Just Reparations for Korean “Comfort Women”: A Transitional Justice and International Law Perspective
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On December 28 2015, South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers abruptly reached an agreement (hereinafter “the 2015 Agreement”) to settle the Korean “comfort women” issue. This agreement evoked strong opposition among the victims and civic groups due to the lack of participation by the victims in reaching it; consequently the agreement appeared to result in unjust reparations for these victims. In addition, two conflicting judgments were reached in the South Korean court in relation to compensating Korean “comfort women” in 2021; namely, (i) the judgment on January 8 2021 and (ii) the judgment on April 21 2021. In terms of the former, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on January 8 2021, that the victims’ right to claim reparations for damages against the Japanese government was not included within the scope of application of the 2015 Agreement. On the contrary, in its April 21 2021 ruling, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground of state immunity filed by other victims of Japanese military sexual slavery against the Japanese government. Besides, the court ruled that an “alternative remedy” was provided by the 2015 Agreement. This raises the question of if the 2015 Agreement provided adequate just reparations to be considered an “alternative remedy” for the victims. This article argues that the reparations the Japanese government provided to Korean “comfort women” cannot be regarded as just since it does not met the international standards of just reparations, especially from the perspective of transitional justice and international law. For this purpose, Section 2 discusses the background of the so-called “comfort women” and confirms the legal responsibility of the Japanese government. Section 3 explores the international standards on providing a remedy and reparations for victims of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Then, it outlines what just reparation should be from the perspective of transitional justice. Section 4 examines whether the reparations the Japanese government offered these women, including those set out in the 2015 Agreement, constitute just reparations for the victims. Section 5 discusses the relationship between justice and politics in reparations for these victims and finds that justice in reparations for these women was determined by political considerations between the two countries. The implementation of the 2015 Agreement shows how difficult it is to achieve reconciliation between these two countries without just reparations.
Abstract
On December 28 2015, South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers abruptly reached an agreement (hereinafter “the 2015 Agreement”) to settle the Korean “comfort women” issue. This agreement evoked strong opposition among the victims and civic groups due to the lack of participation by the victims in reaching it; consequently the agreement appeared to result in unjust reparations for these victims. In addition, two conflicting judgments were reached in the South Korean court in relation to compensating Korean “comfort women” in 2021; namely, (i) the judgment on January 8 2021 and (ii) the judgment on April 21 2021. In terms of the former, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on January 8 2021, that the victims’ right to claim reparations for damages against the Japanese government was not included within the scope of application of the 2015 Agreement. On the contrary, in its April 21 2021 ruling, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground of state immunity filed by other victims of Japanese military sexual slavery against the Japanese government. Besides, the court ruled that an “alternative remedy” was provided by the 2015 Agreement. This raises the question of if the 2015 Agreement provided adequate just reparations to be considered an “alternative remedy” for the victims. This article argues that the reparations the Japanese government provided to Korean “comfort women” cannot be regarded as just since it does not met the international standards of just reparations, especially from the perspective of transitional justice and international law. For this purpose, Section 2 discusses the background of the so-called “comfort women” and confirms the legal responsibility of the Japanese government. Section 3 explores the international standards on providing a remedy and reparations for victims of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Then, it outlines what just reparation should be from the perspective of transitional justice. Section 4 examines whether the reparations the Japanese government offered these women, including those set out in the 2015 Agreement, constitute just reparations for the victims. Section 5 discusses the relationship between justice and politics in reparations for these victims and finds that justice in reparations for these women was determined by political considerations between the two countries. The implementation of the 2015 Agreement shows how difficult it is to achieve reconciliation between these two countries without just reparations.
참고문헌 (83)
- "Statue Honoring ‘Comfort Women’ Faces Uncertain Fate" (2016)[URL]
- , 2006Hun-Ma788, Aug. 30, 2011 (KCCR 23-2 366), , 2011
- "Spokesperson’s Press Briefing, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea" (2013)[URL]
- "U.S. S. Doc. No. 109, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. Korea’s Appeal to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, at 35", ~ (1922)
- Frederick Arthur McKenzie, "The tragedy of Korea", pp.134~ (1908)
- Frederick Arthur McKenzie, "Korea’s Fight for Freedom", pp.179~180 (1920)
- Gay J. McDougall, "Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices during Armed Conflict, U.N. Doc. E", CN.4, 1998, pp.13, at 38[DOI]
- "Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the Result of the Study on the Issue of “Comfort Women”" (1993)[URL]
- Susan H. Shin, "Accountability for Atrocities: National and International Responses", pp.425~ (2003)
- Report on the Mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery in Wartime, "Radhika Coomaraswamy (Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences)", Comm’n on Human Rights, ~, pp.Comm’n on Human Rights, E (1996), CN.4[DOI]
- "What is Japanese Military Sexual Slave System?"[URL]
- "A Victim of Japanese Wartime Sexual Slavery Dies at Age 92" (2021)[URL]
- "Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, art. 5 (c), Jan. 19, 1946, amended Apr. 26, 1946, Vol. 4, T.I.A.S., No. 1589, at 20" (2021)[URL]
- "Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Annex, Charter of the International Military Tribunal, art. 6 (c), London, 1945, U.N.T.S., Vol. 82, No. 251, at 280"[URL]
- Theo van Boven, "War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity", pp.26~27 (2009)
- "The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, Rep. of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2004/616" (2004)[URL]
- "What is Transitional Justice"[URL]
- U.N. Secretary-General, "Guidance Note of the Secretary-General: United Nations Approach to Transitional Justice", 3~ (2010)
- Ruti G. Teitel, "Globalizing Transitional Justice: Contemporary Essays", pp.51~52 (2014)
- "Reparations, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Pub. Int’ l L" (2009)[URL]
- Lisa Magarrell, "Reparations in Theory and Practice", pp.2~ (2006)
- Pablo de Greiff, "The Handbook on Reparations", pp.461~ (2006)
- Christopher Daase, "Apology and Reconciliation in International Relations: The Importance of Being Sorry", pp.13~ (2015)
- "Japan and South Korea Settle Dispute Over Wartime ‘Comfort women’" (2015)[URL]
- Jane E. Stromseth, "Managing Conflict in a World Adrift", pp.579~ (2015)
- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-recurrence, "Pablo de Greiff", 28~46, pp.U.N. Doc. A (2012), HRC[DOI]
- "Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson’s Statement on the Outcome of Japan’s Review of the Details Leading to the Drafting of the Kono Statement" (2014)[URL]
- "Details of Exchanges Between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) Regarding the Comfort Women Issue" (2014)[URL]
- (2016)[URL]
- "Korean J. Int’ l L", 2015, 11~31
- 천자현, "Beyond “Dissatisfaction” and “Apology Fatigue”: Four Types of Japanese Official Apology", Pacific Focus, 30(2), pp.249~269 (2015), 국제관계연구소[DOI]
- "On the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the War’s End”"[URL]
- "Establishment of the AWF Fund, and the Basic Nature of its Project"[URL]
- "Japan will not Revise Apologies for Past Military Conduct in Asia, Officials Say" (2013)[URL]
- "Japan’s Abe Stops Short of Direct Apology Over World War II" (2015)[URL]
- "U.S. Publisher Rebuffs Japan on ‘Comfort Women’ Revision" (2015)[URL]
- "U.S. Textbook Skews History, Prime Minister of Japan Says" (2015)[URL]
- "Japan’s Textbook Changes Get Failing Grade from Neighbors" (2015)[URL]
- "the victims’ testimonies. The Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan"[URL]
- Ji-Hyeon Yoon, "Can You Hear Us? The Untold Narratives of Comfort women—A Collection of Oral Narrations of Japanese Military Comfort women", ~ (2014)
