politics

Japan may take S Korea wartime labor dispute to International Court of Justice: NHK

54 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Why? There's no chance they could win. Just a bluff.

On the other hand it's a good chance for the rest of the world to see Japans wartime atrocities

-19 ( +11 / -30 )

@Vince BlackToday  04:22 pm JST

For the record, why do you think they have a poor chance of winning? The main point of debate (at least, if the ICJ does it right) will not be what Japan did about a century ago, but Korea's current actions. Unless they want to send a message that it is OK for countries to unilaterally void settlement treaties they've signed, I can't see how they can write a reasoned judgment supporting Korea.

15 ( +25 / -10 )

The only way Japan could win would be through bribery, Japan has no case. Period.

-18 ( +8 / -26 )

The Japanese government should listen carefully what Japanese legal experts say if they bring the case to the ICJ. The verdicts may favor the Japanese government. But the opposite is also possible. They should also assume a pessimistic scenario. In the worst case, it is not impossible that the verdict from the ICJ could be catastrophic for the Japan government.

An opinion of a Japanese legal expert (written in Japanese):

https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/world/2018/12/icj.php?t=1

Another opinion of Japanese legal experts (English):

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

IMHO, I think it will better for both Japan and Korea to bring this case to the ICJ, ending all legal disputes.

-16 ( +7 / -23 )

Would love to see this play out in front of the whole world in the ICJ. It would be the first time many will be hearing about some of the actions of Japan during WWII, and that includes many Japanese youths.

-16 ( +8 / -24 )

Japan can take it to ICJ but S.Korea won’t show up.

They will find a way to delay the process and whine as usual.

Mark my words.

12 ( +20 / -8 )

@ Vince Black - "On the other hand it's a good chance for the rest of the world to see Japans wartime atrocities"

@ Heckleberry - "Would love to see this play out in front of the whole world in the ICJ. It would be the first time many will be hearing about some of the actions of Japan during WWII, and that includes many Japanese youths."

Aa-aa, playing the same old tune on the violin!!!!

Korea doesn't have a pretty history either!! This would be educational to you!!!

https://apjjf.org/2019/12/Jang.html

11 ( +20 / -9 )

I don't get it? Japan’s chemical industry is a pivotal industry for the next generation and this is being jeopardize to litigate what? I really just don't get it. Win, lose the 100 old arguement... The market won't care and it will move on. There is no way that 'only' Samsung is looking for new suppliers. Business does not like instability in the supply chain.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

SJToday  05:23 pm JST

The Japanese government should listen carefully what Japanese legal experts say if they bring the case to the ICJ. The verdicts may favor the Japanese government. But the opposite is also possible. They should also assume a pessimistic scenario. In the worst case, it is not impossible that the verdict from the ICJ could be catastrophic for the Japan government.

An opinion of a Japanese legal expert (written in Japanese):

https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/world/2018/12/icj.php?t=1

Another opinion of Japanese legal experts (English):

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

IMHO, I think it will better for both Japan and Korea to bring this case to the ICJ, ending all legal disputes.

Kan Kimura is not a legal expert. He is a political scientist at Kobe Univ.

Those lawyers in your 2nd link did not refer to any of specialized legal point of view, none about Int'l Law. They merely repeated and explained the verdict of stupid Korean supreme court which ordinary people whom you insult as not having basic intelligence, don't have any legal license to read and understand. It's not expert opinions, in terms of Persuasiveness.

They made a statement and they happened to be lawyers.

They often misunderstand as if they have some kind of specially privileged power when they make statements.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

This will just bring unwanted publicity for the two countries. I don’t think you’d want to air out your dirty laundry. You want the world to see your soiled undergarments?

The best thing would be to settle it between yourselves.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Hachidori:

"Japan can take it to ICJ but S.Korea won’t show up."

The ICJ needs the power of bench warrants and officers to bring before the court. Just like in Africa with genocidal maniacs, i doubt anyone would willingly turn themselves in to be judged.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Korea continues to prove a country that does not want to learn from the past and does not want to close wounds. I understand that they are interested in all this, it is a way of having their citizens distracted by the incompetence of their Government.

