1965년 한일청구권협정 제2조의 해석에 관한 管見

This study is to examine whether the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement can be seen as the extinction of victims’ right to personal compensation for serious human rights violations caused by crimes against humanity. The issue of the “claim right” and scope of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement is due to the difference in interpretation of Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention shall not apply to the interpretation of the treaty in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention, but it shall not be designated because there is no provision for the definition and scope of the claim. The purpose of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement was to obtain bonds under Article 4 (a) of the San Francisco Treaty, as the Japanese government has so far denied colonial rule and Japanese colonial era’s anti-humanitarian acts and did not include Japan’s right to claim compensation. In addition, the “diplomatic right” of Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement wassigned on the premise of Japan’s violation of international law in order to presuppose diplomatic protection. This should not be considered to be applicable to the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement in the first place, so the judgment of the original ruling after the repatriation that “the diplomatic protection of South Korea was not given up.” On the other hand, since forced labor is a serious violation of human rights due to crimes against humanity, the treaty does not extinguish individual claims. Also, since the treaty that individuals’ right to claim for violation of international enforcement regulations is invalid under Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention, the theory of settlement completion, which was settled by the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement, should be considered invalid from the 1980s when slavery was assumed to have emerged as an international norm.