Grandmother Lee Yong-soo Repeatedly Shows Willingness to File ICJ Petition... Legal Circles Say "Many Obstacles"

The Biggest Issue Is ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction... "Special Agreement Between Korea and Japan Needed"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Grandmother Lee Yong-soo, a victim of the Japanese military sexual slavery, has once again expressed her determination to bring the comfort women issue between Korea and Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), drawing attention to whether this will be realized.

On the early morning of the 23rd (Korean time), Grandmother Lee delivered a video message at an online forum jointly hosted by Harvard Law School Human Rights Advocacy Student Association, Harvard Asian Law Students Association (HALS), and Harvard Law School Korean American Law Students Association (KAHLS), stating, "I expect the ICJ to confirm that the comfort women issue was a violation of international law and that Japan has the obligation to acknowledge the crime and officially apologize."

This video was made public two days after our court dismissed the damages claim lawsuit filed by Grandmother Lee and 20 other victims and their families against Japan on the 21st.

Grandmother Lee continues to insist on referring the comfort women issue to the ICJ. In February, she formed and has been active in the ICJ Referral Promotion Committee along with Dr. Shin Hee-seok from Yonsei University Law Research Institute and others.

However, the legal community largely views ICJ referral as practically difficult. While not impossible, there are significant hurdles to overcome.

A lawyer familiar with international litigation pointed out, "The ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction is an obstacle, and the consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also necessary."

Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the ICJ Statute stipulates compulsory jurisdiction, stating that "if one party to a dispute brings a case against the other, the other party must obligatorily respond to the trial." Japan accepted this in 1958, but Korea did not accept it when joining the ICJ in 1991. Accepting compulsory jurisdiction would mean that if Japan brought issues such as territorial claims over Dokdo to the ICJ, Korea would also have to respond, potentially escalating disputes.

However, in the case of the Japanese military comfort women issue, the position is reversed. Since Korea does not accept compulsory jurisdiction, prior agreement with Japan is necessary to proceed with an ICJ trial.

Bruno Simma, a former ICJ judge and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said, "The only way is for Korea and Japan to make a special agreement on judicial jurisdiction."

Ultimately, this is an issue that the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs must take the lead on. However, with the U.S. recently emphasizing the Korea-U.S.-Japan alliance and the Tokyo Olympics opening in July, there are other difficult issues to resolve with Japan, making it unlikely that Japan will readily agree to appear in court, according to political analysts. Some expect that Japan will actively respond to the ICJ trial, hoping to resolve the long-standing conflict over the comfort women issue through ICJ adjudication.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been cautious about expressing its position following the court’s dismissal ruling but stated, "We are reviewing the ruling and will do our best efforts," not ruling out the possibility of filing a petition to the ICJ.

If the trial proceeds, the Korean legal community expects the ICJ to focus on whether the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement and the 2015 comfort women agreement remain effective.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.