politics

S Korean court orders Nippon Steel to pay damages over wartime labor

15 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

It won't be long before people come on and decide this was all settled in 1965, as if they themselves would be cool with their Uncle Joe making a cash deal with the mafia guys that put them in the hospital, without their consent or knowledge, and never gave them a dime of it. After all, Uncle Joe needed cash for a business venture and he is living high on the hog and surely there is some fringe benefits to having a rich Uncle Joe.

Ridiculous. The government can sign away its own claims. It has no right to sign away the damage claims of its individual citizens en masse regarding a third party. And it certainly does not have the right to take damage payouts owed to citizens and then fail to distribute them. And the people who owe you can't just hand the money over to your government hoping it gets to you. If it doesn't they still owe you. People have to pay who they owe, not just hand over money to someone claiming to represent them.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

My stomach is full, I can not eat anymore. You can do it as you like. However, you must be responsible for your actions. "If South Korea disposes of the assets of a Japanese company, Japan will retaliate." said Taro Asou. Japan has probably not kept silent, as its policy towards South Korea has changed. South Korea is like a insurance scammer, you don't have to force yourself just to do something. Which one is the one who is troubled by restrictions on diplomacy? It's South Korea.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Last week, South Korea said it was open to bilateral talks on the compensation issue with Japan on the condition that companies from both countries fund compensation to the plaintiffs.

What's the point of this?! I mean, seriously, to what end??

The Korean government wants to have its cake and eat it too.

So, it says that the Korean courts are independent and that they can't interfere with court rulings.

But then they turn around and say they are open to some sort of government-to-government talks about some government arranged compensation fund to plaintiffs.

Why should Japan even bother, since clearly the Korean courts can disregard anything the Korean government negotiates / arrange.

This is going to get ugly.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

@zones2surf

But then they turn around and say they are open to some sort of government-to-government talks about some government arranged compensation fund to plaintiffs.

Not at all. What Moon administration proposed that Japanese companies ordered to pay damages for illegal conscription and the Korean companies that received 1965 funding pool money into a compensation fund and pay out from there. No public money from either Japan or Korea in that damages compensation fund.

Again, Japanese government is not being held liable for the damages from illegally conscripted forced labor here, but the Japanese companies who used forced labor because the 1965 Treaty didn't provide immunity for Japanese companies due to Japanese government's refusal to include the word damages in the treaty text.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The Japanese government haven't made any treaty with North Korea nor have they paid a single yen in compensation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@zichi

The Japanese government haven't made any treaty with North Korea

Japan can't sign any treaty with North Korea because of the 1965 Treaty.

Japan agreed to recognize the Seoul government as the sole legitimate government of North Korea in 1965, so Japan is banned from signing any kind of treaty with North Korea.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did anyone, really anyone believe, a Korean court woul've ruled against anything Korean when it comes to the neverending war blaming stories? These are way too convenient to ever give them up. Should Japan(ese companies) just accept and follow the court decision, it would create an unaccountable number of new accusations despite the settlement in 1965 and others. But what are internationally binding contracts to Koreans, especially concerning the ones with Japan, anyway? Not only the 1965 contract seems to be obsolete to them, also more recent ones were just interpreted as "take the money and then scram". Unfortunately they do a really well job in convincing the world that they are the poor ones blaming Japan and even manage to alter school books in the US (see naming dispute Sea of Japan), leaving out other parts of the story. They even got the IHO in Monaco to blackmail Tokyo to talks about this (otherwise the IHO could change the name), but refusing other talks of disputed territory. The governing elite (this includes the big companies and foundations with the statue story) has found a brilliant and easy way to make them look good and Japan look bad in the world. Japan must act much sneakier to follow Korea on that. Being honest does not pay off next to the bellowing Korean voices it seems.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Pls pay up , so that Japanese next generation can learn not to ijime anyone not Japanese. It will not be true historty if any Japanese do not admit to this guilt.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan agreed to recognize the Seoul government as the sole legitimate government of North Korea in 1965

There again I am going to say the government (in this case South Korean) has no authority there. And Japan should choose reality over pandering to South Korean dreams it controls North Korea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@saitamaliving

a Korean court woul've ruled against anything Korean when it comes to the neverending war blaming stories?

The same court turned down a separate backwage claims by the plaintiffs, citing that the backwages were covered by the 1965 Treaty.

The ruling is strictly technical. Because the 1965 Treaty doesn't contain the word "damages", "damages" claims can proceed. "Backwages" claims cannot, because it's covered by the treaty.

even manage to alter school books in the US (see naming dispute Sea of Japan), 

The IHO issued an ultimatum to Japan; either agree to a name change with the Korea by the middle of next-year, or IHO will unilaterally delete the name "Sea of Japan" off its chart and leave the sea unnamed. 

