The Asahi Shimbun reported on the 10th, citing a high-ranking official from the Japanese government, that the Japanese government is considering filing a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court of the United Nations, regarding the judgment of compensation for victims of comfort women under the Seoul Central District Act. .
Insisting on’the principle of exemption from sovereignty’ and protesting
Prudence in the “headwind of public opinion” in Japan
There are concerns about economic retaliation in Korea,
The possibility of shaking hands in the Japanese economy
The reason that ICJ complaints emerged as an influential solution is because there is a precedent. The grounds for the Japanese government’s opposition to the Korean court ruling is the principle of “exemption from sovereignty” (state exemption) under customary international law that “a court of one country cannot judge another country as a party to lawsuit”. The Japanese government argues that it violates this principle that the Korean court ruled in compensation to the Japanese government. On the other hand, the Seoul Central District Law decided that the sovereignty exemption could not be applied because the damages of comfort women, which are crimes against humanity systematically committed by the state, violated the’enforced norms’ that are higher in international laws.
In 2004, the Italian Supreme Court ruled the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the German government by Ruiki Ferini, who was forced to work in Germany during World War II, based on the same logic as the Korean court. It is a so-called’perini case’ that acknowledges that the German government is responsible for compensation. Later, the German government sued the ICJ for violating the principle of exemption from sovereignty, and the ICJ finally gave Germany a hand.
However, even if Japan sues this matter to the ICJ, if the Korean government does not respond, the lawsuit itself will not be established. Korea is not accepting the ICJ’s’mandatory (mandatory) jurisdiction’, which unconditionally accepts a lawsuit against the ICJ by the other country. Japan accepted compulsory jurisdiction in 1958.
There is also a prudence on the ICJ complaint. The Yomiuri Shimbun said on the 10th, “If you quarrel at the ICJ, you can get a sovereign exemption, but there is a concern that the comfort women issue will emerge as a (international) issue. Former Ambassador Shin Gak-soo said, “The ICJ complaint is a legally possible procedure, but considering the Japanese position surrounding the comfort women issue comprehensively, it is a card that is very unrealistic.” “There is no incentive to attract a useless attention,” he analyzed.
The fact that it is difficult to promote a plan to sell Japanese assets in Korea and use them as compensation is another factor that reduces the incentive to file a complaint with the ICJ. According to the Vienna Convention, the land and equipment of Japanese embassy and consulate-general in Korea are exempted from enforcement. Jin Chang-soo, senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute, said, “It is practically impossible to seize or sell the assets of the Japanese government, which is not an asset of an individual or private company.” “Even if it is possible, there is concern about Japanese retaliation when selling assets. There is also a diplomatic risk that seems to be unreasonable from the perspective of other countries.”
There is also the possibility that Japan will engage in economic retaliation, as when the Korean Supreme Court ruled in compensation for compulsory conscription in 2018. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s approval rating plummeted in four months after taking office, and it is possible to use a retaliation card against Korea to gather supporters. However, it could be another handshake if Japan’s economy has collapsed due to Corona 19, and retaliation against Korea puts a burden on the Japanese economy.
Tokyo = correspondent Lee Young-hee, reporter Jeong Jin-woo [email protected]