Newsletter

As the 2015 50^th anniversary of the Korea-Japan Treaty draws near, the Northeast Asian History Foundation held an international academic conference August 12^th , re-examining of the problems of the Korea-Japan Treaty in 1965 from the perspective of international law, to define the root of the historic conflict between Korea and Japan, and discuss the solutions to the consequential problems.

During the past few years, the Foundation has led many academic conferences and international joint research efforts regarding Japan's forced annexation of Korea. As part of these efforts, the Foundation hosted an international academic forum on "The validity of Japan's annexation of Korea from the perspective of international law" in 2009, to discuss and define whether the annexation is invalid and illegal. In August 2010 the Foundation successfully hosted a large 3 day international conference on "the history and challenges of the 1910 Forced annexation of Korea. These academic forums serve as an opportunity to raise awareness of the historic responsibilities of our generation, examining the fundamental root of the historic conflict between Korea and Japan, and discuss its solution. The conferences also aim to create a consensus about 'historic justice' by setting the record straight on history.

Overcoming historic antagonism and finding a way to reconcile, from the perspective of international law

As the 65^th anniversary of Korea's Independence Day approaches, 214 members of the intelligentsia from both countries in May 10, 2010 and 1,118 members in July 28, have jointly declared "the treaty as fundamentally void" in light of reviewing the centennial history of the 'Korea-Japan forced annexation from the stand point of historic justice.

However despite these declarations the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan released a statement on August 10 saying "Although the annexation was forced against the will of the Korean people, the annexation itself is valid", implying that the 1910 treaty was in line with international law.

The Japanese government's sense of legitimacy regarding the 1910 annexation is reflected in the 1965 Korea-Japan treaty, and remains an unresolved challenge but one that must be solved to build a new relationship between Korea and Japan.

The conference opened with an opening speech from the secretary general Mr. KimYongso, and a congratulatory message from Mr. Choi Taehyun, President of the Korean Society of International Law. It was followed by Professor Lee Janghie's (HUFS) key address on "Hundred years of annexation and half a century of the treaty" in which he proclaimed that we must realize peace in East Asia based on the complete ending of colonialism and historic reconciliation.

The conference opened with an opening speech from the secretary general Mr. KimYongso, and a congratulatory message from Mr. Choi Taehyeong, President of the Korean Society of International Law. It was followed by Professor Lee Janghee's (HUFS) key address on "Hundred years of annexation and half a century of the treaty" in which he proclaimed that we must realize peace in East Asia based on the complete ending of colonialism and historic reconciliation.

Professor Park Paekeun (Pusan National University) emphasized in his presentation on "A legal review on the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and Korea" that the treaty does not meet the requirements of a true 'Treaty on Basic Relations' because there was no reference to an assessment or expression of attitude toward past historic events, he further stressed the importance of 'peacefully changing the treaty'; changing the translation or revising article 2 of the treaty, which refers to the validity of the forced annexation by informing and educating the public of this illegality through all media. Professor Kim Changrok (Kyungpook National University) a member of the designated panel pointed out that the reason Korea and Japan have been unable to achieve historic reconciliation is the Japanese government repeatedly admits that has an ethical responsibility, but not a legal one.

Professor Kim Boochan (Jeju National University) pointed out in his presentation on "the significance and issues of the agreement regarding legal status of ethnic Koreans living in Japan according to international law" that even after the agreement came into effect the legal status of Koreans residing in Japan is still uncertain and they receive discriminative treatment, and that this has been the trigger for many diplomatic disputes. He further stated the need for aggressive review of the 1991 Memorandum of agreement through the official revision of the 1965 agreement regarding legal status. Professor Kang Pyoungkeun (Korea University) member of the designated discussion panel said the treatment of ethnic Koreans residing in Japan is ultimately a legal and political issue in Japan, ensuring the political rights of ethnic Koreans will be an opportunity for the Japanese society to become more "democratic".

Though my presentation on "A re-examination of the Korea Japan agreement of right to claims based on international law" I pointed out that the agreement misrepresented the claims compensation as "Economic cooperation funds" or "Congratulatory funds for independence" and ignored the issues of reconciliation for illegal occupancy based on forced annexation treaty and Japanese colonial rule. My presentation also highlighted the contents of the 'draft of diplomatic protection' revised at the 2006 UN International Law Committee's 58^th plenary session, regarding individual claims, that the interest of the individual must not be sacrificed for friendly relations between countries. Professor Choi Cheolyoung (Daegu University), a member of the designated discussion panel commented that the Korea Japan treaty should be organized into three categories, 'the 1910 system' 'the 1965 system' and 'future compensation system' to resolve the redemption issues such as the 'comfort women' which were not discussed at the negotiations of the claims agreement.

In his presentation on "the 1965 Korea Japan agreement to return cultural assets and recovering illegally seized Korean cultural assets", Jhe Seongho (Chung-Ang University) pointed out that the agreement was not sufficient to correct the remnants of the illegal acts which took place during colonial rule and retrieve the cultural assets. Professor Noh Yeongdon (Incheon University) member of the designated discussion panel commented that the agreement was not adequate to recover additional cultural assets, and that recent international law should be used as grounds to retrieving pillaged cultural assets.

Professor Lee Jongwon (Rikkyo University) in his presentation on "the Korea Japan agreement and future tasks" said the fundamental limitation of the agreement lies in its structure of removing 'historic logic' based on the logic of 'the cold war and economy' and to narrow the difference in our attitudes toward history the issues created by political compromise must be resolved and in addition Japan's diplomatic relation with North Korea must also be discussed. Dr. Chang Bakjin (Kookmin University, Institute of Japanese Studies) member of the designated discussion panel said the basic relations treaty cannot be proclaimed as completely void because of the issue of North Korea Japan diplomatic relations.

Japan must fundamentally unravel historic conflict with historic justice

As we approach the 50^th anniversary of the Korea Japan agreement, we try to correct historic wrongs and to reconcile with history. The Japanese government must realize that denying the historic wrongs of the past colonial rule is denying historic justice and peace. The Japanese government must participate with the region in creating a peaceful and prosperous East Asia in the 21^th century, by fundamentally unraveling historic conflict with historic justice. If the centennial of Japans forced annexation of Korea could be described as the starting year of 'realizing historic justice', I hope today, as we draw near the 2015 50^th anniversary of the Korea Japan agreement, it can be described as the first step towards 'true establishment of historic reconciliation'.