Legality of Japanese Annexation of Korea The Supreme Court's decision on recruitment is based on the unilateral recognition of torts under Japanese rule.

Photo by Person50 (licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

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.