@SJ Today 03:20 pm JST
arbitrary claims without citing external sources.
What kind of sources do you want? Between the rounds, I think you've already been offered sources that point out how their citations do not really support them (thus on their merits). You've also been provided links that show that they are hardly likely to be a neutral or majority opinion.
Even you do not understand the legal interpretations of Japanese lawyers
One problem of that is that they did not even really get to the point of legal interpretation, which will involve actually working with the text, including dealing with the parts that are not in your favor (rather than hoping that nobody will bother clicking on the link). I will show you a simplified example of how this can be done (in other words, I'll try to do those incompetents' work for them):
You want to say that this is a human rights issue and you want to use ILO Forced Labor Convention as your support. All right. You start with something like this (note usage of exact articles):
"The permissible limits of forced labor during the period at hand is stipulated in ILO FLO 1930. Article 12 stipulates 'The maximum period for which any person may be taken for forced or compulsory labour of all kinds in any one period of twelve months shall not exceed sixty days, including the time spent in going to and from the place of work.' A15 stipulates ' The normal working hours of any person from whom forced or compulsory labour is exacted shall be the same as those prevailing in the case of voluntary labour' "
"According to the facts accepted by the court, they had been forced to work 20-hour days for a year, without rest. The prevailing norm at that time is 12-hour days [I made up these facts, but they'll be the kind of thing claimed and possibly accepted by the Korean judge.] This constitutes a clear, objective violation of Article 12 and 15."
And you don't escape from the weaknesses:
"Admittedly, the period at hand is wartime, for which an exclusion is included in Article 2: (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war... whole or part of the population;"
Generally, the play for inconvenient text is to try and read it down, such as:
"From a legal positivist point of view, it is admittedly not impossible to read this as a blanket exclusion. However, from the viewpoint of the text's intent and the demands of natural justice, it would seem unreasonable, even absurdist to claim such. It is more reasonable to Article 2 as a limited immunity conditioned on the principle of proportionality - that is to say, forced labor exceeding the limits of Articles 12 and 15 should be limited to that absolutely necesary for the 'cases of emergency'... (blah, blah, blah)"
Now, I'm not saying this is a winning argument, but it is a concept for an argument, which a professional will try and firm up (or realize it can't be done after all) by legal research into the jurisprudence. You might notice yours never even got to this "concept" point.
I end by linking to an amicus curae. It is for a completely different issue, specifically wrangling over the interpretation of a single clause. Personally I think it is a loser and the court's logic superior (I'll be fair and note that the ECHR will likely dissent with me), but what I want you to notice is to sheer chasm in quality and detail between this and what you quoted:
4 ( +6 / -2 )
On a straight reading of "claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples", it does not make any exclusion for "damages" or any other category of claims. Apologists are encouraged to remember the following:
VCLT Article 26: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
VCLT Article 27: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
It would be interesting to see a S-400 up close :-)
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@IloveCoffeeFeb. 12 10:48 pm JST
What about J-Politicians calling Korean CM ''prostitutes''? Is that not an insult?
Whether they are is a question of fact. Given a sincere belief that the average Korean "comfort woman" entered the relationship in accordance to a work agreement without coercion from the State, it is less an insult than an assertion of belief, which may or may not be a fact.
What about J-Pol. saying the Koreans who fought for independence are 'war criminals'', shouldn't they apologize for insulting Koreans?
Depending on the means they used in "fighting for independence", they may well be. Even a legally questionable or illegal (in terms of international law) annexation does not mean carte blanche in choice of means to "fight for independence" (see Palestine). The circle gets even smaller if you start with the idea it is legal.
What other J-pol. saying ''Koreans are naturally liars'', shouldn't they have to apologize now?
If you accept the premises, that is to say, you (for example) accept the premise that comfort women are prostitutes. When the South Koreans insist they are not, what can you logically call them but "natural liars"?
