Newsletter

On January 25, 2018, the National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty opened at Hibiya Park in central Tokyo, Japan. With the purpose of "enhancing people's understanding of Japan's territory," the museum displays material that supports the Japanese government's territorial claim over the Korean island Dokdo. The museum seems to be part of Japan's increasingly blatant moves involving territorial sovereignty, which is why this month's interview seeks advice on how Korea should respond from Professor Sung Jae-ho of Sungkyunkwan University, a seasoned expert in international law.

Interviewee: Doh See-hwan (Research fellow, NAHF Institute of Dokdo Research)

Sung Jae-ho (Professor, Sungkyunkwan University Law School)

After obtaining his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree in law from Sungkyunkwan University, Professor Sung Jae-ho earned his doctorate in juridical science from Georgetown University in the United States in 1994. He has served as president of the Korean Society of International Law and the International Economic Law Association of Korea as well as an advisor to the Northeast Asian History Foundation, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Korean Ministry of Unification, and the Korean Red Cross' Committee for Humanitarian Law. He is currently a professor at the law school of Sungkyunkwan University and has recently been re-elected as president of the International Law Association's Korean branch. He is author of several publications including "Introduction to International Trade Law," "International Organizations and Law," and "International Economic Law."

Q1. First, congratulations are in order on recently being elected to your second term as president of the International Law Association's Korean branch. Could you please tell us what it was like serving as president for the past two years and share your plans for your second term?

Sung Jae-ho International law is the international society's normative foundation and an important field of study that deals with logical legitimacy instead of the logic of economic, diplomatic, or military power. However, law education in Korea has been abnormally revolved around subjects covered in the bar exam and this is something I've been attempting to correct as president. I've also tried to constantly encourage Korean scholars to broaden their arena of discussion and exchange by inviting prominent scholars from overseas and by publishing the Korean Yearbook of International Law to keep scholars overseas informed about international legal issues related to Korea. Those are the activities I found most fulfilling. It is unfortunate that there are few opportunities to train new talents in studying international law since the field's future remains unpredictable, but I still plan to keep up the work I've been doing.

Q2. As an expert in international law, you've been saying that we live in times where a nation's survival depends on international law instead of guns and knives." Yet, there doesn't seem to be enough recognition so far in Korea on the importance of international law. Why do you think that is?

Sung Jae-hoo Foreigners tend to mention "quickly, quickly" when asked to name a Korean trait, and this seems to apply not only to handling things or ordering food, but to structural matters involving Korea's fate as a country. For instance, when a dispute arises between Koreans in a claim-obligation relationship, the economic value of what is at stake still remains within Korea's domestic economy no matter which side wins the dispute. However, when an issue arises and causes Korea to settle its debt with another country, part of Korean assets gets transferred overseas and ultimately leaves everyone in Korea to deal with the repercussion. Nevertheless, Koreans seem to dismiss such issues as ones that do not immediately concern themselves. The safeguard the United States recently issued toward Korean washing machines may immediately lead to a fall in exports and cause losses for a few Korean companies, but those losses will eventually affect all Koreans. This is why we need to pay more attention to international law and look at issues from a macroscopic viewpoint instead of burying ourselves in short-lived points of contention.

Q3. You also pointed out that Korea has neglected international law education compared to the United States or other advanced countries. How do you think this problem should be solved?

Sung Jae-ho International law equally has an insignificant share in the American bar exam, but most law schools in the United States still offer various courses related to international law whereas in Korea, courses on international law only cover the bare basics. So, although international law is not directly linked to the bar exam, American students nevertheless try to equip themselves with international perspectives and problem-solving skills. As the number of students signing up for courses on international law began to recently drop in the United States, Harvard Law School made its course on international law mandatory in order to encourage students to learn it. Korea needs to take note of such measures and one that may have an immediate effect is to designate international law as a mandatory subject in the Korean bar exam. Creating legal experts ignorant in international law in a country like Korea that heavily relies on its relations with other countries would leave Korea with lawyers only capable of resolving immediate private matters and unconcerned with contributing to national interests. That is why Korea is now in need of governmental as well as social efforts to raise awareness and search for solutions.

Q4. You've been involved in studying and protecting the sovereignty of the Korean island Dokdo through different academic societies for a long time. What related activities have you been participating through the Korean Society of International Law and the International Law Association's Korean branch?

