일본의 전후책임 정책 분석과 비판

This writing is designed to critically assess the views of the Japanese government and its courts regarding the atrocious acts of Japan at the time of colonial occupation in Korea, and to review such commission of crimes in view of the principles of international law, human rights standards, and the general principles of law. It also reviews the Japanese practice of the post-war reparation in making comparative analysis between its dealing with other Asian states and people, and its payment scheme for war participants of the Japanese nationality. It argues that 1) the Japanese conducts of colonial atrocities constitute breaches of international law of both then, and now; 2) the so-called San Francisco Peace Treaty should not form a bar to the claims of war victims. It also finds that while Japan had clarified terms of legal responsibility against the rules of international law in making reparation agreements with Western states, Japan, disappointingly, merely mentioned economic cooperation, and regretful feeling of “unfortunate” events in their dealings with Asian states. In regard to the 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan, this writing contends that the claims of the victims of the Japanese atrocities are valid and effective at the present time, for many reasons, including 1) claims of victims of gross human right violations, in nature, are not disposable at the hands of states; 2) The victims acquire new claims for remedy due to repeated denial of facts by Japan, and its failure to punish those responsible; 3) many issues of human rights violation, including the so-called comfort women, were not in the minds of the drafters of the Treaty; 4) the 1965 treaty, after all, was concerned about economic cooperation, instead of upholding human dignity; 5) the responsibility of Japan is manifest in light of the dictates of law and justice, the principles of fairness and equity, and the principles of general international law.