What is the main purpose of the comfort women agreement? The purpose is for the Korean side to establish a foundation for reconciliation and resolution - South Korea does not understand the main purpo
2022-01-26
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Although substantially abandoning the Japanese Military comfort woman agreement...
I don't understand anything about this article (below).Apparently, the former Japanese Military comfort woman refused to receive １ billion yen donated by Japan in the ２０１５ Japanese Military comfort woman agreement, so the Korean government donated １ billion yen to establish a gender equality fund.
Agreement Japanese Military comfort woman that omits essence
In the first place, the Moon Jae In administration and Korean public opinion have been excluded, but the Japanese government has not donated １ billion yen directly to the former Japanese Military comfort woman.The South Korean government has set up a foundation to support the former Japanese Military comfort woman and provided funds for the foundation.The Korean government's activities and foundation will settle the dispute with the former Japanese Military comfort woman.Since it was a public interest foundation, it would be good to raise new public works projects and funds through the foundation's activities and increase the amount of funds to solve the problem.Japan and South Korea agreed on the Japanese Military comfort woman agreement.The fact that the former Japanese Military comfort woman refused to accept the １ billion yen donated by Japan itself is contrary to the intent of the Japanese Military comfort woman agreement.
The Korean government does not solve the problem
Moon Jae In has dissolved the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation, and one billion yen has not been repaid to Japan, and it has reportedly invested one billion yen in establishing a new Gender Equality Fund.In any case, it is clear that the South Korean government will take the initiative in solving the problem.
[２０１５ Japanese Military comfort woman Agreement]
Japan side:
(２) Based on this experience, the Japanese government has taken measures to heal the wounds of all former Japanese Military comfort womans based on the Japanese government's budget.Specifically, the Korean government will set up a foundation to support former Japanese Military comfort womans and use the Japanese government's budget to fund them. The two governments will cooperate to restore the honor and dignity of all former Japanese Military comfort womans and heal their wounds.
２. South Korea side:
(１) The South Korean government evaluates the Japanese government's announcement and the measures announced in paragraph １.(２) above, and confirms that the Japanese government and the Japanese government will finally and irreversibly resolve the problem.The South Korean government will cooperate with the Japanese government's implementation of the measures.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule. There are two main points in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea. One is the issue of the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement. The second is the recognition of torts under Japanese rule, which was the premise of the decision.
The waiver of claims in post-war processing was under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights related to claims. Countries that do not ratify the peace treaty will individually conclude a treaty. Diplomatic protection means that the country does not diplomatically protect the exercise of claims against other countries. A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima have attempted to claim damages against the United States for indiscriminate attacks on civilians as a tort. At this time, the view of the Government of Japan is that the Government of Japan has abandoned its diplomatic protection rights and the government is not involved. However, he replied that the individual's claim was not extinguished. "Yanagi answer". It is the answer of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and the administrative view.
In fact, South Korea has been activating the movement for individual claims by quoting this Yanai answer. Until then, South Korea, on the contrary, interpreted that the individual's claim itself had disappeared (described in the Korean side manual of the 1965 Agreement), and after hearing this Yanai's answer, he knew for the first time that the individual's claim would not be extinguished. It was. Aside from the administrative view of Japan, the legal view was that in 2007 the Supreme Court of Japan stated that it was not subject to protection, including individual jurisdiction. At the same time, the individual's claim right will not be extinguished.
In other words, the problem is that a treaty is a promise between countries, not a contract between individual citizens. Individuals do not lose their claims as individual rights, but the state does not act for them. The Supreme Court of Korea interpreted that the jurisdiction would not be extinguished. The first point is whether or not jurisdiction is included.
Regarding the second tort recognition, when Japan signed the 1965 Agreement, Japan is approaching the conclusion with a consistent view that the annexation of Korea is not an illegal act under international law. The eight articles presented by the South Korean side in the agreement are about claims for the property of natural persons (individuals), but it is written and agreed in the agreement to abandon them. And it is not the concept of compensation, but economic cooperation.