Japan and Korea have already signed treaties and reached agreements to close the wounds, Japan has taken responsibility for their actions over the years.

When you forgive alguein is forever, pacts are signed once.

Korea demonstrates with these attitudes to have a great inferiority complex.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

SK's excuse is too childish. It claims it does not want to be told to do what and until when by Japan.

But, it's legal team defending the plaintiffs are the one who set the deadline to cross the final line, to cash the assets it had seized and continuously threaten " We sell them, sell them, you have no time left, cause we sell them anytime soon".

Actually, Japan should have taken the case to ICJ when these stupid kids-lawyers seized the assets.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Since SK is too chicken coward to show up at ICJ, pointless to foresee that even the greatest world court would not be able to judge on this case.

People really need to understand, the stupidest SK top court arbitrary determined 1910 annexation was illegal

without any consensus from the world community, not mention from the other contracting party.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

The verdicts may favor the Japanese government. But the opposite is also possible. They should also assume a pessimistic scenario. In the worst case, it is not impossible that the verdict from the ICJ could be catastrophic for the Japan government.

well Japan is prepared to take that chance since they think they have a strong case, the Koreans dont want to go to the ICJ, that in itself shows you their confidence in their case. The only fair way for disputing governments to have their grievances heard is by a neutral court, that is the iCJ

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Above all court judges, there is justice. Let us not forget those who suffered, and do all we can to help them, not us.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

wtfjapan, there is no such a thing as "a neutral court". All courts are flawed, philosophically speaking.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Good for Japan to announce this, because we all know SK will refuse to go before the ICJ. Just like they've refused to settle the Liancourt Rocks issue before the ICJ 3 times. The 1965 Treaty clearly states that any differences are to be settled by Arbitration, and although Japan has proposed this, SK has refused. Their unwillingness to follow what has been agreed and move towards resolving the issue is not being ignored by the international community. So let Japan try to bring SK to the ICJ and let the world see them refuse once again.

As for all the K-nationalists on this board harping on how WWII issues can be brought up at the ICJ, that isn't the issue. Even it it were, SK could also be brought before the ICJ by other nations:

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2182848/women-raped-korean-soldiers-during-vietnam-war-seek-seouls

Furthermore the ICJ Court is made up of Judges from nations which actually suffered from Japan in WWII and have already moved on, They aren't going to be blind to South Korea's historical revisionism.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

I'm totally in agreement with Japan here. Civility calls for bilateral talks, then third party arbitration, and when all peacefull avenues are exhausted ...other unilateral prerogatives may be implemented. That, I presume is how civilized people should behave.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Japanese are good people, as Koreans are. As long as there is an intention to resolve the problem, there is a hope. Please keep the door open.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Yep, you can not like the truth but.

Sundi Aiyer, managing director of supply chain and operations advisory Aiyer Group, said the spat would serve as a “wake-up call” to South Korean manufacturers who were dependent on Japanese suppliers.

“This might mean that Korean companies will seek more reliable supply sources from alternative markets such as China or Taiwan, which could, in turn, use the opportunity to build up their own capabilities,” he said.

Japan? Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Cogito Ergo Sum, that is your opinion about civility. Mines is different: give love to those who need it. Love your neighbours as your own brothers. Never exaggerate and escalate dispute, but to make it disappear.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I personally think that regardless of the outcome, 3rd party arbitration is the best. Some people have said that Japan might lose anyway. But, the fact that they can have a so-called "final" decision is what is necessary. Of course, we thought that "final" decision happened in 1965. But, if the Koreans can't accept that, let's finally make it final! Japan has already apologized SEVERAL times. You can do we search about Japanese apologies. But, the war is over, let's make FINAL restitution, put it to rest, and get on with normal, peaceful relations.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Problem with ICJ is SK will just ignore the ruling when it goes against them, and continue making huge money demands. No, Japan must keep up maximum pressure with trade restrictions to add to the bans on hi-tech components announced. Also, tourist restrictions are on the table. Cut tourist numbers by half.

Overturn that bias ruling Moon, or economic depression looms!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@Akie

Quote 'give love to those who need it. Love your neighbours as your own brothers. Never exaggerate and escalate dispute, but to make it disappear.'

