식민지책임판결과 한일협정체제의 국제법적 검토 = A Review of Court Decisions on Japan’s Colonial Responsibility and the Korea-Japan Treaty in 1965 from the Perspective of International Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

On August 30, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Korea made a decision on the constitutional petition filed by Korean “comfort women” for the Japanese military and Korean survivors of nuclear bombing in during World War II. The Court held that the Korean government’s non-performance of its obligation to work proactively on diplomatic negotiation or arbitration under Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (“Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty”) was unconstitutional. On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the original ruling that recognized the effect of a Japanese court decision running against the core values of the Korean Constitution (i.e. forcible mobilization of Korean men and women during the colonial period viewed as a lawful act). These were historic decisions clearly reiterating that the victims’ rights to compensation―for illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule―were not part of what was agreed on under the Basic Relations Treaty.
In this paper, we discuss the limitations of and problems with lawsuits for “postwar compensation” filed in Japan, including the multiple “obstacles” of Japan’s failure to acknowledge the truth, the amount of time passed since those atrocities were committed, the lack of response or solution from the state, and political restraints. We then examine the 2010 Joint Statement from Korean and Japanese intellectuals who declared the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty “already null and void,” followed by the ideological shift of the international community from nationalistic philosophy to human rights-centric thinking, and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which proclaimed cleansing the legacy of colonialism to be a historic mission.
These rulings on Japan’s “colonial responsibility” have been denounced by the Japanese government, businesses and media as “politicized,” claiming that such responsibility was already fulfilled once and for all by the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. More recently, a lengthy register of colonial victims was found in the Korean Embassy to Japan. With this respect, Ihara Junichi, director general of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau at Japan’s Foreign Ministry, claimed the claims of the United States and other Allied powers was resolved with the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty; as for Korea which it did not fight a war against, he asserted that the Basic Relations Treaty, which was allegedly made to handle issues with the country’s “colonial rule,” put an end to its colonial responsibility.
The Korean court decisions call for Japan’s compensation for its colonial injustices, or “illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule,” while the Japanese government argues, “The Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, signed as a separate postwar agreement on Japanese colonial rule, waived all the relevant rights to compensation.” In other words, the Japanese government claims that Korean courts made unfair and politicized decisions going against what was agreed upon between the two countries when individual victims’ rights to compensation for forced labor and other damages caused by Japanese colonial rule had already been addressed with the Basic Relations Treaty.
It is on this basis that this paper that this paper reexamines the decisions on “colonial responsibility” as well as the arguments of its advocates and opponents. The Japanese government has had the normative recognition that, as the forced annexation of Korea and Japan in 1910 was made by the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty which was legal under the international laws of the time, Japan’s forcible occupation of Korea and subsequent colonial rule made on this basis were also legitimate. It has denied its responsibility to compensate for illegalities against humanity involving its state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule; it has also been consistent in claiming that the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty brought these issues to a complete end.
Then comes the question: Was the Basic Relations Treaty actually intended to address issues with Japan’s “colonial rule,” as argued by Ihara Junichi? To answer this question, this paper empirically reviews the proceedings of the Japanese Diet from the conclusion of the Treaty in 1965 through the country’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995.
In the meeting of the Special Committee on Treaties and Agreements between Japan and the Republic of Korea on November 5, 1965, then-Prime Minister Sato said the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty was lawfully concluded; Foreign Minister Shiina also stated that, with the conclusion of the 1965 Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, the diplomatic protection of the two countries was waived while the compensation rights of individuals remained. On August 15, 1995, Prime Minister Murayama expressed his apology for Japan’s colonial rule and aggression. In the general session of the Upper House on October 5, however, he claimed the 1910 Annexation Treaty was entered into in a legally effective manner. In the meeting of the Upper House Budgetary Committee on August 27, Foreign Minister Yanai Shunji responded to a question by saying individual rights to compensation existed.
Furthermore, the proceedings of the Japanese Diet―from the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 1965 through Japan’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995―hint that Japanese government officials have been unaware of the country’s standing as the assailant and thus have not recognized its “colonial responsibility.” Until former “comfort women” filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2000, they provided fairly consistent answers that diplomatic protection was “waived only partially.” In other words, they believed the Japanese government could not override individual rights to compensation.
Against this backdrop, it would be fair to say that the Restitution claims to the government of Japan, prepared in September 1949 in regards to the reality of “colonial responsibility” that should have been incorporated into the Basic Relations Treaty, represented a rational demand for legitimate rights to recover colonial sacrifices―rather than a retaliation for penalizing Japan. With only one tenth of forced laborers reporting to the United States Army Military Government, the amount of compensation for damages and sacrifices caused by the forcible annexation of Japan and Korea and the subsequent Japanese colonial rule was estimated at 31.4 billion yen, or two billion dollars at the exchange rate of the times, which is comparable with the Economic Cooperation Fund of 1965.
Japan’s colonial responsibility specified in the Restitution claims to the government of Japan was left unaddressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty as the Japanese government had no intention to fulfill such responsibility. Taking advantage of the United States’ Cold War strategy in East Asia, it believed its colonial rule over Korea was justifiable, viewing it as a “dispensation” for Koreans which helped modernize them. Focusing on “property” and “claims” as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the negotiations between Korea and Japan on postwar claims did not specify Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule. This, paradoxically, left “colonial responsibility” as an issue unresolved and to be therefore addressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty.
In other words, the victims’ rights to compensation for illegalities against humanity involving the country’s state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule could hardly be seen as subject to the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. Since the conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty, the Japanese government had consistently claimed that individual claims under the Treaty continued to exist. In 2000, however, its stance changed following a lawsuit filed in the United States by former “comfort women” for the Japanese troops, and Japanese courts have since made “politicized decisions” on this basis. Ihara Junichi’s claim that the Treaty was made to resolve the issue of Japan’s “colonial responsibility” mirrors the Japanese government’s stance.
Released in 2010 as the centennial of forcible annexation between Korea and Japan, the Joint Statement of intellectuals from the two countries is the East Asian version of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Getting the regional history right, it suggests, will lay the foundation for seeking a genuine process of historical reconciliation. Going beyond “negative peace” as a basic element of international laws premising an apology and compensation for colonial rule and war of aggression, we should now go for “positive peace” in which human dignity and rights are respected as universal values. This will make sure that another 50 years following the 50th anniversary of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 2015 serves as the starting point for working hand in hand to bring a East Asian peace community into reality.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 "헌재 2011.8.30 선고, 2006헌마788 결정"
• 2 이장희, "한일협정체제와 ‘식민지’책임의 재조명" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 3 도시환, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅱ- 한일협정체제와 식민지책임의 재조명" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 4 나가하라 요코, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅱ" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 5 김창록, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅱ" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 6 도시환, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅰ- 한일협정의 국제법적 문제점에 대한 재조명" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 7 도시환, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅰ- 한일협정의 국제법적 문제점에 대한 재조명" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 8 이장희, "한일협정 50년사의 재조명 Ⅰ" 동북아역사재단 2012
• 9 이근관, "한일청구권협정상 강제징용배상청구권 처리에 대한 국제법적 검토" 법학연구소 54 (54): 327-391, 2013
• 10 도시환, "한일청구권협정 관련 대법원 판결의 국제법적 평가" 한국국제사법학회 19 (19): 27-63, 2013
• 11 도시환, "한일조약체제와 ｢식민지｣책임의 국제법적 재조명" 대한국제법학회 57 (57): 17-45, 2012
• 12 나가쓰카 아키라, "한일역사문제의 핵심을 어떻게 풀 것인가?" 지식산업사 2013
• 13 도시환, "한일강제병합 100년의 역사와 과제" 동북아역사재단 2013
• 14 이장희, "한일간의 국제법적 현안문제" 아시아사회과학연구원 1998
• 15 최태현, "한일간 역사현안의 국제법적 재조명" 동북아역사재단 2009
• 16 이장희, "한일 역사문제의 핵심을 어떻게 풀 것인가?" 지식산업사 2013
• 17 박배근, "일제강제징용 피해자의 법적 구제에 관한 국제법적 쟁점과 향후 전망 - 2012년 대법원 판결을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 30 (30): 47-73, 2013
• 18 "일제 징용피해자 명부⋅자료 대거 발견 “아직안 알려진 의미 있는 내용도 포함"
• 19 이원덕, "일본의 전후 배상외교에 관한 고찰 - 국제 비교의 관점 -" 동북아역사재단 (22) : 5-36, 2008
• 20 이종원, "일본의 전쟁⋅식민지 지배 인식과 전후보상 정책의 재검토" 2013
• 21 아사노 겐이치, "일본[동일본 대지진 2년]‘일본 대학⋅언론 비판기능 상실… 1920년대보다 민주주의 후퇴’"
• 22 아다치 슈이치, "일본 최고재판소 판결의 한계의 문제점 검토" 2013
• 23 도시환, "일본 아베 정권의 역사인식과 한일관계" 동북아역사재단 2013
• 24 이근관, "외교문제에 대한 사법자제의 원리― 비교법적 고찰 ―" 서울국제법연구원 20 (20): 25-71, 2013
• 25 도시환, "역사적 전환의 조류 속에 있는 동북아, 역사화해의 큰 틀을 모색해야"
• 26 도시환, "식민지배 합법화 일본판결 효력 우리헌법상 승인 불가’ 대법원 강제징용피해배상판결, 역사의 정의 향한 물꼬 터"
• 27 "서울고등법원 2013.7.10 선고, 2012나44947 판결"
• 28 "서울고등법원 2009.7.16. 선고 2008나49129 판결"
• 29 "비핵공동체’ 전제돼야 ‘동아시아 공동체’ 가능"
• 30 "부산고등법원 2013.7.30 선고, 2012나4497 판결"
• 31 "부산고등법원 2009.2.3. 선고 2007나4288 판결"
• 32 "대법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2009다68620 판결"
• 33 "대법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2009다22549 판결"
• 34 이성덕, "강행규범과 국가면제: 2012년 ICJ 관할권 면제 사건을 중심으로" 중앙법학회 14 (14): 205-248, 2012
• 35 이동진, "강제징용배상책임의 성립 여부와 그 범위에 관한 몇 가지 문제" 법학연구소 54 (54): 471-506, 2013
• 36 석광현, "강제징용배상에 관한 일본판결의 승인 가부" 한국국제사법학회 19 (19): 103-155, 2013
• 37 석광현, "강제징용배상 및 임금 청구의 준거법" 법학연구소 54 (54): 283-325, 2013
• 38 "韓国司法に世論の風圧戦時徴用⋅慰安婦…融和の壁"
• 39 海野福寿, "韓国併合史の硏究" 岩波書店 2000
• 40 海野福寿, "韓国併合の歴史認識―李教授｢韓国併合不成立論｣を再検討する" (666) : 1999
• 41 "衆議院 日韓特別委員會議錄 第5號"
• 42 "衆議院 日韓特別委員會議錄 第10號"
• 43 "英 이어 네덜란드도 과거사 사죄"
• 44 "美 ‘日 집단적 자위권’ 손 들어주다"
• 45 "第50回 國會 衆議院 日本國と大韓民國との間の條約及び協定等に關する特別委員會議錄 第10號"
• 46 "第50回 國會 參議院 日本國と大韓民國との間の條約及び協定等に關する特別委員會議錄 第9號"
• 47 "第134回 國會參議院會議錄 第四號"
• 48 "第121回 國會參議院豫算委員會會議錄 第三號"
• 49 高橋哲哉, "東北亞の歷史和解と平和構築の課題 (国際学術会議資料集)" 2013
• 50 村山富市, "村山談話とは何か" 角川文庫 2009
• 51 田中宏, "未解決の戰後補償－問われる日本の過去と未來" 創史社 2012
• 52 鹿島平和硏究所, "日本外交史 28" 鹿島平和硏究所出版會 1973
• 53 外務省賠償部, "日本の賠償" 世界ジャーナル社 1963
• 54 小林英夫, "日本の東南アジア賠償" 日本戰爭責任資料センター (10) : 1995
• 55 도시환, "日, 국제사회에 위안부 문제 화답해야"
• 56 金民樹, "對日講和條約と韓國參加問題" 東京大學大學 2000
• 57 橫路節雄, "封じられわたしの日韓質問"
• 58 金大淳, "外交保護의 諸爭點 -2006년 ILC 外交保護草案을 중심으로-" 법학연구소 48 (48): 203-224, 2007
• 59 太田修, "國際共同研究韓國倂合と現代－歷史と国際法からの再檢討" 明石書店 2008
• 60 都時煥, "国研 際共同 究 韓国強制併合100年の歴史と課題" 明石書店 2013
• 61 浅羽祐樹, "反日｣化する韓国司法― なぜ ｢解決 済み｣の問題が蒸し返されるのか"
• 62 大口昭彦, "判決⋅ホットレポート 戦後補償問題に関する注目すべき韓国司法の動向と意義" (8⋅9) : 2013
• 63 中川敏宏, "判例研究 韓国大法院⋅旧三菱戦後補償請求事件判決[大法院2012.5.24]" (8) : 2013
• 64 太田修, "もはや”日韓請求権協定で解決済み “ではすまされない : 朝鮮人強制動員被害者への戦後補償をめぐって" 2013
• 65 Hwang Geum Joo, "v. Japan, 546 U.S. 1208, 126 S.Ct. 1418"
• 66 Hwang Geum Joo, "v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45(C.A.D.C.,2005)"
• 67 Hwang Geum Joo, "v. Japan, 332 F.3d 679(C.A.D.C.,2003)"
• 68 Hwang Geum Joo, "v. Japan, 172F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2001)"
• 69 "UK to compensate Kenya’s Mau Mau torture victims"
• 70 "THE TREATY ON FRIENDSHIP, PARTNERSHIP AND COOPERATION BETWEEN ITALY AND LIBYA"
• 71 Daniel Sneider, "A dangerous stalemate between Japan and South Korea"
• 72 "60년만에… 英, 케냐 식민지배 가혹행위 사과"
• 73 "3⋅1운동, 간토대지진 피살자 배상 안 돼"
• 74 이장희, "1910년 한일병합조약의 역사적⋅국제법적 재조명" 아시아사회과학연구원 2011
• 75 도시환, "1910년 ‘한일병합조약’ 체결강제의 역사적 진실규명과 국제법적 조명" 대한국제법학회 55 (55): 13-47, 2010