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Why an arrest record, they could just make them pay a hefty fine for public disturbance. That way they can still punish them and the kids can still have a life in the future. But I guess that requires logical thinking.
They don't pay the fine. What now? If you arrest them you are back to that square.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
Whether Akihito is the Japanese head of state or not, as Japanese people like to argue here, does not matter here. The point is that just one sentence of sincere apology from him (or his son later) will solve those problems that persisted for more than 70 years between the two countries all at once.
The historical record of Koreans simply do not support that assertion. Be it a treaty, another international agreement, or apologies, Koreans are developing a track record of not honoring them.
Even the West is (finally) wising up to this unfortunate fact. I'm not sure if you were here a few years back (say, before 2015), but it used to be very difficult to say anything less than supportive about comfort women here. There is a clear change in the latitude after the world saw in real time what Korea did to the 2015 agreement. There are still Korean apologists, of course, but the balance has clearly turned.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
So I ask you, why do you think it would affect their credibility?
Personally, I think the biggest killer of their credibility are the manifest errors (if I'm a bit less nice I'll say this is deliberate deception) in their argumentation. However, since that argument has been proferred and not so much rebutted as ignored, there is nothing left to do but to point out their affiliation. At the very least, it gives people another reason to believe this will NOT be the majority opinion among the Japanese legal profession.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
There is actually enough debate over that Head of State issue for a whole Wikipedia article:
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Maybe you can take their silence on an affair which if they signed up to will mark them as on the side of human rights as a sign that they think it is legally insubstantiable. This is backed up by how Japanese courts have historically treated such cases, as well as manifest defects in the argumentation on the merits, which tictactogo has so clearly pointed out, and I remember myself previously pointing out one - that they can't even be honest about the international opinion on Civitella (though admittedly, the Italian Constitutional Court seems determined to set its own course on the issue).
As a general note, it is my experience that "human rights lawyers" in Japan will sign up on positions that are actually extremely weak on the merits (you might want to look up what they said, for example, in the Tachikawa case) and go against the clear meaning of the text. It basically relies on most people's blind faith in lawyers.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
While the survey didn’t ask respondents for specific examples, it’s hard not to think of high-profile cases such as when the creator of popular manga/anime Rurouni Kenshin admitted to charges of possession of child pornography, and not only avoided jail time but was back to work drawing his serialized comic in just seven months.
He only possessed it? I'll roll with it.
or example, using the internet and/or social media to groom underage girls carries a mandatory sentence of 7-10 years in prison in Australia. In Japan, it's a 12 month probation (if that much).
Here's the thing. Criminal law is supposed to penalize things that members of that society intuitively find disgusting, no more than that. If we accept the premise that Japanese just don't find "A" very icky, there is no justification for criminalization of "A" , or increasing any penalties that already exist.
I think Disillusioned already posted a similar case here but I remember watching Police 24h, an episode when a girl realizes a creepy is taking upskirt pictures of her, she calls her korean boyfriend, he restrains the guy while cops come, and the rest of the history you all already know..... the creepy goes free while the korean guy is investigated for '''暴行'' (assault).
And what might be the reason they show this on TV without any sign of protest or disbelief from the narrator?
1-Take justice in your own hands is an inexcusable, bad act
In the eyes of the law, taking justice in one's own hands is vigilantism, and is not viewed favorably.
@DisillusionedToday 11:00 am JST
When I read that, my first thought is that we need to make the basic principles of criminal law a mandatory subject in compulsory education.
Independent of any influences you being a foreigner had, here is what it looked like legally based on this description. The upskirt guy at most met the definitional elements of an ordnance violation (probably anti-nuisance).
You met the definitional elements of a crime in the criminal code proper and against one of the most uncontroversial protected legal interests (Health/Body, or shintai in Japanese).
While you had a justification and he did not, the potential offense you committed is graver in the eyes of the law. It is nearly inevitable you were grilled more heavily.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
1 - the definition of ’significance’ is circular. Using the same word in its own definition is a logical tautology. Nonsense. Like defining ‘Big’ as ‘passionately big’.
