RE:祝！ 韓国人のアホな訴えを棄却！
投稿者： chavital 投稿日時： 2001/03/27 04:04 投稿番号： [1780 / 60270]
shosesさん、おひさしぶりです。
これ、、読めますか？
UNの特別報告者 McDougallの 有名な 報告書です。
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?Opendoc ument
(前略)
57. Given that the Japanese Government hid its involvement in these crimes for such a long time and, indeed, continues to deny legal liability for them, it is improper for Japan to argue that the settlement agreements or any other post-war treaties were intended to resolve all claims involving the "comfort women". The signatories could not have contemplated resolving claims for actions that were not, at the time, believed to be connected directly to the Japanese military.
58. It is also self-evident from the text of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that it is an economic treaty that resolves "property" claims between the countries and does not address human rights issues. [See Tong Yu, "Reparations for former comfort women of World War II", Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 36, 1995, pp. 528, 535-536.] There is no reference in the treaty to "comfort women", rape, sexual slavery, or any other atrocities committed by the Japanese against Korean civilians. Rather, the provisions in the treaty refer to property and commercial relations between the two nations. In fact, Japan's negotiator is said to have promised during the treaty talks that Japan would pay the Republic of Korea for any atrocities inflicted by the Japanese upon the Koreans. [See Hsu, supra note 23, p. 118.]
59. Moreover, it is clear from the outline of claims presented by the Korean representatives to Japan that "nothing in the negotiations concerns violations of individual rights resulting from war crimes, crimes against humanity, breaches of the slavery convention, the convention against the traffic in women, or customary norms of international law." [See Dolgopol and Paranjape, main report, note 48.] And while Japan did make explicit apologies and agree to pay personal injury compensation in its treaties with Western powers, it did not do so with the Koreans. [See Hsu, supra note 23, pp. 103-104.] The generic use of the term "claims" under article II of the Settlement Agreement must therefore be read in the context of this factual background. Clearly, the funds provided by Japan under the Settlement Agreement were intended only for economic restoration and not individual compensation for the victims of Japan's atrocities. As such, the 1965 treaty - despite its seemingly sweeping language - extinguished only economic and property claims between the two nations and not private claims, and Japan must still be held responsible for its actions. [See Parker and Chew, supra note 5, p. 538; Dolgopol and Paranjape, main report, note 48, pp. 164-165.]
60. As noted above, the plain language of article 14 (b) of the 1951 peace treaty waives all reparations claims and other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of actions taken by Japan and its nationals during the war ... (emphasis added)." By distinguishing between the claims for "reparations" and "other claims", this language clearly indicates that the waiver does not apply to compensation of the Allied Powers' nationals. The only reparations contemplated in the waiver are those of the Allied nations themselves. The only claims of the Allied Powers' nationals contemplated by the waiver are those "other" than reparations. Thus, the claims for compensation by the former "comfort women" are not barred by the waiver at all because they do not fall within the claims discussed in the treaty.
(後略)
これ、、読めますか？
UNの特別報告者 McDougallの 有名な 報告書です。
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?Opendoc ument
(前略)
57. Given that the Japanese Government hid its involvement in these crimes for such a long time and, indeed, continues to deny legal liability for them, it is improper for Japan to argue that the settlement agreements or any other post-war treaties were intended to resolve all claims involving the "comfort women". The signatories could not have contemplated resolving claims for actions that were not, at the time, believed to be connected directly to the Japanese military.
58. It is also self-evident from the text of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that it is an economic treaty that resolves "property" claims between the countries and does not address human rights issues. [See Tong Yu, "Reparations for former comfort women of World War II", Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 36, 1995, pp. 528, 535-536.] There is no reference in the treaty to "comfort women", rape, sexual slavery, or any other atrocities committed by the Japanese against Korean civilians. Rather, the provisions in the treaty refer to property and commercial relations between the two nations. In fact, Japan's negotiator is said to have promised during the treaty talks that Japan would pay the Republic of Korea for any atrocities inflicted by the Japanese upon the Koreans. [See Hsu, supra note 23, p. 118.]
59. Moreover, it is clear from the outline of claims presented by the Korean representatives to Japan that "nothing in the negotiations concerns violations of individual rights resulting from war crimes, crimes against humanity, breaches of the slavery convention, the convention against the traffic in women, or customary norms of international law." [See Dolgopol and Paranjape, main report, note 48.] And while Japan did make explicit apologies and agree to pay personal injury compensation in its treaties with Western powers, it did not do so with the Koreans. [See Hsu, supra note 23, pp. 103-104.] The generic use of the term "claims" under article II of the Settlement Agreement must therefore be read in the context of this factual background. Clearly, the funds provided by Japan under the Settlement Agreement were intended only for economic restoration and not individual compensation for the victims of Japan's atrocities. As such, the 1965 treaty - despite its seemingly sweeping language - extinguished only economic and property claims between the two nations and not private claims, and Japan must still be held responsible for its actions. [See Parker and Chew, supra note 5, p. 538; Dolgopol and Paranjape, main report, note 48, pp. 164-165.]
60. As noted above, the plain language of article 14 (b) of the 1951 peace treaty waives all reparations claims and other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of actions taken by Japan and its nationals during the war ... (emphasis added)." By distinguishing between the claims for "reparations" and "other claims", this language clearly indicates that the waiver does not apply to compensation of the Allied Powers' nationals. The only reparations contemplated in the waiver are those of the Allied nations themselves. The only claims of the Allied Powers' nationals contemplated by the waiver are those "other" than reparations. Thus, the claims for compensation by the former "comfort women" are not barred by the waiver at all because they do not fall within the claims discussed in the treaty.
(後略)
これは メッセージ 1763 (goodytwoshoses さん)への返信です．