Tell that to S. Korea. Japan has tried to be a good neighbor for decades now. That's why compensation was paid and over 50 apologies given.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

S. Korea for the past several decades has taken the relationship with Japan for granted. They even treat us differently from US, China and even North Korea gets better treatment than Japan.

They want best relations with North, while Japan relations have been allowed to get worse and worse.

We paid in 1965 to cover all claims, take the money and give it to the people. We won't play this games with you anymore even if you want to continue on the path of apologies and compensation.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

They won't, because Japan would lose in a heartbeat. What's more, it would bring to light their atrocities, which many here wish to ignore or deny completely. Also, it's funny how they demand SK go to the ICJ on this and that, but then say they have zero plans to go over trade issues, or over the Senkakus, for that matter. Only when they KNOW they cannot win at home.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Anoher day, another pointless display of South Korean government immaturity.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

AlexBecu: "We paid in 1965 to cover all claims, take the money and give it to the people. We won't play this games with you anymore even if you want to continue on the path of apologies and compensation."

They want an honest and official apology, not a "bad things happen" while the leaders then immediately go to Yasukuni to wash their mouths out (or at least donate to it the same day). And then people like you blame the victims to boot!

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

AlexBecu: And you didn't answer my question; you said "your government" on the assumption that I am from somewhere I am not, proving your bias in your comments. I ask you again, where am I from? That you can't answer and run away from the question speaks volumes.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

oldman_13: "Anoher day, another pointless display of South Korean government immaturity."

He says, on the thread where Japan threatens to take them to a court it has flat out said it's unnecessary to go to when the shoe's on the other foot, and after crying about the possibility of losing out on military intelligence.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

All claims are cover in 1965 aggrement which S. Korea accepted, took the money, used it to become a rich country, now decades later in 2019 they want more.

Go ask the Moon government for payment that's where the money is we already paid.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

smithinjapanToday  10:50 pm JST

They won't, because Japan would lose in a heartbeat. What's more, it would bring to light their atrocities, which many here wish to ignore or deny completely. Also, it's funny how they demand SK go to the ICJ on this and that, but then say they have zero plans to go over trade issues, or over the Senkakus, for that matter. Only when they KNOW they cannot win at home.

Idiot. If SK files it's claim with WTO, official process will automatically starts, regardless Japan's wish, which has been reported already as starting. First step is bilateral consultation before Panel is held at WTO.

And Senkaku what? got nothing to with Issues between Japan and SK.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

smithinjapanToday  10:55 pm JST

AlexBecu: And you didn't answer my question; you said "your government" on the assumption that I am from somewhere I am not, proving your bias in your comments. I ask you again, where am I from? That you can't answer and run away from the question speaks volumes.

So where are you from? I am interested in that too.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

smithinjapanToday  10:52 pm JST

AlexBecu: "We paid in 1965 to cover all claims, take the money and give it to the people. We won't play this games with you anymore even if you want to continue on the path of apologies and compensation."

They want an honest and official apology, not a "bad things happen" while the leaders then immediately go to Yasukuni to wash their mouths out (or at least donate to it the same day). And then people like you blame the victims to boot!

How about SK asking 3rd party arbitration panel or ICJ to decide whether countless apologies were honest or official? LOL

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Eventually, the problem has to be resolved, no alternatives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The essence of the issue is SK top court's self-righteous decision jumping over Int'l consensus and the other high contracting party, which was that 1910 annexation was illegal occupation, hence national mobilization act which was legally-enforced was also illegal act. "reparation" for those illegal acts caused as results of Japan's illegal occupation is not covered in the treaty. Here it's sentence is entirely relying on it's self-righteous, unilateral denial on legitimacy of 1910 annexation.

So only if SK shows up at ICJ, then ICJ needs to trace back up to 1910 or even before and judge legitimacy

of the 1910 treaty because, as I said, that's the very essence of SK top court decision. It is not the issue of individual rights can or cannnot be extinguished by a nation.