What I am really interested in knowing is the alternative you offered. Sure, you can play games and try to change "significant" to "important/importance" on one of the sides, but I must admit an alternative that would really avoid this problem is not readily forthcoming to me.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Higher-ranked Switzerland has given the world the cuckoo clock, while Japan's greatest invention is instant noodles.
But few use cuckoo clocks these days, while we still eat instant noodles.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
1.Every time a Japanese patrol aircraft buzzes or attempts to buzz a Korean warship, a Korean patrol aircraft will buzz a Japanese warship in the exact same manner. The Korean MoD officials specifically asked if Japanese didn't mind if a Korean patrol aircraft buzzed the Japanese warships in the same manner during their last meeting and Japanese replied they didn't, so the Koreans will buzz Japanese warships at 60 meter height.
Ah, but they can't. The MND has already decided to put in writing:
Based on common sense, the 150m altitude is the bare minimum threshold for safety, and is in no way a sufficiently safe altitude as Japan’s MoD initially claimed.
As reference, the ROK Military‘s patrol aircraft maintains an altitude of 300m and a distance of 5500m to 9000m from the point of observation with the exception of special operations including the observation of suspicious ships. This distance is enough to identify ships using the detection equipment of the ROK Military.
The Japanese are not necessarily bound by this assessment, but in saying that, the ROK military will now have to live with this statement and any plane that busts the 300m/5500m bubble is demonstrating hostile intent and any plane that descends below 150m is being knowingly unsafe.
A very dumb, nonstrategic thing to say in an attempt to get a cheap, tactical advantage. But they've said it, even written it. LOL!
9 ( +9 / -0 )
1st, this is a new event from the December 20 incident. And while I have reservations about the 60-70m part, I won't be surprised at all if the MSDF did tell an aircraft to get as close as its norms would allow to a ROK destroyer.
And before anyone calls this un-necessarily provocative, I'll point out this is similar to the American mentality behind FONOPS - don't use it, you lose it. The fact that someone is contesting your right to do something is all the more reason to assert your right - by doing it.
14 ( +15 / -1 )
SJToday 10:49 am JST
The general thrust of your two links seem to be that most Japanese are Korean derivatives. Fine, so be it then. However, then this begs the question of the whole animosity over the so called "colonial period". The annexation will then basically be Korean Group 2, having achieved greater success than Korean Group 1, reunifying with Korean Group 1. A Japan with Korea in it, or a Korea with Japan in it, is the "correct" form.
And the whole business of 1592 becomes - Korean Group 2, which even then was more successful than Korean Group 1, decides to unify with them. Instead of siding with their ethnic brothers, Korean Group 1 calls on the help of other ethnicities (Chinese) against their own, and becomes the protectorate of said ethnicity. Really, Korean Group 1 :-)
And this incident would be Korean Group 1 hating Korean Group 2 so much they feel a need to use fire control radar on them. Hmm... I can see why Korean Group 2 would be a little agitated about this.
5 ( +12 / -7 )
First, the article:
What audio recording? Are they going to play back the "beeped out parts" this time? While I guess it may depend on exactly what is said, but I think they should have eaten the loss and played the full tape, including the beeped out parts.
Or is it going to be the report that was supposedly sent up by SATCOM? Anyway, let's wait to hear this "audio recording" before further comments.
@IloveCoffee Today 08:52 am JST
How does releasing an audio recording of the pilots prove that the SK ship locked an FCR?
I actually agree partially with this, to the extent that the best any recording can prove is a subjective belief they were locked on.
@Samit Basu Today 11:11 am JST
That's 5 unsupported assertions. Do you have links? Korean Google translates quite well into Japanese.
@SJ Today 01:08 pm JST
A military source confirmed Friday that a Korean coast guard ship operated its own radar at the scene in question last month, possibly confusing a Japanese aircraft that it was locked in a warship's fire-control system.
