politics

S Korean court to soon start weighing sale of Mitsubishi Heavy assets

24 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Time for Japanese banks to stop supporting SK banks this will serve as the wisdom vaccine to Moon all ex presidents of SK go to Jain bt Moon will b served death penalty after his term gets over

17 ( +21 / -4 )

South Korea's actions will effectively "undo" the 1965 Treaty. Nations don't sign treaties with other nations only to say that it doesn't cover their people as individuals. Governments represent all of their people. It appears that words like "final" and "irreversible" have no meaning in the Korean language.

Another result of South Korea's action will be to utterly destroy it's own credibility on the international stage. The precedent that they are setting is unacceptable to the world when one considers the number of wars and treaties that have been signed and are holding it together for the last 300 years because each nation stands by their word.

16 ( +23 / -7 )

South Korea during the worst Pandemic in the past 100 years, at a time when all of us are suffering, economies taking a hit all over the world. What does the Korean do?

Wants to escalate the situation with Japan.

Wants to make relations even worse after Japan paid multiple times, apologies dozens of times.

We signed multiple agreements. Fact

-1965 As Final to solve all issues cover all Issues.

-2015 Comfort woman Deal as Final. Fool of East Asia paid again. By who? Prime Minister Abe, supposed to be Right Wing Fanatic (Korean own words), Yet he offered both money and apology which S. Korea backed out in 2017.

Bias South Korean Court, decided in Koreans favor, Who didn't predict the results?

Koreans decided in Korean favor, because of that our companies should be sold off, assets sold. Doesn't matter the 1965 aggrement.

The Korean says this is personal, Japanese government don't intervene! We should allow the Korean to do whatever he wants to Japanese companies! We should look the other way, Not protect our companies.

15 ( +23 / -8 )

If South Korea honestly believes that the 1965 Treaty does not cover damages, then it would be the first to agree to an arbitration to establish that as a fact. That would justify allowing the South Korean courts to take.

But South Korea refuses to abide by the Arbitration Clause.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Agreement on the settlement of property of problems concerning property and claims and on economic co-operation (with protocols exchanges of notes and agreed minutes)

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

This covers every eventuality. No legislative stone left unturned. The only Judicial body that has the authority to interpret Treaty law in the International Court of Justice.

The only course of action for the South Korean Government is the arbitration process written into the treaty.

All South Korea President Moon Jae-in need to do is take a long hard look into the mirror, staring back at him is the only person he can blame.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

If South Korea honestly believes that the 1965 Treaty does not cover damages, then it would be the first to agree to an arbitration to establish that as a fact. That would justify allowing the South Korean courts to take.

But South Korea refuses to abide by the Arbitration Clause.

True, and the 1965 treaty also clearly states to the effect that should any conflict occur regarding the contents, it shall be settled through the Arbitration. Japan has been handling the case fairly and accordingly, from the very beginning.

"Undoing the treaty" would lead to allow the Japan side to reclaim the right of colonial time properties left and seized by Korean authorities. Undoubtedly the total amount shall be much bigger than one claimed by the plaintiff, would affect local socioeconomic foundations. The Japanese officials renounced all of them in exchange of prioritizing the normalized relations under the treaty. Korea's unilateral nullification is self-defeating.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Fine.

If the South Korean court orders the sale of the assets, revoke the special permanent resident status of Koreans in Japan and deport them to their choice of either South or North Korea. Confiscate the assets.

Don't threaten to do it. Just shut up and do it afterwards.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

My wife wants a robot vacuum. I won't buy from China. Miele's little robot is made in South Korea. Nope, not with how they are behaving towards Japan. Samsung has the highest rated robot sold in the US but they're a South Korean company even as the product is made in Vietnam. Sorry, no sale. But, look, Panasonic has the Rulo. It's not sold in the US but you can buy one on eBay. Looking at photos of used ones one can see they are made in Japan. Sold. A Nissyo 100 volt transformer will keep it supplied with the correct current. I used to love Samsung products but not now. Big middle finger to South Korea.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

This will not end well. The court will order the sale and there will be escalating retaliatory steps by Japan, then South Korea, then Japan again, and on and on. At some point when the South Korean economy has been mangled, perhaps Moon will look back and realize that he had the chance in November 2020 to find an off-ramp.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

rainydayToday  08:20 pm JST

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.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Rainyday,

I don’t have a sound understanding of Treaty law concerning establishing Basic diplomatic Relations between two once hostile countries (Japan and the Republic of Korea), one aspect is the understanding in law, the Government of Japan recognizing South Korea as the single legitimate government.

However,

The 1965 Treaty Article II:

1 The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally.

This is worded to cover all instances, any interpretation must be determined by the ICJ

An example of how treaty law always prevails. I have some knowledge and expertise with George Osborne’s 2013 Finance Act, and the then accusations of a breach of international law.

The creation of a general anti-tax avoidance rule able to override double tax treaties.

However, Osbourne had all vested interests and parties to these treaties agree and accept such rules, this was achieved through recognized arbitration with the OECD playing a vital role.

Subsequently, the simple point was made that the effective legislation, in so far as there is any inconsistency between domestic law and Treaty, then the treaty by definition will be given statutory effect to prevail over domestic law.

