politics

Japan to seek talks with S Korea over Nippon Steel court decision

20 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.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Yeah, "talks". We know what Japan "talks" are like. "We talk, you listen and agree."

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

Why our tax money has to pay for private companies that used slaves to become so so rich?

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

It seems Japan formally has to request talks first from the base written on 1965 treaty before Japan brings this to ICJ. It will judge it.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

kwatt: "before Japan brings this to ICJ. It will judge it."

Funny, when Japan thinks it's not an issue they say there is no need for the non-binding ICJ. When Japan has absolutely no grounds to stand on you guys Always demand the other nation agree to go to the ICJ. What would you say if the ICJ ruled in favor of SK? You'd suddenly say "Okay, it's Dokdo... no more Takeshima", or, "Okay, the companies must pay!" Nope. You'd say, "Who needs the ICJ?"

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

I really don’t understand what’s there to talk about. JP gov should have learned well enough that “diplomatic effort” doesn’t work for ROK, so why bother talking? What they need is a consequence by their own actions, NOT a bailout measure otherwise they will never realize their wrongdoings.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

why jp gov is involved in private matter?

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

No need for talk, PM Abe should simply take action:

Force SK to the ICJ within 6 months.

If SK does not turn up at ICJ, order the confiscation of equal value of SK made goods imported to Japan ex. Samsung products and Korean foods, liquor etc. Close down the big Pacinko parlors owned by SK.

If this does not work, place heavy restructions on granting SK tourist and business visas into Japan. Expel SK diplomats.

Moon will back down on his orders very soon, once he faced these threats!

10 ( +15 / -5 )

SK refused the talking, so Japan takes the next step as stipulated in the Japan SK Basic Treaty.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Alex EinzJan. 9 09:38 pm JST

why jp gov is involved in private matter?

Because the case is hardly a private matter. Back in 1938, Japanese Parliament enacted National Mobilization Act which allowed the Government to draft its citizens to work in factories that were essential for the war efforts to cover the labor shortages due to the Second Sino Japanese War. The factories were also ordered to produce certain amount of materials for the war. Today, the Korean plaintiffs call the draft "slave labor" whereas the Japanese government calls it citizens' duty. The factories were sued by the Koreans, but the factories themselves did not have much choice at that time. In reality, the laborers worked for the military rather than the factories. So, the Japanese government is involved in this case.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@smithinjapan

You must be overreacting very emotionally. Calm down, will you? The best way is both countries bring this to ICJ and it judges whatever it is. If what S Korea did about seizing asset is really right thing, S Korea has absolutely no problem at all. Don't you think so? At least S Korea would be rather able to show the right thing to the world, in case if Japan did not follow the judgement of ICJ. but I think Japan will follow whatever it is.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@Ganbare Japan!

Force SK to the ICJ within 6 months.

Korea doesn't have to accept ICJ challenges. If Korea does, then the trial won't be about the 1965 treaty, but the 1910 treaty.

If SK does not turn up at ICJ, order the confiscation of equal value of SK made goods imported to Japan ex.

And Korea does the same to Japanese goods.

Close down the big Pacinko parlors owned by SK.

There are no Pachinko parlors owned by Korea.

If this does not work, place heavy restructions on granting SK tourist and business visas into Japan.

Koreans don't need a visa to visit Japan.

Expel SK diplomats.

And Japanese diplomats expelled in return.

Moon will back down on his orders

Moon didn't give this order, a judge did, in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court. 

@CH3CHO

Back in 1938, Japanese Parliament enacted National Mobilization Act which allowed the Government to draft its citizens to work in factories that were essential for the war efforts to cover the labor shortages due to the Second Sino Japanese War. 

Doesn't apply to Koreans who were under illegal Japanese occupation, at least according to the legal interpretation in Korea.

@kwatt

The best way is both countries bring this to ICJ and it judges whatever it is.

If the case goes to the ICJ, then the trial won't be about the 1965 treaty; it will be about the 1910 treaty which is at the root of this dispute.

If the 1910 treaty was ruled legal by the ICJ, then indeed the damages claim doesn't establish.

If the 1910 treaty was ruled illegal by the ICJ, then Japan is now exposed to far more damages claims than it currently is.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If the case goes to the ICJ, then the trial won't be about the 1965 treaty; it will be about the 1910 treaty which is at the root of this dispute.

If the 1910 treaty was ruled legal by the ICJ, then indeed the damages claim doesn't establish.

If the 1910 treaty was ruled illegal by the ICJ, then Japan is now exposed to far more damages claims than it currently is.