- "Report on the Mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery in Wartime, E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1" (1996)[URL]
- "South Korea-Japan Reach “Final Agreement” after 24 Years: Japan Apologizes for Military’s Involvement in Comfort Women Issue, But Free from Liab" (2015)[URL]
- "South Korea, Japan Reach Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’" (2015)[URL]
- "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 2, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679", ~ (1980)
- "Pusan L. R", 2018, 257~
- "Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson’s Statement on the Outcome of Japan’s Review of the Details Leading to the Drafting of the Kono Statement, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea (June 20, 2014, 18:00 PM), Foreign Minister’s Spokesperson, Spokeperson’s Press Briefing (January 26, 2016), Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Korea (Jan. 26, 2016, 00:00 AM)"[URL]
- "Task Force on the Review of the Korea-Japan Agreement on the Issue of “Comfort Women” Victims, Report on the Review of the Korea-Japan Agreement of December 28, 2015 on the Issue of “Comfort Women” Victims" (2017)[URL]
- (2021)[URL]
- "Kyodo News" (2019)[URL]
- "More Than Words: Apologies as a Form of Reparation" (2015)[URL]
- "(Lead) Former Korean ‘Comfort Women’ Criticize Korea-Japan Deal, Demand Abe’s Apology" (2016)[URL]
- "Japan Lambasted by Former “Comfort Women,” Official Apology Demanded from Abe" (2016)[URL]
- "Apology Isn’t Justice for Korea’s Comfort Women" (2015)[URL]
- "News-Press Cartoon: Sorry and Shut up" (2016)[URL]
- "Japan’s Apology to South Korea Shows What Public Apologies Should (Not) Do" (2016)[URL]
- "‘Comfort Women’ File Petition to Nullify Korea-Japan Accord" (2016)[URL]
- "Ten Former Comfort Women Petition UN over Dec. 28 South Korea-Japan Settlement" (2016)[URL]
- "Unhappiness with SK-Japan Comfort Women Settlement Sparks Private Donations" (2016)[URL]
- "List of Issues in Relation to the Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of Japan, Addendum: Replies of Japan to the List of Issues, para. 50, CEDAW/C/JPN/Q/7-8/Add.1" (2016)[URL]
- "On the Issue of “Comfort women,”" (1993)[URL]
- "The Ever-Shifting Sands of Japanese Apologies" (2016)[URL]
- Concluding Observations on the Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of Japan, "UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women", ~, pp.CEDAW (2016), C[DOI]
- "Japan-South Korea ‘Comfort Women’ Deal Faces Backlash in Seoul" (2016)[URL]
- "UN Rapporteur Speaks out Against Comfort Women Descriptions in Japanese Textbooks" (2016)[URL]
- "The Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan"[URL]
- "Japan’s Apologies on ‘Comfort Women’ Not Enough" (2016)[URL]
- "Statement by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to the Human Rights Council’s 31st Session" (2016)[URL]
- "Statement by the Spokesperson on the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Regarding the Treatment of “Comfort Women” During WWII" (2015)[URL]
- "UN Chief Welcomes Agreement between Japan and Republic of Korea on ‘Comfort Women’" (2015)[URL]
- "Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’ Offers Strategic Benefit to U.S. in Asia-Pacific" (2016)[URL]
- "Korean Comfort Women Agreement is a Triumph for Japan and the US" (2015)[URL]
- "America’s Favorite War Criminal: Kishi Nobusuke and the Transformation of U.S.-Japan Relations"[URL]
- "Far from Yasukuni, Cemetery Honors Criminals" (2013)[URL]
- "Butterfly Effect" (2009)[URL]
- "Students Guarding Comfort Women Statue Endure a Cold Watch" (2016)[URL]
- "Can Japan and Korea ‘Resolve’ the Question of Japan’s Korean Sex Slaves during WWII?" (2016)[URL]
- "South Korea Decides to Dismantle ‘Comfort Women’Reconciliation and Healing Foundation" (2018)[URL]
- "South Korea Formally Closes Japan-Funded ‘Comfort Women’ Foundation" (2019)[URL]
- "Japan and South Korea Clash at WTO over Trade Row" (2019)[URL]
- "Japan Removes South Korea from Trade ‘Whitelist,’" (2019)[URL]
- "South Korea and Japan Trade Dispute Could Lead to ‘Dire Consequences,’Official Warns" (2019)[URL]
- "The Japan-South Korea Trade Dispute: What to Know" (2019)[URL]