Yes, I've heard this is their latest throw. I'll throw in a Japanese-language link (a forward from Korea Joongang Daily):
Yes, the possibility of a misidentification is quite low. On the merits, there are three problems with this general idea:
1) It came close to a month late.
2) The only similarity indeed is most likely the general frequency band.
3) From the recording the radar suddenly came up. If it was the coast guard's boat radar, it should have been up for a long time.
@SJ Today 02:00 pm JST
Whether it is true or not, it is irrelevant with the issue here regarding the radar lock. Don't waste time in averting the issue.
That recording includes the sudden appearance of a strong radar contact and all the calls concerning that fact. In making clear that the Korean explanation is inconsistent with reality in a way even a layman can understand, it also ruins South Korea's credibility.
I'll also throw out this:
So, according to this, the Japanese actually handed over the results of the analysis. The Koreans insisted on the raw data, the actual tape. The Japanese want the data from the destroyer.
This would seem to be consistent with the Korean claim the Japanese are not handing over "data", but you can see why they are not going to get "raw data" from Japan's latest kit without giving up anything in return.
IMO, it also gives some context to the well known American refusal to get involved. At this stage in the game, the so-called request for American assistance probably involved them revealing if any of THEIR SIGINT systems caught an appropriate signal at the correct time. Which will, of course, mean revealing a good bit about America's SIGINT capabilities.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@SJ Today 06:37 am JST
Opinion of Japanese legal experts on this matter:
Some general observations of the site. Its title claims to be "法律事務所のアーカイブ" (Archives of a Law Firm), but all it has is a collection of whatever could be gathered that supports one position (pay up), on a single issue (compensation to Koreans). It doesn't even have the grace to acknowledge anything that's against it (most notably Civitella when the ICJ rejects the claim).
In regards to the particular page, I'll assume that those are "genuine" signatures in that they agree with the thrust and may at least partially agree. However, it is poorly reasoned and may well have said a lot less than you hope it would.
The forced labor issue is fundamentally a human rights issue: It may well be, but "human rights" does not nullify the Unrecht (unlawfulness) of the South Korean court trampling over the clear wording and intent of an binding treaty that was in its favor, does it.
The individual right to seek compensation has not been extinguished by the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement: That would seem to be somewhat contradictory to a plain reading of the word "settled". However, international law is separated from domestic law, so it is acceptable for the Japanese judiciary to use that formulation, since the final aggregated result is compatible with the text in that the court would not order compensation.
Perhaps the weakest point of this section is that the South Korean judiciary's ruling actually differs from the Japanese court's ruling, both in the final aggregated result and some of its components. Yet it tries to rely on the Japanese Court's ruling as authority, without attempting to account for the gap.
The ruling is in line with advances in international human rights law that values remedies for individual victims: This is essentially an appeal to authority, and thus it is sufficient to point out the ICJ's judgement is adverse.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
NONE of them accepted the terms of capitulation ratified after WWII that put them under the Soviet regime.
In the context of negotiations concerning the eventual handover of the disputed islands, Lavrov's comment should be understood to refer to the starting point of the handover. There are two basic starting positions to be taken here, which is either that the Russian's current presence is legal or illegal.
The Eastern European nations realized that they had to start with the premise that the current situation is legal, then negotiate to get what they want based on changed circumstances.
There was also a similar spat between Britain and China when Hong Kong was to be transferred.
Failure to obtain a concession of legality as a starting basis for the talks is not only a pride point, but a substantively dangerous situation, as proven by the judicial acts of a certain Supreme Court.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Well, in the present day and age, getting an explicit concession regarding the legality of a state act is very important. The South Korean Supreme Court has shown why it may no longer be feasible to just "paper over" the issue.
As for whether the Russians have a leg to stand on, I'll say they do. The critical moment is when Japan signed away its sovereignty to those islands in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. At that point, they are open to claimants, such as the people that happen to be sitting on them at the time.
And yes, they signed them away. You can't just keep narrowing the definition of words and remain respectable.
