politics

Seoul says Japan inaction means 'comfort women' court ruling upheld

14 Comments

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

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Who is a South Korean court to order the government of Japan to do anything? They have no jurisdiction so why would the Japanese government in effect recognize their jurisdiction by appealing?

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Basically it's the South Korean court making a political message violating the core principal of separation of power in which judicial system MUST be free from any bias to maintain a fair trial.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Basically it's the South Korean court making a political message violating the core principal of separation of power in which judicial system MUST be free from any bias to maintain a fair trial.

It is not that at all. This is not a dispute between branches of the Korean government but rather an international dispute between two sovereign nations. If Korea want to sue the Japanese government, it should first renounce the 2015 agreement and take their case before the International Court of Justice.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It is not that at all. This is not a dispute between branches of the Korean government but rather an international dispute between two sovereign nations. If Korea want to sue the Japanese government, it should first renounce the 2015 agreement and take their case before the International Court of Justice.

I agree but that is the sole duty of the administrative branch, and is completely off limits of the judicial branch which the SK court has completely violated, questioning if SK is a nation ruled by law or is it another banana republic?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Triring&Desert Tortoise

I think both of your opinions are perfectly valid.

No matter what the Korean court decides, there is no reason why the Japanese government should follow it. It's just a performance for the Korean people.

In the first place, if South Korea's judiciary could determine that an international treaty ratified by the South Korean National Assembly, which has legislative power, is unconstitutional, and could unilaterally nullify its effect, then there would be no need for a South Korean National Assembly.

The reason for this is that in South Korean society, the order of priorities is completely different from that of a normal democratic country: national sentiment domestic law international treaties. Since national sentiments are above international law, they believe that they can ignore treaties that the people do not like. And even if a treaty is once concluded between countries, if the next administration doesn't like it, they think they can ignore the agreement, like Moon Jae-in did.

If foreign countries were to conclude treaties with South Korea, they would have to negotiate with South Korea's judicial branch. Koreans do not understand this at all, and boast that South Korea's separation of powers is in line with democracy. Nonsense!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Basically it's the South Korean court making a political message violating the core principal of separation of power in which judicial system MUST be free from any bias to maintain a fair trial.

Basically, it’s Japanese sour grapes at the invidious comparison afforded us by Korea’s comparatively freer judiciary and the home team’s own hostage justice system beholden to political machinations.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Korea's relatively free judiciary? There is no doubt that this is an organization that deviates from the law. In developed countries, the constitution is freely interpreted according to national sentiment, and the Supreme Court judges appointed by the president are able to make decisions as they please. This is not considered a proper judiciary in developed countries.

In South Korea, there is an appeal law to judge the past (pro-Japan law), and is the judiciary free to think that it can judge other countries that have concluded international treaties?

Being a country ruled by law is part of the foundation of democracy, but South Korea is not even able to do that.

Just because President Park Geun-hye was able to be removed from office through demonstrations, it is not called democracy to be able to remove or impeach a president during his term of office without going through parliamentary procedures.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

In summary, the politicians of all the nations involved are only raising their voices to make a name for themselves. Trade and relationships of all kinds are more important, while women and their fates are secondary, if at all. Effective solidarity by influential women is not noticeable internationally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AGAIN!???

This what stubbornness LOOKS like, FEELS like, TASTES like, SOUNDS like, and SMELLS like.

This matter shall never rest even when it RESTS.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Korea's relatively free judiciary?

What part of ‘comparatively freer judiciary’ don’t you understand?

Japan’s justice system is even more beholden to the machinations of its elite class.

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a06803/

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

In developed countries, the constitution is freely interpreted according to national sentiment, and the Supreme Court judges appointed by the president are able to make decisions as they please. This is not considered a proper judiciary in developed countries.

Quite apart from the tautological contradiction implicit in your formulation, it’s laughable to suggest that president endorsed judicial appointment is somehow qualitatively inferior to Japan’s Cabinet recommended and then ratified at election time by voters who largely haven’t a clue about who they’re being asked to rubber stamp.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"Comfort women" is a Japanese euphemism for those forced to work in its wartime brothels during its 1910-45 colonisation of the Korean peninsula 

How often the media repeat this. It is not just a Japanese euphemism. During the Korean war, the Korean camp followers were and still are called Ianbu in Korean (Ianfu in Japanese). Far Eastern cultures have a tradition of using unoffensive terminology for those engaged in the sex trades.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A South Korean court ruling in favor of a group of 16 women who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels was confirmed on Saturday by Japan's decision not to appeal the verdict, Seoul's foreign ministry said.

A South Korean court ruling has no jurisdiction over Japan. The Defendants did not appeal because they did not recognize the Court's jurisdiction and therefore the ruling itself. It doesn't mean anything favorable to the plaintff.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Seoul says Japan inaction means 'comfort women' court ruling upheld

A very misleading headline. "Seoul" said nothing of the sort as the Yoon Administration is upholding the 2015 Comfort Women Agreement. It is simply the Plaintiff in this South Korean Court ruling that is saying it.

2 ( +3 / -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