Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule.
2020-10-15
Category:Japanese comfort woman problem
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
[related article]
Korean anti - Japanese activities taking place in New York: How should we deal with them, as they are so outrageous?
In November 2019, the Korea Liberation Association urged the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to ban the use of the Rising Sun flag at the upcoming 2020 Tokyo Olympics in Manhattan Square, New York, United States. marching through the city.
The person who is kneeling down on the ground is Kim Won-eun, the chairman of the Gwangjukai. It is said that Japan is losing to South Korea's lobbying efforts, but this is the reality. Japanese people are not aware that they are conducting activities like this in the United States, a completely different country, which is completely based on no facts and deviates from common sense.
The Gwangbuk-kai, which refers to independence from Japan as Gwangbuk, is the central organization for anti-Japanese activities tied to the so-called Korean government.
In South Korea, there are many anti-Japanese organizations that receive support from the government.
They proudly print a historical error that equates the Nazis with Japan on flags and march through the streets of New York.
They are using this to appeal to the American people to ban the use of the Rising Sun flag at the Tokyo Olympics, which is another logically bankrupt activity, but they don't care about that.
The Nazis were a socialist party that practiced dictatorship and massacred six million Jews.
Japan's Greater East Asia War was a war of Western colonial liberation in Asia, and the only things Japan has in common with the Nazis are that the enemy was a power that continued to expand through colonial rule, and that they lost the war.
The Japan-German-Italy Tripartite Pact was not about jointly fighting a war, but rather a non-interference pact that stipulated that Japan would not intervene in wars in Europe, and Germany and Italy would not intervene in wars in Asia.
South Korea conveniently cites the Nazis and criticizes Japan. They know very little about the difference between Japan and the Nazis.
The Korean National Police Agency’s landing on Takeshima is a strategy of disruption aimed at the Japan - U.S. - Korea trilateral foreign ministerial talks.
A joint press conference scheduled for November 17th in Washington, D.C., after the trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting between Japan, the United States, and South Korea, was canceled at short notice. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman held a solo press conference on behalf of the three countries. Deputy Secretary of State Sherman said, ``There are bilateral differences between Japan and South Korea that need to be resolved. To that end, we have changed the format of the press conference.''
It is reported that the reason why the Japanese side refused to hold a joint press conference was that Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong landed on Takeshima the day before the talks. Reports in South Korea said things like ``Japan destroyed America's face,'' ``Japan refused the interview without permission,'' and ``Deputy Secretary of State Sherman's solo press conference was a strange sight.''
In the first place, there seems to be no recognition that it was the South Korean side that took the outrageous step of landing on the Takeshima issue, which is a sensitive issue between Japan and South Korea, the day before the Japan-U.S.-Korea meeting. Moreover, the Commissioner of the National Police Agency is the head of the administrative agency.
The South Korean side is at fault in most of the Japan-Korea issues, but the reports published within South Korea only justify themselves.
In the first place, Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan both historically and under international law. What South Korea should do is not for the Commissioner of the National Police Agency to land on Takeshima, but to go to the International Court of Justice and seek a decision based on international law. It is clear that the landing on Takeshima was carried out to coincide with the trilateral foreign ministerial talks between Japan, the United States, and South Korea.
This is related to the South Korean presidential election to be held in 2022, and is aimed at improving the current government's approval ratings, but the people most likely to be happy about this are China and North Korea. China is wary of Japan, the US, and South Korea getting closer.
That's why they started this commotion with the aim of holding talks between the vice ministers of foreign affairs between Japan, the US and South Korea. If you think about it this way, the objectives are completely consistent with what the Moon Jae-in administration has done thus far. And in this case, it can be said that that purpose was clearly demonstrated.
Since the Moon Jae-in administration came into power, the Takeshima issue has become more radical, and issues such as the Rising Sun flag, forced labor, and comfort women have all crossed the line. They are engaging in brinkmanship diplomacy that is on the verge of destroying Japan-South Korea relations.
These can be seen as an appeal to North Korea and China, and also seem to be a love call to be included in the Chinese economic bloc. The South Korean people are enthusiastic about these movements and support Moon Jae-in's popularity.
South Korea wants to join China and North Korea. This has been Moon Jae-in's wish from the beginning. If you look at it that way, everything you've said and done so far makes sense.
North Korea and China are authoritarian countries. Japan and the United States are democratic countries, and South Korea is also supposed to be a democratic country, but I wonder if the social system doesn't matter.The one country that the Moon Jae-in administration wants to get along with after saying goodbye to Japan and the United States is the UN sanctions resolution. One country that continues to suffer is North Korea, and one country that has been criticized by Europe, the United States, and Japan is China, which has been criticized for the Hong Kong issue, the Taiwan Strait issue, and the Uighur issue.
I feel like the future direction of Korea is becoming clearer.
The testimony of Lee Yong-soo (former comfort woman) is full of contradictions - an ethical leap by a Korean civil society group to make this an international issue.