-8 ( +0 / -8 )
Let's assume that S. Korea and Japan made a treaty that S. Korea takes away and use your private house. In this case, are you going to give away your house to the S. Korean government? If not, what would you do?
Moderator, kindly allow me to answer this question on grounds it relates to the correct relationship between domestic and international law, arguably the crux of the Korean Supreme Court's ruling, and in turn the topic in the story.
While this shouldn't have happened (as has already been pointed out), in the scenario it does, the Japanese government is obliged to deliver my house to South Korea, regardless of domestic law in order to meet its international obligations. Of course, there is a mutual understanding of the need for due process, so South Korea will (if it is playing by the usual rules) allow Japan due time to try to buy my house nicely and in accordance to the present law. However, ultimately, Japan will have to deliver my house to them if it means physically tearing me away from its pillars.
As for any complaints from me about the Japanese governments' actions, which are almost certainly a violation of domestic law, I take to Japan's own courts. I may even get recompensed for it, but my house will still be possessed by South Koreans.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@SJ Today 04:22 am JST
Since I am working, instead of a full critique of your links, perhaps I can get away with just pointing out that ultimately, Italy lost Civitella in 2012 in the ICJ. It would have been nice if those lawyers had the integrity to acknowledge that.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Umm, you can't put the two equally, SJ. One reading is consistent with a fair plain reading of the treaty text, and the other isn't. I've seen people try and defend the Korean SC's sophistry, but once you allow that horsecrap, what you are really saying is that DESPITE signing a treaty, you can continue to take and take as long as your courts are shameless enough.
A nation cannot use the intricacies of its domestic legal system to avoid compliance with treaties. International law applies regardless of whether you have separation of powers in your own domestic legal system. And if your judiciary makes an illegal judicial act, it is still illegal.
Of course, most countries at least want to make a show of judicial independence, and this dilemma is usually solved by the judiciary carefully sidestepping around making any decision that would go against treaty text. They can rule against the plaintiffs, infinitely delay processing it, agree there is a problem but deny processing on a technicality like statue of limitations, or agree there is an illegality but that costs should be paid by the government because they have no right to interfere. There are many constructions here, but you respect the treaty text and that's not what the South Korean judiciary is doing.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
Again and as stated earlier, given it will never happen what is the point of the original statement other than to further ostracize people, and perhaps take attention away from failings of this aging group of self interested politicians.
True, but the moment you say that, you concede the point that at 100% concentration it could be rather fatal. The problem then shifts to whether it is something that at low concentrations the harm graph could invert and be beneficial. There are indeed things that are beneficial at low to moderate concentrations, such as oxygen, but whether that applies to LGTs is another matter.
(I deliberately exclude the B here, because you can say that a person who ultimately rolls with the opposite sex as heterosexual, while the ones who roll with the same sex are LG).
If we are unable to find real advantages to a low concentration of LGTs, then we will find it hard to avoid a conclusion that LGT at any concentration is harmful. And if we agree it is harmful, at least slightly so, then the question becomes whether it should be encouraged rather than at least being subtly discouraged.
After all, we are not talking about horrible persecution here AFAIK - the issue at hand is whether to allow same-sex marriage, and even to the point of agreeing it is marriage.
Because while current medical research holds that sexuality is mainly genetic, there are undeniably at least some fence sitters out there, as the B indicates. If we are forced to concede that LGTs are at least slightly harmful, even at low concentrations, then the question becomes: Why encourage them?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I'll side on the "People are reacting so hard to this statement because they know it is kind of true."
For all our beliefs on being "pro-diversity", there are days when we must admit, as a fact, that both sides are not equal and work from there, rather than denying this fact.
And one way to expose one side being superior over another is to conduct a thought experiment where we are all on one side or another, and think about which would cause us to be better off.