Sung Jae-ho All Koreans take it for granted that Dokdo is inherently Korean territory, but most of them don't exactly realize why the island's sovereignty has become an issue. The Korean government has made considerable efforts to publicize the fact that Dokdo is Korean territory, but such efforts are limited in terms of time, space, and effectiveness. That is why those involved in international law began to actively participate in raising awareness on why the island is legally and historically Korean territory. Because most members of the Korean Society of International Law teach at universities, the society opened the Dokdo Promotion Center in 2013 to more broadly and effectively inform college students about the issues surrounding the island's sovereignty as well as grounds for arguing that it belongs to Korea. The society has also been trying to help foreigners staying in Korea understand why Dokdo is a legitimate part of Korean territory. As for the International Law Association's Korean branch, it has been including articles related to Dokdo in the Korean Yearbook of International Law, so that the legitimacy of Korea's argument may be disseminated to scholars and those working for government agencies or international organizations overseas.

Q5. The Japanese government recently opened the National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty. Do you find this problematic as a scholar of international law and if so, how do you think the Korean government and academia should respond to such a move?

Sung Jae-ho A myriad of very complex, sensitive factors are involved in the relationship between Korea and Japan. As a result, the matter of Dokdo is entwined with the historical, social, cultural relations between the two countries that have been interconnected for a very long time. Of course, the sovereignty of Dokdo lies with the Republic of Korea. So, it practically and legally makes no sense for Japan to describe Dokdo as Japanese territory in its textbooks or the Diplomatic Bluebook. It's like claiming ownership over a neighbor's land after creeping in while the neighbor is going through a hard time. Nevertheless, Japan has not stopped making provocative moves. The museum at Hibiya Park only presents peripheral arguments made by Japan. Those arguments can be legally countered to any degree, but the problem is that such moves by the Japanese government will continue to spread the idea that Dokdo is Japanese territory among people in Japan and worsen the emotional rift between the two countries, making the Japanese develop an understanding based on a distorted perception of history. This is why I think we need to invest more diplomatic effort in stopping the Japanese government from implanting its distorted views in civilians and simultaneously encourage civic engagement in informing accurate facts about the issue to people in Japan.

Q6. You once made a legal argument that the 1910 Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty is invalid based on the law of treaties, so how do you think we should regard the effectiveness of a forcibly concluded treaty?

Sung Jae-ho Not only is there an insufficiency in suggesting international custom as evidence according to positive law, I cannot help also highlighting the fundamental, logical contradiction in the Empire of Korea engaging in the diplomatic act of entering into a treaty when it has been stripped of its diplomatic rights due to the 1905 Protectorate Treaty with Japan. First, it is contradictory to agree that the free will of each party is a requisite to entering a treaty yet argue that a treaty entered by force is valid. Second, unlike peace treaties as a postwar settlement upon the end of a war enforced upon individual countries and cannot be nullified, we must not overlook the fact that the 1905 Protectorate Treaty was not a peace treaty to end war. Third, failing to present evidence based on practical law according to the early twentieth century mentality of legal positivism is nothing but an error on the part of scholars back then who dragged the one-sided argument of powerful countries into legal territory at a time when absolutism was dominant.

Q7. The International Law Association's Korean branch has been jointly hosting academic conferences with the Northeast Asian History Foundation to discuss the one hundred years after Japan's forced annexation of Korea and the fifty years after the 1965 Korea-Japan Treaty. Reviewing Japan's arguments for the legitimacy of colonial rule and the finality of the 1965 treaty through the conference has been instrumental in the Korean constitutional court's 2011 ruling that declared the Korean government's inaction as unconstitutional and in the Korean supreme court's 2012 ruling that ordered Japanese firms to provide compensation to Koreans forced to work for them during Japan's occupation of Korea. Could you please share your thoughts on relieving Korean victims of Japanese colonial rule?