Testimony of a former comfort woman who turned around twice
Lee Yong-soo's testimony changes in content
Lee Yong-soo took the stand as a witness in America
Human trafficking broker arrested multiple times
35 years is too short for social change
What follows is the evolution of the testimony of Lee Yong-soo, a leading figure and activist for South Korea's former comfort women. In the trial in which Professor Ryu of Yonsei University, who lectured on the idea that ``comfort women are prostitutes,'' was sued by the Justice League (comfort women's organization), Professor Ryu pointed out the ambiguity of Lee Young-soo's testimony, and as a witness. is requested to appear in court.
Let alone the credibility of her testimony, neither the Justice League nor Lee Yong-soo, the woman herself, could even present any evidence that she was a comfort woman.. As you can see in the image at the beginning, comfort women were recruited through public recruitment in newspapers, and were paid a salary that was unprecedented in terms of monetary value at the time.
Lee Yong-soo's testimony
1992 Testimony Even though I was 16 years old at that time, I was almost naked and couldn't eat or wear clothes, but someone brought me a dress and a pair of shoes. He gave it to me. I wonder how good it must have looked in my young mind when I was told that I would give it to you and let's go. At that time, I thought I didn't need to know anything about that, so I followed him. 1993 Testimony A friend of my age had a child named Kim Boon-soon, whose mother was in the liquor business. One day, when I went to visit his house, his mother said, ``What kind of child are you, you can't even put your shoes on properly? You should go over there with my shoes. "You'll have everything you need. You'll eat a lot of food, and your family will be able to live comfortably." 2004 Testimony I lived in Goseong-dong, Daegu until I was 16 years old.One summer in 1943, when I was 16 years old, I put on a hat that only showed my nose and mouth. A Japanese military official forcibly took me along with my four older sisters from the town. I didn't know where I was going or how I was going to take it. They put us on a windowless train, but when we said we weren't going, they called us Koreans and stepped on us with their shoes and hit us. When I said I was going home, he hit me again. He was beaten so much that he couldn't even walk. 2006 Testimony Around 1942, when I was 15 years old and sleeping at home, I was taken to Taiwan by the Japanese military. Testimony, July 2014 One day in the year I turned 15, a Japanese military officer gestured to me to come. I was scared and ran away, but another Japanese soldier caught me and took me on a train to a Japanese military unit in Taiwan. Testimony, September 2014 A 16-year-old Japanese woman showing off her dress and red leather shoes said, ``I'll feed you to the fullest, and I'll make sure your family can live happily.'' Deceived by the man's words, I followed my friend out. He was forcibly mobilized to a comfort station in Taiwan via China. He was the owner of the comfort station. He was also subjected to electrical torture by this master. 2017 Testimony At the age of 15, he was sleeping at home when he was taken away by the Japanese military. <Translation excerpt: Korean wiki>
Lee Yong-soo also participated in the comfort women movement in the United States, and in 2007, she attended the U.S. House of Representatives as a witness and gave testimony when the House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for an apology from the Japanese government. There is. The comfort women issue is precisely what Lee Yong-soo's testimony and the comfort women's organization Chongdaehyup (currently known as Justice League) are promoting not only in Korea but around the world under the guise of a human rights movement.
According to newspaper articles from the time (during Japan's annexation of South Korea), Japanese police had busted numerous crimes in which Korean human trafficking brokers abducted girls and sold them. During the Joseon Dynasty, when a class system existed, slaves were exchanged for items such as cow heads through human trafficking brokers.
The period of Japan and Korea's annexation lasted only about 35 years, and of course that was not enough time for cultural customs and social customs that had lasted for more than 500 years to disappear. The human trafficking brokers who supported the slavery system would have no income if they did not work, and although slaves did not exist under the family registration system, it was clear that many people living in similar conditions were left behind. It is thought that At that time, deceiving and buying and selling girls from poor families from rural villages was a common practice on the Korean Peninsula.
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.
Agreement Japanese Military comfort woman without the letter coercion. The two governments of Japan and South Korea do not recognize coercion.
In Japan, politics does not recognize or evaluate history.This is because politicians do not have no such authority.Historical data stored in government agencies will be accepted by Congress after confirming the facts.Starting with Yoshida's testimony, Kono's discourse was about compulsion.The biggest flaw in Kono's speech was that he was a government minister who spoke without historical information.In other words, history is recognized arbitrarily.
In 2007, the Cabinet decided that no evidence of compulsory Japanese Military comfort woman recruitment was found under the Abe administration.This means that some of the amendments were made to the Kono Statement in accordance with a Cabinet decision higher than the Kono Statement.Former Prime Minister Abe did not say that there was no forced arrest.He's just saying there was no evidence.
The 2015 Japanese Military comfort woman Agreement did not include the word coercion.This compulsory part of the Korea-Japan issue is the most important issue.In other words, Japan followed the Cabinet decision and held talks, and South Korea agreed to omit the statement because it failed to provide evidence of compulsion.An important part of the Japanese Military comfort woman agreement is that the two countries did not recognize the compulsion rather than that the issue was finally and irreversibly resolved.If enforcement cannot be confirmed, the Japanese Military comfort woman problem does not exist from the beginning.
The Japanese and South Korean governments did not approve of evidence of coercion.Japanese Military Sexual Slavery The problem itself is no longer valid.