Just Reparations for Korean “Comfort Women”: A Transitional Justice and International Law Perspective

On December 28 2015, South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers abruptly reached an agreement (hereinafter “the 2015 Agreement”) to settle the Korean “comfort women” issue. This agreement evoked strong opposition among the victims and civic groups due to the lack of participation by the victims in reaching it; consequently the agreement appeared to result in unjust reparations for these victims. In addition, two conflicting judgments were reached in the South Korean court in relation to compensating Korean “comfort women” in 2021; namely, (i) the judgment on January 8 2021 and (ii) the judgment on April 21 2021. In terms of the former, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on January 8 2021, that the victims’ right to claim reparations for damages against the Japanese government was not included within the scope of application of the 2015 Agreement. On the contrary, in its April 21 2021 ruling, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground of state immunity filed by other victims of Japanese military sexual slavery against the Japanese government. Besides, the court ruled that an “alternative remedy” was provided by the 2015 Agreement. This raises the question of if the 2015 Agreement provided adequate just reparations to be considered an “alternative remedy” for the victims. This article argues that the reparations the Japanese government provided to Korean “comfort women” cannot be regarded as just since it does not met the international standards of just reparations, especially from the perspective of transitional justice and international law. For this purpose, Section 2 discusses the background of the so-called “comfort women” and confirms the legal responsibility of the Japanese government. Section 3 explores the international standards on providing a remedy and reparations for victims of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Then, it outlines what just reparation should be from the perspective of transitional justice. Section 4 examines whether the reparations the Japanese government offered these women, including those set out in the 2015 Agreement, constitute just reparations for the victims. Section 5 discusses the relationship between justice and politics in reparations for these victims and finds that justice in reparations for these women was determined by political considerations between the two countries. The implementation of the 2015 Agreement shows how difficult it is to achieve reconciliation between these two countries without just reparations.