South Korea Court Rules Failure to Espouse Claims of its Comfort Women is Unconstitutional
A top South Korean court said Tuesday that it is unconstitutional for the government to make no tangible effort to settle disputes with Japan over its refusal to compensate Korean women mobilized as sex slaves during its 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

The Constitutional Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the government violated the basic rights of the former “comfort women” with its inaction. 

The ruling is expected to have strong diplomatic influence as it clarified the government’s duty to do all it can do to help its citizens get compensation from the Japanese government.

Former sex slaves and local victims of the nuclear bombing in Japan have consistently demanded an apology and compensation from the Japanese government, citing diplomatic documents showing that their issue was not addressed in the 1965 treaty signed between the two governments to normalize diplomatic ties.

Historians say more than 200,000 women fell victim to the Imperial Japanese Army, which coaxed or forced young girls to work in front-line brothels.

But the Japanese government has rejected the demand, sticking to its official position that the compensation for all individuals was already addressed in 1965 with the Treaty of Basic Relations between the two nations. Seoul received $800 million in grants and soft loans under the pact.

The South Korean government has taken a lukewarm position on the victims’ call for settling the compensation issue on behalf of them, saying it may hurt diplomatic relations with Tokyo.

“When there is a dispute between the two countries over the victims’ rights to claim compensation, it is the government’s duty to move toward solving the dispute,” the court said. “The government must settle this through diplomatic channels since there exists differing views on whether the 1965 agreement covers the former comfort women or not.”

A group of 108 former South Korean comfort women filed a petition against their government in July 2006, claiming that the government infringed on their rights to pursue happiness and property rights when it made no effort to settle the compensation dispute.

Also on Tuesday, the constitutional court made a similar ruling in a petition lodged by some 2,500 South Korean nuclear bomb victims in 2008.

The court said the government’s passive attitude toward solving the victims’ dispute with the Japanese government was unconstitutional.

Seoul’s foreign ministry said the government “humbly accepts” the court’s decision but maintains that the Japanese government has legal responsibility over the issue.

The government “plans to continue to use various diplomatic channels between Seoul and Tokyo, and the international stage to demand responsible action from Japan,” the ministry said in an e-mailed statement.

The ministry also claimed the government has until now prioritized giving “practical help” to the victims, considering the difficulties of quickly reaching a legal solution with Japan.

In light of the court ruling, the government will draw up its own comprehensive response, it added. (Yonhap News)


2 comments on “South Korea Court Rules Failure to Espouse Claims of its Comfort Women is Unconstitutional

  1. aaron a. legaspi says:

    Harry I’m sorry to say that South Korean politicians are much,much patriotic than their philippine counterpart. With the dwindling numbers of pinay comfort women plus the fact that they have no senator or congressman backers situation is hopeless. Ikaw na lang yata ang merong concern sa pinay comfort women pati supreme court walang paki diyan.

  2. angela says:

    Patriotic, yes…but Lee Myung Bak had sworn he would not touch this issue, given that he is VERY Conservative and wanted to focus on economic ties with Japan, so they used this means to force him to action. I was there when he was elected, and he said clearly he had no intention to push Japan on this issue. The survivors were angry, and the support movement used the law. Yes, the situation in the Philippines may be different, but patriotism is not what is required…an understanding of human rights is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s