Top court`s rejection of petition on 1965 Korea-Japan claims deal reflects reality

Top court`s rejection of petition on 1965 Korea-Japan claims deal reflects reality. December. 24, 2015 07:58. .

The Constitutional Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition on the constitutionality of the 1965 deal that Japan claims settled all issues of individual compensation to victims of forced labor during Japan`s colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century. The top court`s dismissal is based on a judgment that the petition failed to meet the requirements of a constitutional suit and is thus not subject to its decision on the constitutionality of the deal. The rejection leaves the effects of the 1965 claims agreement intact. Had the Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional, the decision would have created an enormous diplomatic turmoil that would undermine the bilateral relationship.

The plaintiff, a daughter of a Korean victim of Japan`s wartime forced labor, filed the constitutional complaint together with an administrative lawsuit in 2009, when the South Korean government decided to pay her 11.7 million won (9,954 U.S. dollars) in compensation under a 2007 law on wartime forced labor victims. She claimed that the 1965 agreement restricted individuals` damages claims against the Japanese government and corporations, violating the anti-overrestriction principle specified in the Constitution. However, the top court decided that it was not necessary to deliberate on the suit because the constitutionality of the claims agreement would not affect the result of her administrative lawsuit. The Constitutional Court seems to have found a brilliant way to avoid the issue, as a decision of the deal`s constitutionality or unconstitutionality would have caused an enormous turmoil.

Unlike the issue of "comfort women," or World War II sex slaves for the Japanese military, the forced labor issue is explicitly included in the Seoul-Tokyo claims agreement. The Japanese government and judiciary adhere to their position that claims between the two countries have been settled "completely and finally." In damages lawsuits filed by Korean forced labor victims, Japanese courts have consistently ruled against the plaintiffs. The South Korean government also views that the compensation issue has been completely settled by the claims agreement. Complicating the situation, however, South Korea`s Supreme Court made a ruling in 2012 that recognized individuals` right to seek damages from Japanese corporations, and Japan protested the decision.

International agreements such as the Seoul-Tokyo claims agreement have the same effects as domestic law. South Korea`s Foreign Minister Yoon Byung-se had such a situation in mind when he said during a forum with television journalists before the Constitutional Court`s ruling: "We have come past a situation in which the impact of a domestic court ruling is limited within the country." Despite a recent trend of treating state compensations and individual ones separately, we view that the Constitutional Court`s decision reflects the possibility that a court`s reversal of an international agreement could have adverse impacts on national interest.