The following is from the editorial of today's Sankei Shimbun titled ‘Government of Japan must strongly appeal the unfairness of Korea’.
Drafting worker complaint to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
We should not allow unfair decisions and disadvantage to Japanese companies.
The government should widely inform the international community of Japan's position on this issue.
The action to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the valid means.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide said in a matter that the Supreme Court of Korea issued a final decision to order compensation for Japanese companies in a lawsuit over former Korean drafting worker, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide said, ‘Resolve resolutions with all options in mind, including international tribunals we will take it.’
In principle, the consent of the parties to the dispute is necessary to open a case in ICJ, but if it is not possible to obtain consent by independently filing it, there is an obligation to explain the reasons for disagreement to the parties concerned.
Although South Korea does not respond to Japan's independent complaint, it can strongly appeal the legitimacy of the Japanese side and the abnormality of the Korean side judgment over the reason of disagreement.
The emotional theory such as ‘Anti-Japanese innocence’ does not apply in the case of international courts.
The drafting worker problem is ‘completely and ultimately settled’ in 1965's Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea, which ordered Japanese companies to pay compensation, is clearly unfair considering international law is there.
Even if individual claim rights arise, the Korean government is eligible for compensation.
This was also acknowledged by the government opinion announced in 2005 by President Roh Moo - hyun government, at that time, President Moon Jae - in served as the civil affairs secretary for judicial work.
It is inexplicable that Mr. Moon, who should have a deep understanding of the purpose of the agreement, keeps silent about this issue after the decision.
The Korean government said that ‘Respect judicial judgment’, but President has the appointment of Secretary of Supreme Court of South Korea.
In September last year, the secretary who made the ruling this time was selected by Mr. Moon.
'The independence of the judiciary' does not become an excuse.
The Japanese government has proposed a joint complaint against ICJ over Takeshima illegal occupation over three times in 1954, 62 years, and 2012.
Neither could get consent and let an independent action, too, go by.
We should take a single case in this case this time.
The content of the complaint will be disseminated to the international community by ICJ 's press release.
It is same for the reason for the Korean side disagreement, too.
The first thing the Japanese government should do is reconfirm the major policy of ‘not compensating’ with the business circle and companies subject to compensation.
On that basis, in diplomatic negotiations, it is to confront the Korean side with ICJ complaint at the same time.