But the reality is when SK tried to make Int'l community side with it by holding Int'l academic conference for A Reconsideration of the Annexation of Korea in 2001 Jan, April, July, SK completely failed to achieve it's goal.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

juminRhee: " The ICJ needs the power of bench warrants and officers to bring before the court. Just like in Africa with genocidal maniacs, i doubt anyone would willingly turn themselves in to be judged."

The ICJ is toothless, even the US does not recognise its jurisdiction over US citizens, The ICJ is just another tool under the heel of the US, it uses the ICJ when it suits but wont recognise its jurisdiction. Same goes for Israel.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I thought it was 10years but it was actually 14 years spent for delegates of both countries to finally conclude the treaty in 1965 to start new diplomatic relationship all for the better for both countries. In those 14 years both delegates kept crashing against each other and negotiation often got frozen at dead-ends. After all, they could not agree on legitimacy of the 1910 treaty but both chose signing and capping on any more conflicts. This is a historical fact.

With 50 years passed already, and SK government once admitted the issues of forced labor were all settled by the 1965 treaty in 2005. And this stupid top court decision. How could those Korean legal experts who were not involved in the process, not even born at the time, unilaterally interpret the treaty and deny legitimacy of the 1910 annexation ignoring all other legal experts in Int'l community ( as the ones in the conference in 2001) and especially in the other contract party's country.

What entitles them to do this reckless attempt over the issue their ancestors could not solve even after 14 years of negotiation?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@showchinmono

The essence of the issue is SK top court's self-righteous decision jumping over Int'l consensus and the other high contracting party, which was that 1910 annexation was illegal occupation, hence national mobilization act which was legally-enforced was also illegal act.

Indeed, this will be the central deciding issue if this case went before the ICJ, not if the damages were included the 1965 treaty(It wasn't. Nowhere in the treaty text mentions damages).

You finally get why Japan shouldn't go before the ICJ, because it opens a bigger can of worms if Japan loses and the ICJ rules that the 1910 treaty was illegal, meaning all the damages resulting from the Soviet occupation of North Korea and the Korean War which would have never happened if Japan didn't illegally occupy Korea.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

SK is flat out trying to destroy these company's business. It's one thing to sell off assets for compensation, but taking trademarks and patents and selling them to the highest bidder? Not even China does that. If I were Japan, I would respond with the harshest retaliation possible because after this, it's game over for the companies involved. Imagine if Disney were to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse or apple having their patents for the iPhone taken away and sold? That's pure revenge!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@Shin Ra

but taking trademarks and patents and selling them to the highest bidder?

Well, the Japanese companies can be the highest bidder and buy those back.

Of course, it would be far simpler and cheaper to just pay off $100K per plaintiff and skip all the headache, but Abe san forbade Japanese companies from settling.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

@Samit Basu

Quote 'You finally get why Japan shouldn't go before the ICJ, because it opens a bigger can of worms'

Lets do it and find out. Since you know your in the right and Japan is in wrong.

We tried 1 on 1 diplomacy for decades and relations are only getting worse. Our companies are under threat in S.Korea with assets being seized and sold. Thats one of the most aggressive moves you can make towards another country's companies. We won't stand by and do nothing... Just like you wouldn't stand by and let Samsung be sold off by a foreign governments court ruling.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Indeed, this will be the central deciding issue if this case went before the ICJ, not if the damages were included the 1965 treaty(It wasn't. Nowhere in the treaty text mentions damages).

No It's covered both in the text " concerning the claim" and in the list of 8 items SK demanded. It was not just written exactly in the way SK wanted Japan to because they disagreed. Japanese delegates were not stupid and carefully chose comprehensive wordings for backup plan against unknown and unexpected claims which could possibly happen in future.

You don't have to admit nor agree in detail but you can use comprehensive wordings to settle any issues and you don't have to come back and clarify what those any issues exactly are. everything settled already completely and finally and irreversibly.

And I have no interest whatsoever in your IF stories, except Park Chung-hee ( president who concluded 1965 treaty ) admitted Koreans chose annexation with Japan and it was not Japan invaded, and this is the fact

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@Samit Basu

It would also be cheaper and better for S. Korea economy and relations with Japan to cover the $100k per plaintiff and save everyone including all the countries you called upon this headache.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

@Samit

Quote by you 'Actually the Korean negotiators wanted to add "damages" to the treaty text at no extra-cost.'

