Ocean-going seafarers engage in their seaman's duties in coastal areas or internal waters of other countries. Criminal or administrative law in domestic law of coastal state may be frequently applied to seafarers when they are suspected by coastal state authorities to cause illegal acts, such as marine accident or environmental pollution at sea due to malfunction of ship or navigational equipment even if it is caused by seafarers' negligence, not intent. And it is not rare case that unfair detention or excess punishment might be imposed on them suspected and they are confined in prison of coastal state. Art.292 “Prompt release of vessels and crew” has been enacted in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, so that this article shall be said as the protection for seafarers from executions by coastal state according to it's sovereign light. On this paper, the author will examine evaluations and issues of the said article. Firstly, I check the substance rules, art.73 and 220 for art.292 in UNCLOS through their legislated process and the contents. Secondly, case laws by International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ITLOS will be analyzed as the role of interpretation and effective use of the article. And finally, author wants to find out some issues and causes to make up the prescribed limits of the article.

抄録全体を表示

In 1962 the General Assembly requested the Economic and Social Council to prepare a draft declaration and convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. On 20 November 1963 the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Third Committee, proclaimed the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and on 21 December 1965 the General Assembly at its twentieth session adopted by 106 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, Mexico and opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The principles set out in the Declaration are reaffirmed in the Convention, and the Convention was prepared in order to give effect to the principles proclaimed in the Declaration. The Convention entered into force on 4 January 1969, thirty days after the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or accession was deposited(Art. 19). A direct cause that induced the United Nations to take up the serious question of racial discrimination was the revival of anti-Semitic and neo-nazi movements in different parts of the world in 1959/1960. This Convention consists of 25 operative articles besides the preamble, and they are divided into 3 parts. Part I of the Convention(Arts. 1 to 7)refers to Substantive Article. Article I of the Convention begins with a definition of racial discrimination as "distinction, exclusion, restriction of preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic orgin…, "and Article 2 sets forth the fundamental obligations of States Parties to undertake in the matter of racial discrimination. Some of these fundamental obligations are elaborated in greater detail in Article 3 to 7. Part II of the Convention(Arts. 8 to 16)deals with measures of implementation. Remarkable among these clauses are provisions on the establishment of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination("the Committee"). Measures for the implementation of the Convention include the establishment of the Committee, consisting of "18 experts of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality elected by States Parties from amongst their nationals who shall serve in their personal capacity"(Art. 8. 1). Measures of implementation are an essential part of the Convention and consist of three means--(a)the undertaking by States Parties of the obligation to submit reports and the consideration of these reports by the Committee(Art. 9), (b)inter-State complaints between States Parties through the Committee(Arts. 11 to 13), and(c)the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups within the jurisdiction of States Parties claiming to be victims of a violation by that State of any of the rights set forth in the Convention(Art. 14). Part III of the Convention(Arts.17 to 25)is devoted to final clauses-reservations. At any rate, the Convention is the most radical instrument so far adopted in this field. It is described as "the international community's only tool for combating racial discrimination which is at one and the same time universal in reach, comprehensive in scope, legally binding in character, and equipped with built-in measures of implementation"(statement by the Committee at the World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination). In addition, an exceptionally large number of States have become parties to it. As of 1 January 1988, 124 States have agreed to be bound by the Convention. However, Japan has not ratified it. We hope that it will be ratified by Japan as soon as possible.

抄録全体を表示

In this article, the author analyses two judgements of the Supreme Court of Korea regarding the payment of compensation to the Korean war time laborers from the view point of public international law. Some of them are said to be forced or deceived at their recruitment by the Japanese private companies. In the judgement of 30 October 2018, the Court adjudicated that the Japanese company were still liable to compensate against the damage caused by such enforcement or deception.

However, the Japanese Government has reacted and protested against this judgement through the diplomatic channel. This is because, according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the issue of the compensation to the Korean war time laborers was already legally settled through the Japan-Republic of Korea Basic Relations Treaty and the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement of 1965. As the basic principle of public international law, particularly the basic principle of the law of the treaties, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith (the principle of “pacta sunt servanda”). At the same time, a party to each treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore, Japan has alleged that the 2018 Judgement were internationally illegal and that the Korean Government were obliged to suspend the execution of the judgement. On the other hand, Moon Jae-in Administration has been supportive to the 2018 Judgement and refused to refer to arbitrate provided in Article 3 (2) of the Claims Agreement. As a result, Japan-Korea relation became dramatically worse and no one can foresee when the bilateral relation would get out from this situation.

This Japanese-Korean confrontation originally caused by the interpretation of the legality of the annexation (colonization) under the 1910 Treaty. Japan has regarded that the 1910 Treaty was concluded legally in light of the legal situation of the beginning of the 20^th century. On the contrary, Korea has never accepted the legality of the 1910 Treaty. Therefore, at the time of the conclusion of the Basic Treaty of 1965, the provision that “[i]t is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void” (italics added) was inserted. This article means that the both parties agreed to disagree about the legality of the 1910 Treaty.

In conclusion, the author points out that, as far as the Moon Administration’s policy on reconsideration of the past history and policies under the military or conservative régime continues, Japan would have to deal with such “historical” issue again and again. At the same time, the author points out that what is needed by the Japanese Government is the calm diplomacy with well-grounded (international) legal opinion.

抄録全体を表示

In October 2018, the Supreme Court of Korea ordered a Japanese company to pay four Korean men ₩100 million each as compensation for the damages from forced labor during World War II. In the next month, the Supreme Court ordered another Japanese company to provide compensation for the same kind of damages. They are called “Cho-yo-ko [forced laborers] Judgments” in Japan. These judgments have caused the Japanese Government to impose severe diplomatic actions upon Korea, i.e., restrictions of exports from Japan. Thereupon, the Government of Korea has carried out counter diplomatic policies toward Japan. As a result, it is said that the relationship between Japan and Korea has been the worst it has ever been since World War II.

This paper deals with the “Cho-yo-ko Judgments,” which have given rise to this situation. In particular, it examines the Supreme Court judgment in October 2018 and the lower judgments on the case in which the defendant was Nippon Steel Co., because this case has often been reported on by the media and was considered one of the most famous in Japan.

First, after giving the outline of this case, the paper introduces the judgments of the case that were delivered in Japan. Originally, two Korean men among the above plaintiffs brought a case forth in Japan against Nippon Steel Co. and the Japanese Government, but the case was dismissed. After that, the plaintiffs, in which two other Korean men joined in, brought a case forth in Korea against Nippon Steel Co. Although the trial court and the appellate court decided against the plaintiff on the grounds that the Japanese judgment should be recognized under the Korean Civil Procedure Act, in 2012 the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and sent the case back to Seoul High Court. The Supreme Court refused to recognize the Japanese judgments because of the order public of Korea and continuously held that the individual claims of the Korean men were not settled by the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea. Seoul High Court, which the case was remanded back to, ordered the defendant to pay compensation to plaintiffs in 2013. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court judgment in 2018.

This paper also deals with Korean judgments. Since there are many legal issues arising in the fields of Public International Law, Private International Law, Constitutional Law, Civil Law, and Commercial Law, it examines some of these legal issues and how the judgments affected the relationship between Japan and Korea.

抄録全体を表示