with the corresponding authorization from the legitimate owners. Through a lease for the use of that patent. The South Korean claim has no administrative legal basis. Simply because he's claiming something, which legally doesn't belong to him. Industrially speaking.

On the subject of the 1965 treaty. It certainly does not resolve the issue of slavery or the issue of comfort women. But the South Korean government is the first to fight against this. Even by arbitrarily nullifying the 2015 final settlement agreement. In the case of the women victims, who were enslaved by the Japanese imperial army.

They are simply mixing concepts, for exclusively political and electoral use. If we extrapolate from last April's election results in South Korea. The current President Moon will not be able to renew another term. And you need to use the anti-Japanese card to win the public's favor, for a new election.

Everything can be solved if both parties are really willing to come to an agreement. Unfortunately, the demands of the south Korean government are totally preventing a final solution.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I believe it was Japan that mixed the concepts of the Korean Supreme Court ruling against Sumitomo for WW2 slave labour issues with trade sanctions on semiconductor materials.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Tom

the 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. Even the previous Japanese governments acknowledged the 1965 treaty did not cover comfort women nor forced laborers. You think the ICJ will rule differently? Sorry buddy, but Abe is a conniving POS.

Much unlike the comfort women's case, Japan and ROK DID discuss and settle the forced labour icase which was actually its one of central agendas for concluding the 1965 normalization treaty. That's why ROK under the Moon administration is wrong to try to raise it as a new "unsettled" issue. You can't charge Japan twice on the same count.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Cricky

Time for Japan to be a bigger man, out play Korea by admitting its past, again I know but a serious apology not followed with a visit to the abhorrent Yashcuni Shrine.

This may happen during the term of next prime minister.

Ishiba Shigeru, who is the frontrunner in public polls to succeed Abe, has pledged to apologize to comfort women in person, resolve historical disputes, remove A-class war criminals from Yasukuni, have a deep soul searching on WW2 and Sino-Japanese War, etc.

The reason Ishiba wants to do this is because he unlike Abe has a keen understanding of Japan's place in Northeast Asian security structure, and Japan must improve its relations with Korea to survive. Recall, Japan gets its ballistic missile early warning from Korea via the GSOMIA, and if Korea cuts off that radar feed, then Japan becomes blind instantly and can't utilize the Aegis Ashore.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@noriahojanen

Japan and ROK DID discuss and settle the forced labour icase which was actually its one of central agendas for concluding the 1965 normalization treaty.

Nowhere in the text of 1965 treaty covers reparation.

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.

Issues covered by 1965 Treaty

1) Property

2) Rights

3) Interests

Issues left not covered by the 1965 Treaty

1) Damages reparation

So why did Japan refuse to cover damages in the Treaty when Korea offered to include it? Because Japan insisted it did nothing wrong and the forced annexation of Korea was legal, hence it should not be held liable for damages caused by the rule of Imperial Japan, since the subject forced labor is covered by wartime conscription.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I have zero respect for Korea's position on this, after Japan made an honest effort to come up with a solution, and came to one with the Korean government. Then after agreement, the Korean's ripped it up, and proposed nothing in its place.

The way I look at it, they can accept what they already agreed to, or shut up.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

South Korea's complaint to the WTO. It is unfounded because it wants to demand another international government. The preferential use of industrial materials whose patent resides solely with Japanese companies. Where Korean companies are merely users of such materials, with the corresponding authorization from the legitimate owners. Through a lease for the use of that patent. The South Korean claim has no administrative legal basis. Simply because he's claiming something, which legally doesn't belong to him. Industrially speaking.

You have no idea what you are talking about. This whole WTO complaint arose from Japan’s revised export controls against South Korea based on allegations that South Korea sent sensitive materials for developing WMD to North Korea, mind you with no evidence. If this was truly the case, Japan should have blocked all sensitive materials (over 100 of them) exported to South Korea, not just the three materials core to the semi conductor industry. As shown in his continuous trait, Abe has no logic whatsoever.

On the subject of the 1965 treaty. It certainly does not resolve the issue of slavery or the issue of comfort women. But the South Korean government is the first to fight against this. Even by arbitrarily nullifying the 2015 final settlement agreement. In the case of the women victims, who were enslaved by the Japanese imperial army.

South Korea had every right to reconsider the 2015 agreement, as it was stuffed up as reported by a group of UN Human Rights experts. Back then, Park caved in to stuffed agreement due to Abe’s threat of economic sanctions. Moon didn’t cave in, hence the export controls by Abe. Japan really needs to grow up and act like an adult.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17209&LangID=E

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

happyhereJune 4  08:35 pm JST

@inspectorgadget

So why doesn't Japan take it's case to the ICJ? That is what the ICJ is for. Afraid they may lose?

It is the responsibility of the party who has the complaint to file an action at the ICJ. Not the other way around.

South Korea has not done so because it is afraid of losing to Japan. That is why South Korea refuses to abide by the Arbitration Clause in the 1965 Treaty.

The United States, the U.N., the WTO have all turned down South Korea's request for help on this matter. One which could easily be solved by SK handing over the export information as requested by Japan, a prerequisite to remain on their White List. South Korea is acting like it's usual immature self.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Korea is mixing irrelevant issues from Anti-Japan sentiment.

1) The reason why Japan strengthened export control is that Korea reexported mass-destruction weapon usable material to risky countries and 40 tons of a kind of it still missing. Claiming that Japan should return the status of Korea from standard to favored is nonsense and suing it to WTO will complicate the relation more.

2) All issues Japan and Korea were settled by treaty between the them in 1965 and unpaid wage issue on volunteered workers are unsolved between them and Korean gov.

3) GSOMIA has nothing to do with above but if Korea want to break up, do as they do. Just the US gets upset.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Korea is mistaken.

GSOMIA has a large impact on US forces in Korea, so Japan is opposed to it out of consideration for its ally, the US, and it has almost no effect on Japan itself.

It can't be a card that threatens Japan.

He says we can get a separate permit for the export case as well.

I'm just saying that we'll allow it if you can prove that you have a good case for something that has an unknown destination.

The ball is on the South Korean side.

South Korea should think calmly and deal with it for good.

Unless you want North Korea to annex you as a communist state.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ossanamerica

It is the responsibility of the party who has the complaint to file an action at the ICJ. Not the other way around

SK has no complaint. Their Supreme Court made a ruling and they are proceeding accordingly.

Japan opposes this ruling and so is the complainant. Since it is an international issue they should go to the ICJ.

Get a grip.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan opposes this ruling and so is the complainant. Since it is an international issue they should go to the ICJ.

Korea are the complaintants. They didn't like Japan dropping down their priorities to treat them as a normal trading partner, removing special status.

Kore's court made a decision. Japan reacted. Korea didn't like it. There's your complaint. Maybe Korea can't change what the courts decided, but that's their problem to work out internally. Then they can come back to Japan.

Let's not forget, this whole thing came to a "final and irreversible" agreement, that was then ripped up by Korea, with nothing put forward in its place. This was irresponsible, and lead directly to this current conflict.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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