Exactly. Listen to your own words and what S. Korea said at the time. They were happy with money received and did not want more in the future. Nowhere does it say you can come back decades later, find a loophole and ask for more.

You already got paid, do the right thing for the victims for relations with Japan and pay them.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Funny, Japan can't proceed with legal action unless South Korea agrees, but South Korea believes that their sole independent legal action is completely binding...

At least one country is trying to do things the right way. Hint: It's not South Korea.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

extanker, the right way and the correct way are not the same thing, do you know that ?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

extanker, the right way and the correct way are not the same thing, do you know that ?

You know that you make zero sense most times, right Akie?

South Korea believes it can dictate terms to others and everyone must get in line. Japan knows it needs both countries to be on the same page. Sounds like 'right' and 'correct' are the same in this instance and Japan is both.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Japan has a productive, positive working relationship with the ICJ....

ICJ and Japan........

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000104046.pdf

Question remains, cases involving ICJ judgements can take an inordinate amount of time!

Prudent for the Government of Japan to request the Government of Korea agree to instigate an executive judicial process in accordance with current legislature to freeze any present/future court actions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With no mutually palatable agreement, Tokyo has pushed for third-party arbitration, which Seoul has rejected

That says it all. Sth Korea has effectively stated that they don't want to co to the ICJ as they know they will loose based on previous agreements they have signed on to then re-negged on.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

WTO may just send SK's demands to ICJ since they are claiming the revoked white nation status by Japan is a retaliatory measure against SK's court decision to seize Japanese companies' assets in SK based on a treaty between SK and Japan.

Since Japan is going to lodge protest against SK to ICJ, WTO would consider it as part of that claim and not something separate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Here is a summary of what's going here.

[Japan] South Korea top court verdict simply cannot be acceptable. Japan settled the issue with South Korea signed by 1965 peace treaty so why are you pretending like it was never there?

[Korea] Well, South Korean government cannot intervene with the decision made by the court system because we honor the separation of powers.

[Japan] So whatever happened to the money that were paid in 1965 which you apparently spent away for something else?? Why don't we take this to the next step with arbitration process then?

[Korea] (after kept silence for several months) Well, if you agree to pay money with the joint fund by Japanese and South Korean corporations, then we will think about the arbitration process.

[Japan] ?? What? What we are saying is South Korean gov is responsible to settle this matter domestically because we've already paid money in the past. And now you are saying you'll think about starting the negotiation only if Japan agrees to pay money again??

[Korea] Well, like we said, our gov cannot intervene with the jurisdiction because we honor the separation of powers.

[Japan] Ok, this is not going anywhere, if you don't respond to accept the arbitration process by 7/18, we'll take this issue to ICJ.

Since SK didn't respond by the due date, I guess they shouldn't be in the position to complain. Also, I'm quite amazed by optimistic Koreans who think they have a slightest chance to win this case in ICJ that I've seen here and there like "individual damages weren't included in Treaty", "Japan also admitted that individual rights to claim their damages", "ICJ would reveal horrible things Japan did to Asia", "the whole world would take sides with SK because Japan is a flatout evil" and so forth.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

showchinmono: "So where are you from? I am interested in that too."

Why should I tell you? You guys use every other nationality outside of Japanese as some kind of insult, and my whole point is that AlexBecu -- who's still to afraid to address my question since he completely undermined himself -- ASSUMED I was from somewhere because he is extremely bias against that place and didn't agree with my comments. That proves that all of his statements on the issue unreliable AT BEST.

InspectorGadget: "That says it all. Sth Korea has effectively stated that they don't want to co to the ICJ as they know they will loose based on previous agreements they have signed on to then re-negged on."

Loose? Are they going to loose a bunch of arrows? You guys and your lose/loose problem. In any case, they don't feel the need to go to a non-binding court when they are in the right, same as Japan refuses to go over the Senkakus or to the WTO about their trade barriers.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

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