The following is from Miya Kunihiko's article entitled, Is there not 'rule of law' in Korea? in the opinion column of today's Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
Does Korea have 'rule of law'?
Emphasis is on me.
This manuscript is written by returning from Washington.
This is the third visit to the US in the past 6 months, because recently the movement of domestic affairs of the United States is concerned.
What I realized this time again is that Washington is not moving the United States, but ‘real America’ outside the big city is changing this town.
Although it was a shock, it is by no means a surprise.
Originally, because the U. S. is such a country.
It is a shock but there is other, too, example not to be surprised.
Eleven followers were killed in Pittsburgh's synagogue (Judaism worship place).
It is due to the anti-Semitism was expanding recently in the Europe and America and it was a problem in the time that such a case happened, too.
If saying a shock, the retirement statement of Merkel Germany prime minister, too, is so.
Recently, declining of the ruling coalition which she leads is remarkable.
Because it was possible to expect that it was like this sooner or later to a certain degree, I wasn't unexpectedly surprised.
While I am shocked, the most serious incident that was not surprised is the surprising judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea over former Korean workers from the Korean Peninsula.
If you are a reader of Sankei Shimbun, you already know how this judgment is out of common sense, it argues once more from the basics because it is important.
Current Japan-ROK relations are based on the Japan-Korea Basic Treaty and related agreements of Showa 40 (1965).
The Japan-Korea Claim Agreement states that the issues concerning the property, rights and interests of both Parties and their citizens (including corporations) and claims concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their citizens are 'completely and ultimately resolved' , No ‘any claim’ can be made.
This was ratified and entered Japan and South Korea, it became an international promise.
That is all.
The author's view is as follows.
Both Japan and South Korea are bound by the international promise of 1965.
If this is denied, bilateral relations cannot be established in the first place.
That has been acknowledged by the successive Korean government, but I still believe that there is no change in that position.
The judgment of the South Korea Supreme Court is that the judgment of the Japanese court is invalid, (2) the plaintiff acknowledges the right to demand damages, and (3) does not accept the presentation period.
As a reason for that majority opinion, 'Illegal colonial rule on the Korean peninsula by the Japanese government, and the right to demand consolation for Japanese companies of forced mobilized victims presumed anti-humanitarian illegal acts of Japanese companies directly aggressive war 'Shall not be included in the scope of application of the Claims Agreement.
If that is the case, is the previous agreement invalid?
It doesn't seem to be the judgement of the lawyer absolutely.
It is the saving grace that there are a few opposing opinions but may 'the rule of law' not exist in Korea?
In 1970, the Japanese Supreme Court announced a discourse stating that ‘Judges should not join organizations with political colors because the fairness of the trial may be suspected.’
It is the so-called ‘Japan Young Lawyers Association’ problem.
This made it possible to prevent 'politicization of justice' in Japan, but how about Korea's justice?
There is a tone 'Japan, too, should step up' from which Korea, the part Europe and America but this is the discussion to have lost sight of the essence of the problem.
Since 1995, the prime minister in Japan repeated an apology but Korea is not in 'it accepted' thing in it.
Even in the so-called comfort women issue, we have agreed on ‘final and irreversible’ solution at the end of 2015, but Korea is reviewing it in three years.
In addition, this time it turns over until the agreement of 1965.
How far are you going to move the goal post?
This is a simple doubt of ordinary people in Japan.
The problem is a Korean administration.
It is good to respect judicial judgment, but if Korean international credit is lost then it will be a suicide act.
Although it is not a real intention to crush the face of the Korean people behind the scene, it may be necessary for the future to have Korean citizens aware of how bizarre Korea's behavior is in the international community that is made up of the rule of law.
