뉴스레터

'The Civilian Claims on Japan' among Korea's Diplomatic Documents at the Korea-Japan Talks 

(Source: Northeast Asian History Foundation)

Negotiations on Claims, Not Demands Japanese Reparations

Mitsubishi apologized to the United States and China, but why don't they apologize to Korea for the most damaging? On August 15, 1945, Korea became independent from Japanese colonial rule. Japan had to compensate and apologize for the deaths of independence activists, tortured and abused incarcerated, numerous victims mobilized in Japan's invasion war, and material damage. However, the demand for compensation for Japan did not work at all in the international community. Most Allied countries such as the United States, Britain, and France were still imperial states with colonies.

After the defeat in the Pacific War, Japan signed the peace treaty with the Allies to solve the problem of compensation. Korea tried to participate in the peace treaty as a member of the Allied Powers but failed. Of course, negotiations between Korea and Japan could solve the problems of compensation. However, it was possible only if Japan admitted that Japan–Korea Treatment of 1910 was illegal. After all, the negotiation of the Korea-Japan Diplomatic Normalization was not compensation for the damage caused by the illegal act of Japan, but negotiations on the claim of the separation of the state under international law.

Personal claims, what has been dealt with and what has not been dealt with

Negotiations on claims were conducted around eight provisions proposed by Korea. There was a slight change in the process of negotiations. But in the big frame, this is: ① Claims to return gold and silver taken out via the Chosun Bank from 1909 to 1945 ② Claims to reimburse the debts incurred on and after August 9, 1945, to the Governor-General of the Joseon Dynasty ③ Claims to return the money transferred or remitted from the Republic of Korea after August 9, 1945 ④ Claim to return the property of the corporation with its main office in the Republic of Korea as of August 9, 1945 ⑤ Claim to reimburse Japanese banknotes of corporations or natural people of the Republic of Korea, receivables conscripted Koreans, compensation and other ⑥ Recognize that what is not mentioned above can be exercised individually after the talks are concluded ⑦ Claims for the return of the property above and the fruit that occurred in the claim rights ⑧ Return and payment requested above will be completed within 6 months immediately after the agreement is concluded. Among them, the number 5 and 6 correspond to the personal claims.

The issue of personal claims was dealt with primarily in the sixth round of talks. Korea and Japan showed different attitudes about the receivables of civilian attached to the military, and pensions. The Japanese government has insisted that it will pay money and pensions to individuals. On the other hand, the Korean government insisted that it would claim it to Japan at the government level and take action at home later. There was a reason for us to say that. It took a long time to pay to an individual, and it was difficult to confirm whether the amount requested by the Korean government was well paid. Korea and Japan chose a solution called political agreement.

In Korea, there have been constant complaints to resolve personal claims. The scope of the damage was wide and varied. There were people who did not receive the construction cost from the Japanese, those who did not receive the salary, those who were soldiers but suffered damage due to the incineration of the military ticket, those who could not withdraw the money forcibly saved by Japan, and those who did not receive the insurance payment. And as a stockholder of a Japanese company, some had problems with the exercise of rights. For example, Kim Tae-sung was asked by the Japanese Consulate General to pay the necessary expenses for the Korean soldiers, civilian attached to the military, forced workers to return to Korea. But he didn't get any rewards. The clause No.6 proposed by the Korean government was to keep this situation in mind. At that time, the Korean government knew that all claims could not be dealt with in negotiations and that there was a limit.

The Japanese government reviewed the following issues legally ahead of negotiations on the text within the Agreement on Claim Rights at the seventh round of talks: What is the claim, whether the concept of 'compensation for damage' is included in the claim, and the disappearance of the property claim of Koreans living in a third country. This shows that even the definition and scope of claim rights could not be confirmed until the seventh round of talks.

Japan did not mention its assets in North Korea during the agreement

The variable in the negotiation on 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement was North Korea. How to deal with North Korea has had a direct impact on the issue of South Korea's jurisdiction. This was closely related to Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan. Japan interpreted that the jurisdiction of Korea is only activated in the south of the 38th parallel. This is because Japan has also considered negotiations with North Korea. The confiscation of Japanese property under the U.S. Military Government Ordinance No.33 was limited to South Korea. Therefore, they tried to solve the issue of North Korea's claim to Japan through negotiations with North Korea.

At that time, there were Japanese who returned to their homeland without disposing of their property in the Korean peninsula. They constantly filed complaints to return their property. Korea was a Japanese colony. So there was an atmosphere that the private property of the Japanese left in the colony should be protected by international law. However, if the Japanese government signs the agreement in the form of extinguishing the claim of its own people in the North Korea, the Japanese government has to compensate for the private property of the Japanese in the North Korea. The Japanese government has tried to leave north of the 38th parallel, which is not under the authority of the Korean government, as an unresolved state.

The North Korean issue was not dealt with in earnest when negotiating with the Right of Claims. But it had a huge impact. At that time, North Korea and South Korea were claiming legitimacy. In such a situation, it was a great burden for the Japanese government to dispose of the property of the Chosun Governor-General and the national and public institutions only by negotiations with South Korea. South Korea was very sensitive to North Korea issues. South Korea's delegation said it would stop negotiations if Japan made a statement recognizing the North Korean government. The Japanese who attended the talks recalled that the word ‘North Korea’ itself was taboo in negotiation. The Japanese government has been considering political agreement since the beginning of the Korea-Japan talks because of the complicated variable of North Korea.

How will the negotiations between North Korea and Japan proceed?

At this point, the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement is very insufficient. However, Korea and Japan insist on inheriting the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement. Even an unsatisfactory agreement is a treaty signed by the Korean government. Therefore, it is not simple to invalidate it. Korea's status in the international community is incomparable to that of the time. The perception of individual rights and the interpretation of international law have also changed. The South Korean government tried to block negotiations between North Korea and Japan at the time of the Korea-Japan talks. But now, South Korea supports the North-Japan negotiations. The issue that was not properly addressed in the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement is also a great concern for academia how it will be discussed in the North-Japan negotiations.