official blog

1965 Agreement Korea Japan

Yet in October 2018, Korea`s Supreme Court issued a surprising ruling that Japanese private companies must compensate workers on the Korean peninsula who were called upon to work for these companies during the Pacific War. The judgment is based on the principle that the 1910 annexation treaty between Japan and Korea was illegal, null and void, in accordance with the Korean Constitution of 1948. While the Korean government strongly supports the Court`s decision, the Japanese government argues that it is not compatible with the 1965 agreement. So who has a legal responsibility to compensate workers who have been mobilized against their will? Since the 1965 agreement was based on the premise that the Korean government would pay $300 million in compensation from Japan, the responsibility lies with the Korean government. Indeed, the Korean government has already compensated the alleged victims of Japan`s annexation of Korea by specific laws. If the victims remain, they can seek compensation from the Korean government. (a) Japanese products and services of the Japanese population, which are free and whose total value in yen will be such that they will amount to three hundred million dollars (US$300,000,000), currently estimated at one hundred and eight billion yen (108,000,000,000 euros) within ten years of the entry into force of this agreement. Deliveries of goods and services each year will be limited to as many yen as the 30 million dollars ($30,000,000) currently calculated at 10 billion yen ($10,800,000,000); if the one-year delivery is less than that amount, the balance is equal to the amount for subsequent and subsequent years. However, the maximum amount of one year can be increased by mutual agreement between the governments of the High Contracting Parties. First, neither Korea nor Japan has any restrictions on the extent of the claims that were settled by the 1965 agreement. While there are some exceptions to Article 2, paragraph 2, it is clear that the rights of alleged victims were not considered exceptions in the 1965 Convention. In accordance with the general principles of international law on treaty interpretation, any interpretation of the 1965 agreement must conclude that these claims have been settled in a complete and definitive manner. In concluding both the 1965 Treaty on Fundamental Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and the 1965 Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea on the settlement of property and receivables and economic cooperation, Korea and Japan clearly agreed that two countries “disagreed” on the legality of the 1910 annexation treaty.

This “rejection agreement” is a very special feature of modern relations between Korea and Japan and excludes that the issue of the 1910 annexation treaty be a priority in the interpretation of the 1965 agreement. The 1965 agreement between Korea and Japan, while not perfect, still contains many achievements that can be viewed positively both by history and by the people of today, Yoo believes. In his 1974 lecture with the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Eisaku Sata explicitly mentioned the basic relations treaty between Japan and South Korea. He stressed that the essential aspects of the expanded negotiations that highlighted the bilateral agreement were “the central idea of equality and mutual benefit and the realistic approach to friendship with close neighbours.” [3] A pragmatic view and an understanding of history are needed to analyze and re-evaluate the 1965 Korea-Japan Agreement, says Yoo.

Comments are closed.

Leave a Reply: