[ad_1]
Attorney Kim Gang-won, legal representative of the lawsuit of the comfort women victim’s grandmother, answered the journalist’s question after the first trial of 12 comfort women victims, including the late grandmother Bae Chun-hee , filed against the Japanese government on the 8th in the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. I am responding. News 1
The first ruling by a Korean court was that the Japanese government should compensate the victims of the comfort women ‘s grandmothers. In the case of crimes against humanity, it is also the first ruling of our judiciary in the sense that the theory of state immunity (sovereignty) should not be applied, which establishes that “the courts of a country cannot judge the actions of another country “.
The 34th Civil Settlement Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Director Jeong-Gon Kim) ruled in a lawsuit against Japan for 12 victims of comfort women, including the late Chun-hee Bae, in a lawsuit for damages against Japan, saying, “Please pay 100 million won per applicant.” did. As the Japanese government hinted that it would not appeal, saying, “Korean court jurisdiction cannot be recognized,” it is highly likely that this ruling will be finalized after the appeal deadline (within two weeks after the notification of failure).
The court’s ruling on this day is significant because our court recognized the responsibility of the Japanese government for the first time. Although the claim for damages brought by forced labor victims against Japanese companies was confirmed in 2018 by the Supreme Court as plaintiff, this ruling is different in that it held the Japanese government, not the company, responsible.
The biggest problem is whether the sovereignty exemption applies …
Bust of the late Chun-hee Bae and the grandmothers who died at the House of Sharing in Toechon-myeon, Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do. News 1
The biggest problem was whether to apply the sovereign exemption theory. Although there was a precedent in 1997 that the Supreme Court said: “If the state is party to a contract (private economic entity), the theory of sovereign exemption does not apply.” As in the case of comfort women, the judicial jurisdiction over ‘acts in which other countries exercised sovereignty’ There was no precedent to judge. That is why it was difficult to predict the outcome of this lawsuit.
Furthermore, the sovereign exemption theory is a matter of strong pros and cons even abroad. Representatively, the sentences were mixed in the Italian ‘Perrini’ case. In 2004, the Italian Supreme Court recognized the jurisdiction of the Italian court in a claim for damages against the German government by Ferini, a citizen of his country, who was brought to Germany during World War II and forced to work, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The reason was that “the sovereign exemption should not apply to criminal acts of the State that violate the universal principle (imposed norm) that everyone must follow common sense.”
However, in 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) raised the hand of Germany and said that “Italy has violated international law” in the opinion of 12 to 3 judges. But two years later, the sentence was again overturned by the Italian Constitutional Court. The Italian Constitution decided that “if the sovereignty exemption is applied to serious human rights violations, it violates the right of the victims to request a trial and is therefore unconstitutional.” Sovereign immunity is a matter of choosing between “custom” and “universal value of humanity.”
‘Human rights’ election law … “Exemption from sovereignty, not for evading national compensation”
The statue of justice in front of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Hankook Ilbo Data Photo
And the Korean court’s decision that day chose the universal value of “human rights.” The judge noted that “the theory of sovereign immunity was not formed to give the State the opportunity to avoid compensation and compensation.” He added: “If the theory of sovereign immunity is applied to acts against human rights, it is impossible to sanction acts that violate many international conventions that have prohibited them.”
In particular, the court emphasized that the application of the theory of sovereign immunity in the case of comfort women “will result in the victims being unable to adequately remedy their rights.” Meanwhile, the courts in Japan or the United States dismissed or dismissed all civil lawsuits filed by the comfort women victims. “The plaintiffs, who are just people who don’t have the bargaining power or the political power, have no way to compensate for specific damages other than this case. He’s an agent. “
Reconfirmation of the right to claim manual compensation of the elderly victims of comfort women
Yoon Byung-se (right), the then Foreign Minister for Foreign Affairs and Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida shake hands at a meeting of foreign ministers between Korea and Japan held at the Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Doryeum-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul on December 28, 2015. Joint Photo Reporter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Notably, the court admitted that the elderly victims of comfort women had the right to demand compensation from the Japanese government. The Justice Department clearly nailed: “The plaintiff’s right to claim damages is not subject to the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement in 1965 or the Comfort Women Settlement in 2015.”
Regarding the 1965 agreement, in August 2005, the Roh Moo-hyun administration at the time of the joint public-private committee stated that “the three things were not included in the agreement: comfort women in the Japanese army, Korean on Sakhalin and the issue of the victims of the atomic bomb. ” In 2015, the governments of Korea and Japan agreed to “definitively and irreversibly close the issue of comfort women,” but the 2019 Constitutional Constitution did not recognize its effectiveness, saying: “It is only a political agreement.
In the end, it can be seen that the core of this judgment is that it has recognized both the jurisdiction of the Korean court and the claims of the victims in relation to the issue of comfort women. After mentioning the ongoing assault at the time of the mobilization of the comfort women, the resulting injuries and the mental injuries after the end of the Second World War, the court said: “This act is an illegal act against humanity and the child support to be paid by the defendant is “100 million won or more.” So spring is appropriate. “
Jooyoung yoon reporter [email protected]
Choi Na-sil reporter [email protected]
You can also watch the Naver Et news edited by Hankook Ilbo.
Issues that may interest you
[ad_2]
