"Postwar compensation" can be defined as measures to undo or make up for damage done by the Japanese government, army and private companies to its own people or foreign nationals during World War II. The postwar compensation is also a pending issue between South Korea and Japan. Japan's postwar compensation system has a serious problem, not only because it is confined to those who executed the policy of aggression rather than the victims caused by the wrong policy, but also because it only provides compensation to Japanese unexceptionally based on the "nationality clause," with the exception of the Law Concerning Support for the Atomic Bomb Exposed, discriminating against the foreign nationals who suffered from Japan's forced mobilization (refer to the Controversy over Terms Regarding Postwar Compensation).

Korean victims who were forcibly drafted to the war by Japan established organizations related with postwar compensation and have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government and private companies for postwar compensation since the 1990s. Founded in April 1973, the Association for the Pacific War Victims demanded that the Japanese government pay reparations, give an official apology and pay outstanding wages for victims of forced mobilization. Spurred by the movement calling for fact-finding, apology and reparations led by women organizations in Korea, the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan was launched on November 16, 1990. In particular, since the press conference by the former "comfort woman" Kim Hak-sun in August 1991, "military comfort women" forced to provide sexual services for Japanese soldiers and volunteers have held the regular Wednesday Demonstration in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, which reaches 865 occasions as of May 13, 2009. The comfort women, and lost Korean soldiers and civilians attached to the military forcibly recruited during World War II and their bereaved families have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government for state reparations and apology, but a series of rulings denying their claims have resulted.

Japan's postwar compensation is focused on the relief system for soldiers and civilians attached to the military who were recruited to war and their families. Japan used to run the pension system for soldiers, but following the end of World War II, the United States Military Government abolished the system in an attempt to hold the Japanese army accountable for the war.

But after Japan became independent with the San Francisco Peace Treaty effective on April 28, 1952, Japan's postwar pension system went into full operation, enacting the "Relief Law for the War Wounded and the Bereaved Family." Japan's postwar compensation system was aimed at providing compensation for soldiers and civilians attached to the military who were mobilized to a national service, with the exception of the Law Concerning Support for the Atomic Bomb Exposed and a small amount of compensation money paid to forcibly mobilized foreign nationals (refer to Japan's Postwar Relief System).

Japan's postwar compensation diplomacies are legally based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty between the Allied Powers and Japan. When the Potsdam Declaration on July 16, 1945 and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945 finally brought World War II to a close, the Allied Powers took a relatively tough stance against Japan, calling on Japan to punish the victimizers and compensate the victims. Amid the heightened Cold War tensions, the intensified Chinese Civil War and the firmly established division of Korean peninsula, however, the United States' foreign policy toward Japan changed its directions on the premise that one of the global strategies favorable to the U.S. is to foster Japan as an industry base of Asia and develop it into an anti-communist bastion (refer to Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty).

The Japan's postwar compensation diplomacies are characterized as follows. The amount of compensation money was determined with regard to, as an obligator, Japan's payment capability and the compensation payment was made on a long term installment basis. In other words, by mutual consent through negotiations, the claimants and Japan calculated the amount of compensation payments and decided how and when to pay compensation. The claimants were given compensation in goods and services, instead of cash, to recover and grow their economies and promote their social welfares, and unfortunately the attempts were made to right the past wrong-doings "under the pretext of economic cooperation," without sufficient legal responsibility for the damage and suffering caused by the war (refer to Japan's Postwar Compensation to Each of the Allied Powers).

Under the Japan's postwar relief system, all the relief-related laws but the Law Concerning Support for the Atomic Bomb Exposed are based on the "nationality clause" with no exception. As a result, the relief system only covers compensation to Japanese nationals and thus does not provide the benefits to the foreign victims who joined the war by Japan's forced mobilization. By contrast, the Germany Federal Act on War Victims Relief, which prescribed the relief for those who were damaged while carrying out military action or the equivalent mission during World War II, applied not only to foreigners in Germany but also to the Germans living in foreign countries. Meanwhile, Japan's private companies also refused to pay the outstanding wages owing to victims who were forced into labor under the rule of Japanese imperialism. However, since Shin-Nittetsu (Nippon Steel Corporation) did send a condolence gift in money to the bereaved families of Korean forced laborers in September 1997, a few private corporations have joined the reconciliation process. Still, that is regarded to be no more than a makeshift move to improve the corporate image, with no apology for and reflection on their past mistakes.