Sung Jae-ho Relieving victims of Japanese colonial rule is an issue as complicated as the entangled histories of Korea and Japan. It is therefore important to clearly, legally settle the issue for the sake of developing a good neighborly relationship between Korea and Japan in the future. Rulings supportive of the Japanese Supreme Court’s decision on the legitimacy of Japan’s colonial rule were made by the Busan High Court on February 3, 2009 and by the Seoul Hight Court a few months later on July 16 in lawsuits Korean victims filed against Japanese companies. Those rulings prompted the International Law Association's Korean branch and the Northeast Asian History Foundation to launch an in-depth review based on international law. And once the Northeast Asian History Foundation led an examination of historical tasks remaining from the one hundred years since Japan’s forced annexation of Korea, the examination’s findings must have been considered over the process of hearing the case before the Korean Supreme Court in 2012. As a result, the supreme court decided that the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement does not preclude an individual victim’s right to seek compensation for crimes Japan as a state committed against humanity or committed directly for colonial rule. True relief for aged victims in their 90s should be carried out according to the legal spirit of the Korean supreme court ruling. The Japanese government needs to stop denying historical truths and restore the dignity of victims through sincere apologies and reparations for severely violating their human rights. If the Japanese government is willing to humbly support universal justice, I believe an actual bond can be created, one that could help the two countries build a friendly relationship and contribute to peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

Q8. What do you think the Northeast Asian History Foundation should do for the resolution of historical conflicts between Korea and Japan, particularly regarding the Dokdo issue?

Sung Jae-ho The Foundation was established to create a basis for peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia where issues due to distorted views of history that caused misfortune for Northeast Asia as well as the entire world can be squarely faced. To prevent an unfortunate history from repeating itself, it is necessary to take a level-headed approach to examine the wrongful wars of aggression that occurred in Northeast Asia and reveal their causes and the damage they inflicted. Stabilizing Northeast Asia, which is the backbone of Asia, is critical to bringing peace to the international society at a time when the twenty-first century is said to be the century of Asia. And the Foundation is deeply significant for taking part in such as task. So, it is expected to engage in research and other activities that accurately review the past to prevent emotional factors from dominating Korea's relations with Japan and China and help them rationally and reasonably navigate toward their future. In order to do so, it needs to be at the forefront of clearly and fully uncovering painful pasts and affairs some wish to cover up and offering constructive criticism about them for the sake of international relations in Northeast Asia. I also hope the Foundation comes to develop more detailed, microscopic research topics, refrain from relying on existing research staff, and become a gateway for the influx of young scholars.

Q9. Since the International Law Association's Korean branch has released the fourth volume of the Korean Yearbook of International Law in English, could you please tell us the purpose of its publication?

Sung Jae-ho The International Law Association (ILA) was established in 1873 as an international group of those who study or practice international law. Under the slogan "peace and justice through law," a tightly knit network of 4,300 experts in international law from 62 different countries around the world currently take part in the association. Its Korean branch was established in 1956 and has been participating in international academic exchange and resolving relevant issues. Anyone who studies international law should be aware of the British Yearbook of International Law and is likely to have cited articles published through it while authoring papers of their own. In fact, most of the 62 countries taking part in the association aside from the United Kingdom publish yearbooks about issues in their own country related to international law. There have been attempts to publish a yearbook in Korea since the early 1990s, but they met with various difficulties and limitations in publishing research papers in English. The first volume finally came out in 2013 thanks to the dedicated effort of the branch's president, editorial board, and authors who made submissions. We hope the Korean government and other related research institutes continue to take an interest in the yearbook since it publicizes papers on international law authored by Korean scholars and helps spread widely an accurate understanding of international issues involving Korea.

Q10. Finally, would there be any advice you'd like to offer to future students or younger scholars committed to the field on how one should prepare oneself for studying international law?

Sung Jae-ho They say the 10,000-hour rule applies to any field should one hope to become an expert and it seems to take at least that much effort to become an expert in international law. I think it's also necessary to hone one's foreign language skills since one should be able to thoroughly grasp relevant literature published overseas in order to be able to deal with and discuss international issues. International law isn't simply about the peace and security of the international society, but functions as a spearhead in defending our country's territory, sovereignty, and national interests as well. Even if interest in the field gets sparked out of plain curiosity, that is bound to lead to a sense of responsibility because working in the field is that fulfilling and worthwhile. Going through law school is no doubt the path to becoming a lawyer, but there's more out there other than private or government-related lawsuits. So, I hope you get a chance to experience the great sense of achievement and pride that comes from covering weightier issues through international law that involve protecting a country's territory, safety, and national interests.