The Japanese annexation of Korea is not illegal because there is no fact that Japan occupied it by force and forcibly concluded it, and it was signed and stamped when the two countries signed the agreement. The letter of the emperor Sunjong's name is written on the power of attorney to delegate full authority to Prime Minister Ye Wanyong, and there is no debate about whether this is a signature, and Sunjong itself is not recognized as an emperor. There is a claim that there is no signature of Gojong, but the universal public law of international law at that time stipulates that the signature of the head of state is not always necessary for concluding a treaty.
The reason why tort recognition is the point is that the Korean side ignored the views and interpretations under international law and unilaterally recognized it as tort. Korean civil law stipulates that personal property rights and claims will be extinguished if not exercised for 20 years. In other words, normally, both the recruiter and the comfort woman have passed the extinction prescription of the claim. Looking at the cases of claims related to the claim right at the time of the annexation of Japan and South Korea in South Korea, there are a number of judgments that were dismissed because of the extinction prescription. What happens if the Japanese annexation of Korea becomes an illegal act? The claim right at point 1 does not expire. Since it is a principle of international law that the right to claim under tort has no statute of limitations, the Daiho-in Temple has unfoundedly recognized the annexation of Korea as a tort.
As mentioned above, an individual's claim will not be extinguished only on the premise of tort. The treaty exists as another matter, it is a promise between countries, and the Korean government has a strict obligation to keep the treaty.
The ``Jongdaehyup'' lost its position due to the comfort women agreement - The Japanese and South Korean governments have agreed to establish a foundation.
Private/government debt 254%
Household debt is 104.2% of GDP
Global trend of interest rate hikes
Mortgage reduces disposable income
A traveler who just has bad manners
In a statement distributed in advance of the conference, Professor Ham Joon-ho of Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies, who served as a member of the Bank of Korea's Financial and Monetary Committee, stated, ``Korea's macro leverage (private and government debt) level has expanded to 254% of GDP. ” he pointed out.
The household debt balance has continued to expand for 16 years, reaching a record high of 1,850.9 trillion won (approximately 176.9871 trillion yen) in the April-June 2021 period. According to a study by the Institute of International Finance (IIF), Japan's GDP ratio was 104.2%, the highest among 37 major countries and regions. Incidentally, the countries other than South Korea are followed by Hong Kong (92.0%), the UK (89.4%), and the US (79.2%).
On the 15th, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), the central bank of the United States, announced the first major interest rate hike in about 30 years. The policy rate will be raised by 0.75% to a range of 1.50 to 1.75%.
Prior to this, South Korea announced that it would raise its policy interest rate from 1.5% to 1.75% in May. The rate was set at 1.5% in April, making this the second consecutive month of interest rate hikes. This will also be a severe blow to those who are burdened with household debt.
South Korea's per capita GDP is approaching that of Japan. According to the 2021 IMF announcement, Japan's price is $39,340 and South Korea's price is $34,801. However, Japan's household debt is around 66-7%.
Housing loans are the largest component of household debt. The skyrocketing price of land in Seoul continues to skyrocket, forcing many to borrow large sums of money to purchase apartments. As a result, even if GDP and wages rise, most of the money goes toward repaying household debts, resulting in less disposable income. I don't have any money to spend.
Even after salaries are paid, the money goes straight through the tunnel and is returned to financial institutions, where it is returned to the market. This is the reality of GDP per capita in the Korean economy.
As the coronavirus pandemic begins to subside and overseas travel is gradually lifted, travel to Japan is expected to become a boom again in South Korea. It's not that they like Japan. The above reasons are largely responsible for why Japan is chosen as a nearby travel destination.
And just because you come to Japan doesn't mean you have to spend money. There are quite a few groups that find faults, point them out, and complain to each other. It is said that Korean tourists just have bad manners.
Japanese Military comfort woman A major flaw in the scrapping of the agreement is President Moon Jae In's dissolution of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation.