And in this case, this guy is basically correct. If we somehow got rid of every last homosexual, versus if we got rid of every last heterosexual. One idea is clearly more on the side of prolonging a nation's existence. Even if you say there's artificial technology these days, if one side has to use a crutch and the other doesn't, the latter is still objectively superior.
Compare that with say Whites versus Blacks. If we got rid of all the Whites, society would continue. Get rid of all the Blacks, society would continue. In this sense the two sides are kind of equal. Or how about males versus females. Get rid of either and we won't continue (at least not without a huge crutch).
You can see how the homos are a little disadvantaged in comparison with these two previous (and still ongoing to an extent, even in the relatively liberal West) struggles for equality.
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
@Samit BasuToday 10:32 am JST
Well, the Japanese "tribe" is a bit bigger than the Eskimos, I suppose. And the Eskimos can learn to buy other food.
The point is that the IWC has really become an organization that is unobjective and does the inverse of what it initially grouped together to do. While I like the idea of international commitments, be it Anchugov v Russia or the IWC there are times when the international groups, allowed autonomy, clearly evolve until they are beyond their original mandate. This in itself is also a problem in international law.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
@SJToday 05:13 pm JST
If the fight is about the "number" of authorities, you'll have to accept with the Japanese government including the Defense Ministry against him, he is a little outnumbered. He is even more outnumbered if you count the number of authorities that made CUES.
If he is an authority no matter what, we may have to accept his claim, uncritically, that Japan was not an aggressor nation (remember, that one that got him fired). Maybe we should assess his claim on its merits.
Further, as I've already quoted, he does have a self-admitted motive for slanting things this way.
Basically, what he said is that it is not dangerous, and normal, for SAM units to use incoming targets for use as training. The concrete examples he gives are own planes, civilian planes and allied planes. South Korea's act would seem to differ on both counts.
Finally, here is what he said at the end:
We should warn Korea using Japan's economic strength. (So he is actually advocating punishment.)
12 ( +12 / -0 )
browny1Today 10:35 am JST
Actually, he does give his reason in the ironna article.
However, it is feared that the Defense Ministry will ban the simulated targeting of civilian aircraft for training purposes as dangerous. In that case, SAM units will lose many training opportunities causing them to weaken. I would not like that to happen, because that is not dangerous training.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
If you are going to rely on that quote, you will have to pay attention to
Read: Play these games with your own planes, planes that would never know what had happened, or formally allied planes that had almost certainly consented to what is about to come. None of these three would apply to the P-1.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
That was during the initial hours. The formal inquiry confirmed all procedures were followed and the STIR radar was OFF, meaning the Lock-On as claimed by Japanese MoD could not have happened.
Their explanation had changed several times, with claims down to them doing so following their manual.
Oh, I've read something similar yesterday, from Asahi already:
If we are to use Mr. Ito as an authority, then we'll also have to accept his assessment that the video is sufficient to prove that South Korea's version is BS (so their credibility is zero), and his assessment that they erased the sound off for security considerations. Which on its merits is possible, since they had been redacting the voice on-and-off even at the cost of the probative value of the recording, and that kind of sound would be a monotone that would make it easier to erase without affecting voice too much.
However, I'll point out that Mr. Ito is a former admiral who specialized in submarines.
Submarine commanders are trained in observation so his assessment of the visual is authoritative. However, he is not necessarily an expert on the functions and procedures of the ESM system on patrol aircraft, especially one that went into service after he retired. So it is still perfectly possible the sound was not on the tape simply because the ESM did not operate as he imagined. You may recall that a patrol plane is different from a fighter and not only do they have enough people for dedicated monitoring of the electromagnetic situation, but the fact they may be asked to hang around even in the face of a tracking radar, in which case that stupid sound would be in the cockpit for hours.
And supposing the sound was there and left on, my sense is that the probative value would be limited. You have already made the play yourself in fact - mistaken automatic analysis. At some point you have to stop asking for more evidence and ask yourself where the preponderance of the evidence is lying.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
According to Yonhap News Agency (Dec 22)
5 ( +6 / -1 )