@samit basu

If you think so, I strongly suggest you lets bring it to ICJ, will you? You better tell the judge at that time.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

If the case goes to the ICJ, then the trial won't be about the 1965 treaty; it will be about the 1910 treaty which is at the root of this dispute.

It is a good idea the two countries bring what they want to ICJ.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If the 1910 treaty was ruled illegal by the ICJ, then Japan is now exposed to far more damages claims than it currently is.

The 1910 treaty was between Japan and the Korean Empire, which does not exist any more. The 1965 treaty is between Japan and Republic of Korea, which is a different entity from the Korean Empire. The fate of 1910 treaty has nothing to do with present day Korea. Do you think that the Korean Empire should be brought back to existence as a result of invalidating the 1910 treaty? In addition, according to the constitution of the Korean Empire, any asset of the Empire belongs to the Korean Emperor. So, if the compensation for anything were to be awarded, it goes to the Emperor who does not exist and whose heirs do not exist any more, because Korean Presidents after the end of WW2 persecuted the former Royals.

The 1965 treaty says that any claim before 1965 is settled, therefore any claim due to 1910 treaty is also settled by the payments of the 1965 treaty.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If a territorial thing is an issue and one of countries refuses it to ICJ, it is impossible to bring it to ICJ. However this is the Treaty of 1965 that both countries accepted/admitted for normalization. If there is something big misunderstanding on the Treaty, it seems both countries must bring it to ICJ and better follow the judgement for both good future. This way seems the best of all.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Talk is the only way. Down with the ignorants.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Ganbare Japan

Moon will back down on his orders very soon, once he faced these threats!

It is lamentable that even the Japanese PM does not understand the principle of separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries, not to mention some people like you here. Neither the PM of Japan nor the president of SK can meddle in or influence on the domestic judiciary. Even the ICJ can not on the judiciary of any sovereign country.

I guess this kind of approach by the Japanese government is just for political propaganda without any foreseeable outcome. A proper approach on the judiciary matter of the other country by the Japanese government can be learned from the case of Michael Fay by the U.S. government in 1993, as example.

The official position of the United States government was that although it recognized Singapore's right to punish Fay within the due process of law, the punishment of caning was excessive for a teenager who committed a non-violent crime. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

The following editorial in a Japanese newspaper may help study and understand the separation of legal, administrative, and judicial powers in modern democratic countries:

https://this.kiji.is/440981644791874657

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@CH3CHO

The 1910 treaty was between Japan and the Korean Empire, which does not exist any more. The 1965 treaty is between Japan and Republic of Korea, which is a different entity from the Korean Empire. The fate of 1910 treaty has nothing to do with present day Korea.

The ROK is the legal successor state of the Korean Empire, just like how Russia is the legal successor state of the Soviet Union and occupies the UNSC seat, etc.

In addition, according to the constitution of the Korean Empire, any asset of the Empire belongs to the Korean Emperor.

Private property and freedom doesn't.

So, if the compensation for anything were to be awarded, it goes to the Emperor who does not exist and whose heirs do not exist any more

Specific damages go to people who were harmed. Remember that the plaintiffs were harmed by specific entities in Japan, whose successor corporation is alive today.

The 1965 treaty says that any claim before 1965 is settled, therefore any claim due to 1910 treaty is also settled by the payments of the 1965 treaty.

No where in the 1965 treaty says any claim before 1965 is settled. Read the treaty text.

What's covered by the 1965 treaty

-Property

-Rights

-Interests

What's NOT COVERED by the 1965 treaty

-Damages

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Samit BasuToday 08:22 am JST

No where in the 1965 treaty says any claim before 1965 is settled. Read the treaty text.

I have shown you in the other thread, haven't I?

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

Article 2

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

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, no contention shall be made with respect to the measures on property, rights and interests of either Contracting Party and its nationals which are within the jurisdiction of the other Contracting Party on the date of the signing of the present Agreement, or with respect to any claims of either Contracting Party and its nationals against the other Contracting Party and its nationals arising from the causes which occurred on or before the said date.

You see the word "claims" twice in the article 2.

By the way, RoK is not a successor of the Korean Empire, not even the southern half of it. It was built by denying the Korean Empire and the Emperor. If 1910 treaty was invalid from the beginning, the Korean Empire would still be the legitimate government of Korea. Tell me when the Republic of Korea was given power from the Korean Emperor?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Talk? There has been no dispute in understanding the treaty as Roh Moo-hyun administration reconfirmed and announced so. If talk needed, talk to judges at S.Korean supreme court, that would be much quicker.

4 ( +4 / -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