The case was relatively straightforward on this point in the sense that the legislation in question predated the treaty.

Government of South Korea, and the court should refer the case to the stated Treaty arbitration clause.  

However, I contend, South Korea President Moon Jae-in has an axe to grind, despite the Japan Government numinous attempts at contrition. South Korea President Moon Jae-in has a bitter abhorrence of Japan Government and a lesser extent people, and so absolution/resolution are not on Moon Jae-in agenda.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

rainydayNov. 1  10:36 pm JST

Yup. I’m not necessarily saying Korea’s position is correct, but rather pointing out. that to resolve the treaty issue would require the Japanese and South Korean governments to take it to the ICJ. Its not something that either party to the instant case (laborers and Mitsubishi) could do.

Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes ICJ jurisdiction and ruling mandatory.

South Korea is not. They have refused ICJ settlement over the Liancourt Rocks dispute three times.

You really think South Korea will go before the ICJ over the Treaty issue? They won't even go to Arbitration which is clearly specified in the 1965 Treaty as a procedure for resolving differences in interpretation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The blind escalation of SK is astounding, typically Moon doesn't take any steps to de-escalate. Japan needs to become louder in the world showing the treaty breaches of SK since they successfully rely on the victim role for decades already - and it still is working. To many the story told by the SK propaganda channels is that Japan denied supply of important goods because they don't apologize and pay up their imaginary debts to the Korean people. Japan must become more active in also sneaking the correct information out in the world media so people start also feeling with them how they become betrayed and still try to settle things in a sophisticated manner. For a start I'd like to clearly hear demands to abide by the arbitration clause.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

South Korean government becoming more pathetic by the year. Only way SK politicians including Moon can keep power is beating on Japan; it's sad that hate gains votes.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

ReynardFoxNov. 2  10:28 pm JST

As for the comfort women issue, I believe it’s a different situation. The ya not about the money and more about getting a official apology from the Jgovt that isn’t constantly being undermined by politicians within said government. “We’re really sorry for this thing we believe didn’t happen” tends to ring hollow.

Officially Japan has apologized and paid compensation. Despite this, SKorea continues to claim there was no apology and it has kept the money received from Japan without giving to the surviving CWs for whom it was intended. The 2015 CW Agreement included an Apology from PM Abe.

The official position of Japan is clear. Using comments made by individual politicians and lawmakers as "evidence" of insincerity is duplicitous. Japan is not China or NKorea where individuals may not express views that counter the government. SKorean use of this argument only goes to prove that there exists no sincere intent on their part to resolve this issue. No further evidence than Moon ripping up the 2015 "final and irreversible" Agreement is needed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

*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.*

Yup. I’m not necessarily saying Korea’s position is correct, but rather pointing out. that to resolve the treaty issue would require the Japanese and South Korean governments to take it to the ICJ. Its not something that either party to the instant case (laborers and Mitsubishi) could do.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I feel terrible for the Koreans who were essentially enslaved by the imperial Japanese military-industrial complex; not just for what japan did to them, but also that the money that should have gone to them from the 1965 treaty was basically snatched up by the Korean government to fund government projects. Insult to injury. I can understand their anger.

As for the comfort women issue, I believe it’s a different situation. The ya not about the money and more about getting a official apology from the Jgovt that isn’t constantly being undermined by politicians within said government. “We’re really sorry for this thing we believe didn’t happen” tends to ring hollow.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This covers every eventuality. No legislative stone left unturned. The only Judicial body that has the authority to interpret Treaty law in the International Court of Justice.

The only course of action for the South Korean Government is the arbitration process written into the treaty.

Yes, if this was a dispute between the governments of Japan and South Korea about that treaty. But its actually a dispute between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and its former employees for unpaid wages. Nothing in the treaty prevents them from suing each other.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

South Korea doesn’t need Japan telling it what it can and cannot do! And that power is being shown by the Korean courts applying their own laws in their own country-sayonara Mitsubishi!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I’m all for the sale, but in a country where most recent PM’s are in prison for corruption, who will actually get this money?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The Japanese mind set is that we all belong to the state, i.e., there is no difference between the Japanese government and the Japanese individuals. There is nothing such as private companies: All companies de facto belong to the state. We have observed the same Japanese collectivism in the Kamikaze, the comfort women statue in Berlin and the Abe san statue. May I add one more? The Japanese government secretly press the Japanese scientific journals not to publish any article mentioning "the East Sea", and more surprisingly, all of the Japanese scientists obey it without any single exception. Scary. It is like the North Korean collectivism, or worse.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

@Kazuaki Shimazak

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.

Read what your government officials are talking about the individual the property right, if you can read Japanese.

"そのため、個人の請求権は日韓請求権・経済協力協定や国内法で消滅したわけではありません。"

https://www.taro.org/2018/11/%E6%97%A5%E9%9F%93%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82%E6%A8%A9%E3%83%BB%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A.php

A full explanation by Japanese legal experts to enlighten brainwashed naive Japanese:

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Mitsubishi in all fairness should agree to create peace.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

This is an internal matter for South Korea. Companies must follow their laws or they may as well remove themselves from doing business in South Korea. This is not a matter of treaty.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

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