The comfort women agreement is an official agreement
South Korea does not understand the agreement
2015 Comfort Women Agreement
The claim date is from 1965. Comfort women agreement establishes foundation
With the dissolution of the foundation, former comfort women cannot negotiate with Japan
In 2021, Moon Jae-in recognized the comfort women agreement as an official agreement between the governments. I wonder if these words were uttered out of a feeling that further deterioration of Japan-Korea relations would be a problem because it would affect the economy, regarding the lawsuit filed by former comfort women against the Japanese government. The problem is that the South Korean side doesn't fully understand the contents of the 2015 agreement.
Reading the comfort women agreement, it is clear that the main purpose of the agreement is for the South Korean government to establish a ``foundation'' to support former comfort women. Based on this assumption, the comfort women issue between the two countries will be finally and irreversibly resolved. In addition, we will refrain from blaming or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community. The Korean government will strive to resolve the issue of the girl statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in South Korea appropriately through consultations with related organizations. The order is as follows.
2015 comfort women agreement
Japanese side:
(2) The Japanese government has been sincerely addressing this issue, and based on its experience, it has recently decided to use the Japanese government's budget to heal the emotional wounds of all former comfort women. Take measures to ease the situation. Specifically, the South Korean government established a foundation for the purpose of supporting former comfort women, provided a lump sum of funds from the Japanese government's budget, and the Japanese and South Korean governments cooperated to provide support for all former comfort women. We will carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of comfort women and heal their emotional wounds.
2. South Korean side:
(1) The Korean government evaluates the Japanese government's statements and efforts leading up to this announcement, and the Japanese government has confirmed the above 1. On the premise that the measures stated in (2) are steadily implemented, through this announcement we confirm that, together with the Japanese government, this issue will be finally and irreversibly resolved. The Government of the Republic of Korea will cooperate with the measures taken by the Government of Japan.
The comfort women agreement states that the South Korean government will establish a foundation and work through its activities to resolve issues with former comfort women.
In other words, the entire premise of this comfort women agreement was the establishment of a foundation, and as expected, Moon Jae-in dissolved this foundation. If this is recognized as an official agreement, there is an obligation to rebuild the ``Foundation for Reconciliation and Healing.'' Since this has not been done, even if South Korea says something, it will simply be bringing up a topic unrelated to the comfort women agreement. The issue of claims was resolved in 1965.
The purpose of establishing the foundation is to carry out projects to restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women and to heal their emotional wounds. Nowhere does it say that Japan should simply distribute the 1 billion yen it contributed. In other words, South Korea has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and restore the honor and dignity of former comfort women.
Looking at this from a different angle, with this agreement, the comfort women issue is no longer an issue between the governments of the two countries, but an issue between the foundation and the individual former comfort women. The former comfort women are demanding that Japan's prime minister meet in person and apologize, which is an unlikely request, but let's assume it happened. That can only be the result of negotiations conducted through the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation. Without the Foundation, no one can negotiate with Japan. This is not an issue of claims or human rights, but rather an issue of default by the South Korean government, which has abandoned its efforts to establish a foundation and resolve the issue.
If you confuse the claim rights issue with the comfort women agreement, you will lose sight of the essence. The major flaw in the cancellation of this agreement is that it dissolves the Foundation.
postwar compensation and Roh Moo - hyun Japan is waiting for the old people to die.They say it's time-buying, but it's the other way around.So far, the Korean government has compensated the people several times after the war.Moon Jae In is the one who is trying to buy time just because the current government is fleeing.At the time of 2005, Japanese Military Sexual Slavery was not included, but Japan said it would not recognize government-led coercion, and it goes without saying that the 2015 Japanese Military Sexual Slavery agreement was comprehensive.
-----
In February 2004, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, demanding that five of the 57 documents related to the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement be released.The trial began in September 2002 when a group of bereaved families of Japanese victims of forced mobilization demanded that the government confirm the details of the Korea-Japan agreement.
As a result, Japan's compensation issue, which was temporarily settled after the signing of the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement in 1965, and compensation in the 1970s, has resurfaced.It's a kind of second round.
At that time, the government appealed on the grounds of its impact on bilateral relations.However, in August 2004, former President Roh Moo Hyun abandoned the appeal after consulting with Cheong Wa Dae, the chief civil society office, and the National Security Council (NSC) at a meeting of senior aides.
After the release of the claim agreement in January 2005, public opinion began that the amount of compensation paid by the government in 1975 was very small compared to that received by Japan.From 1975 to 1977, the Park Chung-hee administration spent 90 percent of its 300 million dollars on economic development and only 10 percent on compensation.Only 8,552 of the estimated 1.03 million victims of forced mobilization benefited.
Accordingly, the Roh Moo Hyun government has prepared follow-up measures.At that time, former President Roh Moo-hyun and Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan set four criteria: (1) support in other ways than legal compensation, (2) support through national compromise and consultation, and (4) support in parliament.To this end, the organization organized is the Public-Private Joint Committee.It consists of 21 people, including 10 private committee members, including Yang Samsung Law Firm Hwa-woo, Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan, and 11 government officials.
On 26 August 2005, the Joint Committee on Civil and Government Affairs announced the results of the following discussions.
(1) Anti-humanitarian illegal activities involving Japanese military forces such as Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, Sakhalin compatriots, and atomic bomb victims are not included in the Korea-Japan Claim Agreement.
(2) The $300 million loan received from Japan reflects the South Korean government's claim to Japan, such as personal property rights (insurance, deposits, etc.), bonds with Japan, and funds related to the resolution of forced mobilization damage.
(3) The South Korean government is morally responsible for using a considerable amount of free money received from Japan to help victims of forced mobilization (the South Korean government calculated $360 million in compensation for forced mobilization out of $1.22 billion requested from Japan in 1961).
(4) While continuing to hold the Japanese government accountable for the issue of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, it will continue to raise the issue through international organizations.
Source article: 中央日報
Professor Ramseyer's negative statement [There is no evidence of forced abduction of comfort women] is a complete lie. [Translated excerpt of Yonhap News article]
On January 5th, Mark Ramseyer, a professor at Harvard Law School in the United States, who defined South Korean comfort women as "prostitutes" and received international backlash, has now proven that "comfort women were forced to be recruited." It is expected that there will be a stir by asserting that there are no contemporary documents that do so.
Professor Ramseyer made this clear on the 5th in his article ``Sexual Contracts in the Pacific War: Responses to Criticism'' posted on the Harvard Law School website.
In this paper, which is a rebuttal of previous criticisms directed at her, Professor Ramseyer argues that ``Korean women were drawn into [comfort women] by the Japanese military who fought against their will, regardless of their will.'' I will respond to the allegation,'' and declared, ``This allegation is false.''
At the same time, he asserted, `` Korean women were not forced to serve as comfort stations due to planned coercion by the Japanese military.''
He specifically argued that the 1983 book ``My War Crimes'' by Japanese author and activist Seiji Yoshida was the de facto basis for the forced recruitment of comfort women.
For 35 years after the end of the war, there was no evidence (proving forced conscription). It was only in the late 1980s that some Korean women began to advocate this."
He added, ``The comfort women debate started with Yoshida's 'fraud'''' and ``Most of the experts who criticized me were from Japan and South Korea, but even though they knew about this book, no one He also didn't mention this book."
Regarding the paper in question, Professor Ramseyer said, ``The core of the paper was about the contract, such as why the comfort women received advance payment and what conditions under the contract determined the women's working hours.'' ``However, none of the criticisms leveled at me were aimed at this kind of economic analysis.''
In a paper published that day, Professor Ramseyer cited a study last year by Lee Yuken, a co-author of ``Anti-Japanese Tribalism'' and a research committee member at the University of Economics Research Institute, which received support from far-right groups in Japan.
Professor Ramseyer also claimed that comfort women victims, who remained silent for a considerable period after the war, changed their words after they began demanding reparations from Japan.
In a situation where there is no document proving forced recruitment, the only evidence, the testimonies of victims, lacks credibility..
In particular, he referred to comfort woman victim Lee Yong-soo as ``the most notorious (of all the people who changed their words)''.
[Excerpt above]
Professor Ramseyer says that no evidence of her forced abduction or her contract has been found anywhere. Similarly, the Japanese government has made a cabinet decision under the Abe administration that there is no evidence of forced recruitment.