So it is the international will that the "Sea of Japan" name cannot stand, it must be changed.

@Norman Goodman

There again I am going to say the government (in this case South Korean) has no authority there. 

Well, the ROK claims North Korea as its territory, even appoints governors for each of North Korea's provinces.(South's governors are elected positions) This is a do-nothing job with a nice office in the government building, highly desirable. 

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/06/06/the-south-korean-bureaucrats-who-pretend-to-run-north-korea

The South Korean bureaucrats who pretend to run North Korea

Not being able to set foot there makes the job a breeze

This is the office of the Committee for the Five Northern Provinces, South Korea’s vestigial bureaucracy for North Korea, over which the South claims jurisdiction. Five of the flags outside represent the provinces lost in 1948, when the peninsula was formally sundered (contemporary North Korea has nine provinces). There is a governor for each province, as well as mayors for their towns and cities and village officials for smaller settlements.

And Japan should choose reality over pandering to South Korean dreams it controls North Korea.

Japan can't because of the 1965 Treaty. The only way to negotiate a diplomatic normalization treaty with Kim Jong Un is to drop the 1965 Treaty.

Until then, the best Japan can do is to sign informal "agreements" and open a consulate(not an embassy) in Pyongyang.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Another interesting consequence of the 1965 treaty is that Japan is prohibited from attacking North Korea preemptively, since a preemptive attack on North Korea by Japan is considered an attack on the ROK, because Japan agreed to accept North Korea as an ROK territory in a formal binding treaty. Nor is Japan allowed to send in JGSDF special forces to rescue "hostages" in Pyongyang without Seoul's permission.

If Japan attacks North Korea preemptively, then the ROK will likely launch a retaliatory strike toward Japan.

If Japan is attacked by North Korea, then either the ROK will strike North Korea on behalf of Japan or give Japan a permission to strike back, which way it goes is uncertain due to the current diplomatic breakdown.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Last week, South Korea said it was open to bilateral talks on the compensation issue with Japan on the condition that companies from both countries fund compensation to the plaintiffs."

South Korea wants to negotiate with Japan about the compensation issue as long as Japan agrees to pay compensation. Does Korea not understand how negotiation actually works?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Samit BasuToday  12:21 am JST

Another interesting consequence of the 1965 treaty is that Japan is prohibited from attacking North Korea preemptively, since a preemptive attack on North Korea by Japan is considered an attack on the ROK, because Japan agreed to accept North Korea as an ROK territory in a formal binding treaty. Nor is Japan allowed to send in JGSDF special forces to rescue "hostages" in Pyongyang without Seoul's permission.

If Japan attacks North Korea preemptively, then the ROK will likely launch a retaliatory strike toward Japan.

If Japan is attacked by North Korea, then either the ROK will strike North Korea on behalf of Japan or give Japan a permission to strike back, which way it goes is uncertain due to the current diplomatic breakdown.

Whatever, if the way you read 1965 treaty is correct, there is no such thing Japan is obliged to pay off to North no compensation, no reparation, nothing North has been demanding. Good.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The IHO issued an ultimatum to Japan; either agree to a name change with the Korea by the middle of next-year, or IHO will unilaterally delete the name "Sea of Japan" off its chart and leave the sea unnamed. 

So it is the international will that the "Sea of Japan" name cannot stand, it must be changed.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/01/21/2019012101322.html

"The International Hydrographic Organization called on Japan to consider referring to the body of water between the two countries as both the "East Sea" and the "Sea of Japan," the Yomiuri Shimbun reported Friday."

As of now, the IHO wants Japan to agree to use both names if they can't agree on a single name. The IHO warned Japan that they can change it without Japan's consent but would prefer not to, meaning they would change it to use both names, not leave it blank. The IHO is responsible to ensure the worlds oceans are accurately charted, there's no way that they would leave a major body of water unmarked...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Samit Basu

Not sure your intention of ignoring evidence that are presented to you by many other posters before, your claim of "damages were not included in 1965 treaty" is not valid because the dialogue of negotiating process for 1965 agreement (which was kept hidden to Korean public and finally disclosed in 2005) clearly noted Korean gov rejected Japanese gov proposal to compensate for damages (including pains/sufferings) directly to individual victims and Korean gov insisted to manage domestically.

Japan will surely submit this dialogue as evidence when they bring this case to ICJ (as how 1386 Korean plaintiffs submitted when they sued Korean government end of last year), so you should stop repeating same-old lies over and over to deceive people who are not familiar with Korean related subject matters.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites