Japan urges S Korea to present solution over wartime labor row

Japan must ask itself "what is the value of SK to Japan"? If not much, time to move on.

@ReasonWisdomNippon

Yes, I'm aware of that.

But what does Japan hope to get out of that? Is it for Korea to never speak of this event again? Is it to remove all statues of comfort women so people will forget about them?

As I have said in my previous comment, I think Japan wants Korea silenced (this is just my thoughts btw) and that in itself is the wrong approach.

Also, using the argument that saying x amount of apology is enough is not a good argument. As we are the aggressor, we should be prepared to say sorry as many times necessary if we were truly sorry. But it seems that we think there should be a cap to the amount of apologies that needs to be said for the murder of countless people, destruction of culture and ending their royal bloodline.

I'm ethnically Japanese myself so I want to believe that our government is doing what's best, but I can't help but doubt that our government genuinely feels sorry for what they've done and I don't think they ever will.

Kuruki

Japan paid multiple times already.

Apologies over 55 times.

Korean doesn't like the 1965 aggrement as Final.

He doesn't like the 2015 comfort woman deal as Final, backed out in 2017.

Korean Supreme Court(Not international) choosing Korean side... Who didn't see this coming? Bias Korean giving favor to another Korean. No surprise there.

Here's my 2 cents:

Japan seems to want to settle this and it's great they are directly asking Korea for their solution. However, I think what Japan wants in return is for silence around this matter. And that is where the issue lies. History shouldn't be covered up. By silencing the victim, Japan is not being apologetic. Until we own up to our history, this will never be resolved. I think a good example to follow is what Germany has done to acknowledge their war crimes.

Desert TortoiseToday  06:11 am JST

Newsflash, Japan never was at war with Korea. 

Uh, yes it was. See the events surrounding the Donhak Revolution, which brought Japanese forces to Korea to fight Chinese forces stationed in Korea. The Korean King asked for Chinese help to defeat the Donhak, but Japan considered that a of the Convention of Tientsin. Japan landed forces defeated the Qing forces there, forced them to surrender Korea's tributary status leading to Korean independence. Japan then assisted Korean army to defeat the Donhak Revolution. 

Read your own post, Japan was at war with China. The Korean king asked China to to defeat the Donhak rebels, not fight a war with Japan. China sent troops and Japan sent troops to fight China. Not Korea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donghak_Peasant_Revolution

Simple, SK payback all compensations with compound interest, then new negotiations can commence.

Newsflash, Japan never was at war with Korea. 

Uh, yes it was. See the events surrounding the Donhak Revolution, which brought Japanese forces to Korea to fight Chinese forces stationed in Korea. The Korean King asked for Chinese help to defeat the Donhak, but Japan considered that a of the Convention of Tientsin. Japan landed forces defeated the Qing forces there, forced them to surrender Korea's tributary status leading to Korean independence. Japan then assisted Korean army to defeat the Donhak Revolution. Only Czarist forces were left in Korea to compete with the Japanese. Japan was next involved in the murder of Queen Min. Japan's 1904 defeat of the Russians eliminated the only other competitor for influence in Korea. With their hegemony firmly established Japan forced Korea to accept protectorate status in 1905 followed by outright annexation in 1910. The "Righteous Armies", anti-Japanese rebels fought the Japanese for two years following annexation, including a failed effort to re-take Seoul.

Article states: the South Korean side said, "The Japanese government and the defendant companies need to show a more sincere attitude toward a resolution.

ROTFL, who continues sincerely breaking internationbal contracts all the time... Oh, wait, the UK is currently trying to join there...

SJ wrote: S. Korean negotiators wanted 'reparation money', but Japanese counterparts refused it because 'reparation' means Japan did something wrong during the WWII in Korea.

Newsflash, Japan never was at war with Korea. Sometimes I think Koreans make the mistake to blame Japan for the Korean war.

SJ wrote: Can you detail why the Japanese government never brought and will never bring this issue to the International Court of Justice?

(Hint: Japan can not get anything, but can lose huge whatever the verdict is. The consequences will be catastrophic.)

Newsflash, in your case SK must bring this to the ICJ and on many other issues, Japan tried several times to settle in front of the ICJ, South Korea rejected every single time. SK doesn't even follow the 1965 treaty on this, since it states should any conflict further occur, it shall be resolved through international arbitration. SK keeps failing its promises and treaties and it's time, Japan will not stay quiet about this any more.

Samit Basu wrote: Korea already did. There are two possible solutions;

ROTFL, those are not the solutions, those are the reasons that there are problems!

SJ wrote several times: That is a typical claim of naive Japanese brainwashed by the politicians and the media

Wonder who actually is brainswashed by Korean politics and media. To my knowledge until these days Japanese productions are not even allowed on the major terrestrial TV or radio networks unless there's a Korean cooperation. Just sad. How about first, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:As far as international law is concerned, treaties between States ...[...] ...Which means Korea has Unjustly Enriched itself.

Thank you for so much good research and quotes, I'm afraid some people here will not want to learn about it.

itsonlyrocknroll wrote: No country or state can circumvent Treaty Law in a domestic court for any reason ……Simple as that, game over

Also thank you for a long explanation, I hope Japan will become more importunate about these matters internationally in the future so SK does not take up the full stage as it currently is the case.

OssanAmerica wrote: That 1965 Treaty contains an Arbitration Clause for when any difference in interpretation arises. This is obviously a difference in interpretation yet South Korea continues to refuse to abide by this clause. Only if it were determined in Arbitration in South Korea's favor would the South Korean Court actions not be in contradiction of the Treaty. But South Korea refuses knowing they would be ruled against.

The same way that South Korea has refused ICJ settlement over the Liancourt Rocks three times.

One cannot emphasize that enough!

I'm waiting desperately to the Korean government coming to its senses and finally grows up taking responsibilty instead of whining around all the time even causing relationship problems internationally with the mindless statues... In business terms one would say to first get some training experience before trying to govern around yourself.

It was a private lawsuit against a private company Nippon steel. The Japanese government should not have gotten involved in the first place. Prime Minister Abe and Suga just want to use this for their political gain.

now Trump instituted tariffs against China because China has a huge trade surplus with the US. But Japan has the surplus trade against Korea.

So I don’t understand why the Japanese would start a trade war with the Koreans. It seems ridiculous.

Over the decades Japan has benefited tremendously in their trade with Korea. Giving a few paltry sums of money to the private Korean plaintiffs is such a small amount

japan underestimates the Koreans.. the Korean President cannot meddle with their judiciary so President Moon will not delay or interfere in the courts judgment. If President Moon tried to interfere in the Korean supreme court decision, President moon would soon be impeached and thrown out of office and probably even jailed.

Has any major country, except Japan, criticized SK for seizing Japanese assets?

If not, why not?

Japan is out of options. It is as simple as that.

More trade sanctions against SK is just Japan shooting itself in the same foot as before.

@SJToday 05:00 pm JST

I definitely remember tearing apart these things the last time you tried to put them up. I also remember you then saying you aren't a legal expert, blah blah blah, and then continuing to cite them as if nothing had happened. Anyway. To make it VERY fast:

1) Whether it is a human rights issue or not is not an excuse to violate a treaty.

3) Civitella was ultimately overturned and rejected by the International Court of Justice in 2012, something the article either due to gross negligence (unlike me, they claim to be pros) or fradulent intent failed to mention:

On 3 February 2012, the International Court of Justice found that Italy violated its obligation to respect the Federal Republic of Germany’s immunity under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international law committed by the German regime during World War II.

...

A similar conclusion thus appertains to Greece’s attempt to protect legal claims and interests of its nationals for massacres committed by Germany during the conflict.

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671144.001.0001/acprof-9780199671144-chapter-10

2) The article negligently fails to define for the common audience what is meant by diplomatic protection, which does not only (as its name might mislead one to believe) include diplomatic negotiations, but also judicial proceedings.

The article clearly tries to liken the judgments in Japan and Korea, it does not even try to justify why Korea differed by making it a justicable issue when the Japanese judgment clearly said "the competency of these claims in litigations lost" (non-justiciable).

The article fails to explain what would happen if the court had said the claim is extinguished. Not only would it mean they can't sue, it would mean that any money Nippon Steel provided the purported victims would be Unjust Enrichment and Nippon Steel can potentially claim back any money they gave out by filing suit. The measure chosen is a mercy measure and cannot be taken as some kind of precedent that would "build up" to the anti-treaty text interpretation chosen by the South Korean kangaroo court.

The present UK Government/Parliament has enacted a bill, a similar misguided judgement in respect to the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, in the belief that this legislation is a magic wand to circumvent Treaty law.

It doesn't, and never in a month of Sundays will achieve the desired result.

The South Korean Government will similarly fall on stony ground, all roads lead to the signed 1965 Treaty arbitration clause.

Tom DoleyToday  07:23 am JST

I’ve to commend Japan’s persistence with trying to normalize fallacies. Experts, Japanese lawyers, and even international organizations such as WHO have all commented that the 1965 treaty did not cover slavery nor sex slaves. 

So South Korea is now asking the World Health Organization to support their anti-Japan agenda? lol

the South Korean side said, "The Japanese government and the defendant companies need to show a more sincere attitude toward a resolution."

The only side that needs to show a sincere attitude towards a resolution is South Korea. As proven below;

Japan argues the ruling goes against a 1965 bilateral agreement that provided South Korea with financial aid on the understanding the compensation issue was settled "completely and finally."

That 1965 Treaty contains an Arbitration Clause for when any difference in interpretation arises. This is obviously a difference in interpretation yet South Korea continues to refuse to abide by this clause. Only if it were determined in Arbitration in South Korea's favor would the South Korean Court actions not be in contradiction of the Treaty. But South Korea refuses knowing they would be ruled against.

The same way that South Korea has refused ICJ settlement over the Liancourt Rocks three times.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

As far as international law is concerned, treaties between States can be made with or without ratification:

Regarding the oral agreement on the comfort women issue, nobody signed any document.

Regarding the forced labour issue, study expert's opinions first before groundless and amateurish claims:

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

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

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

@noriahojanen

You're totally mistaken. Japan has suggested brining the case to the IC of Arbitration while SK has kept refusing it.

韓国に第三国仲裁へ手続き要求　元徴用工問題で外務省

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO46285800Z10C19A6EAF000/

The article you cited wrote as follows: 日本側は国際司法裁判所（ICJ）に提訴する構えもみせる。

So, what was the sequence of that? Did Japan take any action?

For those people who want to propose reparations or damages for wrongful actions are not claims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_the_Republic_of_Korea

Part 3: claims

Claims (채권법) consists of contract, management of affairs, unjust enrichment and tort.

...

All English terms used here are from the Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea

Hopefully, this should put an end to that argument.

Samit Basu, before and after, both Governments of Japan and South Korea signed a Treaty……

1.     Japan and the Republic of Korea have built a close, friendly and cooperative relationship based on the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and other relevant agreements that the two countries concluded when they normalized their relationship in 1965.

The Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea (the “Agreement”), which is the core of these agreements, stipulates that Japan shall supply to the Republic of Korea 300 million USD in grants and extend loans up to 200 million USD (Article I), and that problems concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons), as well as concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, are “settled completely and finally,” and no contention shall be made thereof (Article II). As such, the Agreement has provided the basis for the bilateral relationship up until now.

Failure of the Republic of Korea to comply with obligations regarding arbitration under the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea

(Statement by Foreign Minister Taro Kono)

https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_002553.html

No country or state can circumvent Treaty Law in a domestic court for any reason ……Simple as that, game over

@SJToday 08:38 am JST

As far as international law is concerned, treaties between States can be made with or without ratification:

VCLT Article 11. MEANS OF EXPRESSING CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.

For ratification:

Article 14. CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY EXPRESSED BY RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:

(a) The treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;

(b) It is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that ratification should be required;

(c) The representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or

(d) The intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

In other words, ratification is not mandatory or a condition for a valid treaty. If any side wants it to be a condition, it had better make it clear. Because I am fair (unlike those SKR dummies):

Article 12. CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY EXPRESSED BY SIGNATURE

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:

(a) The treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;

(b) It is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or

(c) The intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

Now, unless the agreement clearly states it is subject to ratification, or some meeting records unavailable to us can prove otherwise, a judgment as to whether ratification is required will depend on objective factors to assess the "otherwise established" parts of both Articles. Now, Japan has fulfilled its obligations. *Which version do you think looks more plausible or probable to an objective observer?*

Further, even if the treaty requires ratification:

Article 18. OBLIGATION NOT TO DEFEAT THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF A TREATY PRIOR TO ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE

A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:

(a) It has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or

I'll also point out that even if the treaty is "void", now we have the problem that Korea has already factually received the advantages from the agreement and they cannot be reversed (you can give the money back, but you can't undo the concession that an apology constitutes). Which means Korea has Unjustly Enriched itself.

Just cut diplomatic ties to North Korea and the other one, they are not friends in any sense of the word. Not a single tear will be shed too

@itsonlyrocknroll

A treaty signed in 1965, may not suit 21st century modern day South Korea.

The treaty that Japan signed in 1965 doesn't contain a single instance of the word "damages".

It is Japanese public who need to realize that Japanese negotiators dropped the ball in 1965 and exposed Japan to damages claims due to their undeserving sense of pride.

@Strangerland

Japan made a good faith effort to come to a "final and irreversible" agreement with the Korean government - and DID come to an agreement.

Not on forced laborer damages.

That is a typical claim of naive Japanese brainwashed by the politicians and the media.

This is a claim by be, who is not Japanese, brainwashed, nor bound by the media.

Any international agreement between states must be approved by the parliament or the congress to be effective. Without it, all so-called agreements are legally void. The so-called agreement was never approved by the parliament either in Japan or Korea.

Nevertheless, Japan made a good faith effort to come to a "final and irreversible" agreement with the Korean government - and DID come to an agreement. Then the Koreans refused to ratify it, and did not present anything in it's place.

The phrase like "final and irreversible" is just political rhetoric to deceive naive people like you. It was close to a press conference, void of any legal action. Abe and Park could fool some naive people both in Japan and Korea, but not all people.

Blah blah blah. The fact is, the Koreans refused to ratify it, refused to put anything in its place, and just went back to whining after Japan made a good-faith effort to negotiate an agreement.

How the Koreans expect anyone to feel sympathy for their cause in such a situation is a little baffling.

How different are treaties and modern customary international law?

Verdier and Voeten’s point.

The possibility that opportunistic behaviour today will destabilize cooperation tomorrow by disrupting existing expectations about what counts as cooperation surely should influence state behaviour (along with a variety of other factors, such as a state’s discount rate, etc.). Moreover, Verdier and Voeten’s point is not merely that cooperation may unravel in the future, but rather that it will do so because what counts as cooperation—the content of a legal rule—may change in response to violations

Domestic courts cannot interpret Treaty law.

Sign a treaty abide by its legal stipulations. A treaty signed in 1965, may not suit 21st century modern day South Korea. Then the course of action is to purse change through the relevant arbitration.

The South Korean Government must focus on the Treaty dispute and arbitration mechanism.

If not, the ramifications will be punitive.

Quiz: how many neighbors does Japan have ?

Hint: can not below zero.

@happyhere

Nippon Steel should pay up. 

Nippon Steel settled prior damages claims out of court until Abe came to power.

Nippon Steel is willing to settle out of court; it's Abe and Suga who are prohibiting Japanese companies from settling.

@Strangerland

the two governments agreed upon a “final and irreversible” agreement to settle the situation. 

That's the comfort women case, not the forced laborer case.

@Fighto!

If the Koreans sieze even one Japanese asset, expect retaliation from Japan the likes of which SK has never seen.

Japan ran out of retaliation options.

Sick and tired of Japan always being a punching bag for all her neighbors.

That's how much past sin Japan has to atone for. Blame Tojo and co for this.

So sick of Kore'a whinging, they have a perverted obsession of Japan we all know this. We all hope Korea can become a normal grown up country one day.

Japan urged South Korea on Thursday to present a solution

Korea already did. There are two possible solutions;

Japanese companies pay the damages verdict.

Korea seizes Japanese company assets, liquidates them to pay the claimant.

Japan's telling Korea to go for the option no. 2, so it's being done right now, with Mitsubishi's assets given the liquidation greenlight first.

SJ

The solution is pretty simple. South Korea should accept international arbitration on the issue.

Can you detail why the Japanese government never brought and will never bring this issue to the International Court of Justice?

(Hint: Japan can not get anything, but can lose huge whatever the verdict is. The consequences will be catastrophic.)

You're totally mistaken. Japan has suggested brining the case to the IC of Arbitration while SK has kept refusing it.

韓国に第三国仲裁へ手続き要求　元徴用工問題で外務省

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO46285800Z10C19A6EAF000/

Japan's move is also reasonable, in line with the 1965 agreement stating to the effect that should any conflict further occur, it shall be resolved through the international arbitration.

It is SK who has failed to comply with the agreement, and keep a record of breaches by moving the goalpost.

Can you detail why the Japanese government never brought and will never bring this issue to the International Court of Justice?

(Hint: Japan can not get anything, but can lose huge whatever the verdict is. The consequences will be catastrophic.)

If you're trying to prove a point, it would behoove you to actually understand the topic you are using to prove that point.

To state that the Japanese government never brought and never will bring this wartime labor issue to the International Court of Justic is a complete and total falsehood. Japan in fact considered as an option last year to bring South Korea to the ICJ to settle the wartime labor issue, which South Korea ignored. It's the same thing that happened with the Takeshima nonsense with South Korea, where the South Korean government refused to take up Japan's offer to settle that issue at the ICJ. Unless both parties agree to go to the ICJ to settle an dispute, then one can't force the other to go. And the ICJ is simply more of a 'gentlemen's agreement' with no real legal binding. Yet even with that, South Koreans continually ignore Japan wanting to settle matters at the ICJ.

And downvoting is not a proper response.

@Nihonview

The solution is pretty simple. South Korea should accept international arbitration on the issue.

Can you detail why the Japanese government never brought and will never bring this issue to the International Court of Justice?

(Hint: Japan can not get anything, but can lose huge whatever the verdict is. The consequences will be catastrophic.)

@Fighto

Try 500% import taxes on all Korean products, blocking all SK business and tourist visas, just as a start.

Please learn some basic economics and report back.

Japan has a large, but rapidly decreasing, trade surplus with SK. SK tourists had been boycotting Japan long before Covid, similarly with Japanese products. Your measures will just hurt Japanese industry more. This is why it Takizaki was sent to sue for peace.

@Fighto!

There is NO issue to discuss. It has been settled completely and finally in 1965.

Certainly, you have never read the 1965 agreement. S. Korean negotiators wanted 'reparation money', but Japanese counterparts refused it because 'reparation' means Japan did something wrong during the WWII in Korea. Thus, they agreed that Japan gives money "free of charge" ' to S. Korea.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_Between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea_Concerning_the_Settlement_of_Problems_in_Regard_to_Property_and_Claims_and_Economic_Cooperation

The 1965 agreement was the same as the 2015 agreement in deceiving people both in Japan and S. Korea. Japan never gave money for 'reparation'. Now, former forced laborers request the money for 'reparation' to the illegal labor. Thus, S. Korea supreme court ordered the Japanese companies in Korea to pay for the reparation, because forced labor is now considered universally illegal.

Japan still refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing in Korea during the WWII, but some Japanese claim that they gave money for reparation to Korea in 1965. It is oxymoronic.

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

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

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

The solution is pretty simple. South Korea should accept international arbitration on the issue.

@Strangerland

I was in support of Korea’s position. The Japan made a good faith effort to negotiate, and the two governments agreed upon a “final and irreversible” agreement to settle the situation. Then the Koreans ripped it up and never put forth an alternative suggestion. The ball is in Korea’s court to figure out what exactly they want, and present that to the Japanese.

That is a typical claim of naive Japanese brainwashed by the politicians and the media. Any international agreement between states must be approved by the parliament or the congress to be effective. Without it, all so-called agreements are legally void. The so-called agreement was never approved by the parliament either in Japan or Korea. The phrase like "final and irreversible" is just political rhetoric to deceive naive people like you. It was close to a press conference, void of any legal action. Abe and Park could fool some naive people both in Japan and Korea, but not all people.

There is NO issue to discuss. It has been settled completely and finally in 1965.

 a sell-off of a Japanese company's assets seized under a South Korean court ruling on wartime labor compensation must be avoided, as doing so would bring about an extremely serious situation

If the Koreans sieze even one Japanese asset, expect retaliation from Japan the likes of which SK has never seen. Try 500% import taxes on all Korean products, blocking all SK business and tourist visas, just as a start.

Sick and tired of Japan always being a punching bag for all her neighbors. Suga must stop this!

I was in support of Korea’s position. The Japan made a good faith effort to negotiate, and the two governments agreed upon a “final and irreversible” agreement to settle the situation. Then the Koreans ripped it up and never put forth an alternative suggestion. The ball is in Korea’s court to figure out what exactly they want, and present that to the Japanese.

If they don’t, Japan would be in the right to just step back and take a neural attitude towards Korea.

The solution is obvious: Nippon Steel should pay up. Then their assets can be released. SK should not give in to Japanese trade blackmail.

These Japanese sure are suckers for punishment. Grow a pair already, the South Korean government is not and never was interested in any real resolution. They want to keep the irrational anti Japan hatred alive for all times, silly kids.

I’m guessing that Sth Korea don’t want to present any solution because if they do, they’ll have no grounds for complaining in the future

I’ve to commend Japan’s persistence with trying to normalize fallacies. Experts, Japanese lawyers, and even international organizations such as WHO have all commented that the 1965 treaty did not cover slavery nor sex slaves. Even, governments prior to Abe admitted that these claims are uncovered by the treaty. Yet, we have these looney tunes from the LDP trying to ensure the floodgates of individual claims do not open, not only from Korea but from the rest of Asia. Grow a pair Japan!