First, while Germany’s laws and regulations on compensation spelled out the beneficiary as "Victims of Nazism," Japan’s postwar compensation was confined to soldiers, public servants and others hurt while carrying out militarism policies.

Second, while Germany’s compensation was aimed at "relieving individual victims," Japan gave "aid under the pretext of economic cooperation" to the damaged countries and did not pay compensation money to relieve the individual victims.

Third, the Japanese domestic law to relieve war victims only covers compensation to the current Japanese nationals.

Fourth, following the German private companies’ compensation payment, the German parliament resolved to urge the private companies’ compensation payment. On the other hand, the Japanese private companies in general rejected the request for paying outstanding wages to forced laborers, and some companies were compelled to reconcile with them to maintain their good images.

Fifth, not only the amount of reparation and compensation money paid by Germany is significantly different from that of Japan, but also Japan insisted that the compensation was completed through the Asian Women’s Fund.

Sixth, while Japan completed the postwar compensation payment by 1977, Germany is still paying money to the victims of the past wrong-doings (refer to the Positions on Postwar Compensation of Germany and Japan).

Japan's postwar compensation system has no notion of "civilian compensation" because it is confined to those who executed the policy of aggression rather than the victims of the wrong policy. Also it does not relieve victims in other countries who suffered from Japan's forced mobilization because it only covers people in Japan based on the "nationality clause" with the exception of the Law Concerning Support for the Atomic Bomb Exposed. Accordingly, the Foundation is now supporting legal research projects on international law related to postwar settlement in order to set up the basic system to solve and respond to all issues on past wrong-doings between Korea and Japan including postwar compensation from the perspective of international law. In addition, in an effort to build up more detailed evidence materials through case analysis on postwar compensation, it is conducting projects to come up with legal countermeasures on Korea-Japan history issues and finding the current status of postwar compensation cases in Japan.

Reference Materials

Article 14 of San Francisco Peace Treaty ° Each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property of Japan and Japanese nationals within its jurisdiction (Article 14(a)2). °In cases of allied civilians' property damage within Japan as a result of the war, the compensation shall be made in Japanese currency (Article 15(a)). In particular, it is prescribed that Japan shall make available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for those whose present territories were occupied and damaged by Japanese forces, and pay reparations to them (Article 14(a)). ° It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during World War Ⅱ(Article 14(a)). Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations (Article 14(b)).

Japan's Postwar Compensation to Allied Powers ° Each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property of Japan and Japanese nationals within its jurisdiction (Article 14(a)2). °In cases of allied civilians' property damage within Japan as a result of the war, the compensation shall be made in Japanese currency (Article 15(a)). In particular, it is prescribed that Japan shall make available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for those whose present territories were occupied and damaged by Japanese forces, and pay reparations to them (Article 14(a)). ° It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during World War Ⅱ(Article 14(a)). Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations (Article 14(b)).

Attitudes of Germany and Japan towards Compensation

[ Germany ] ° Germany should offer the Nazi victims mental as well as material compensations (Former Chancellor Adenauer in 1951). °Kneeling down at the Memorial Tower for Jewish victims in Poland's Warsaw, and laying flowers at the foot of it, the former German Chancellor Brandt showed deep regret and remorse for the war crimes and atrocities (Former Chancellor Brandt in 1970). ° Despite the war crime committed by the previous generations, the next generation cannot be totally exempt from its responsibility (Former President Weizsacker in 1986). ° Germany must and will never fail to overlook the atrocities of its predecessors (Former Chancellor Kohl from his Remarks in the 50th Anniversary Celebration of the Foundation of Israel in 1998). ° It is undeniable that Germany caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of Poland in the past (Former Chancellor Schröder in the 60th Anniversary Celebration of Warsaw Uprising in 2004). ° We ought to prevent the new complacency at the national level (Former President Weizsacker in 2005).

[ Japan ] ° It is reasonable to see Japan and Germany in a separate way. Germany committed an inhumane crime with an aim to liquidate the Jewish, which claimed a huge number of victims. It is quite acceptable for the country to argue that the Nazis are totally different kind of people, and the party is completely attributed to the atrocities. However, Japan doesn't have any certain kind of people who dare to commit those crimes (Foreign Minister Machimura on April 15, 2005). ° It goes absolutely nowhere that the way that Germany understands its history is right and that of Japan is wrong. Germany completed the postwar settlement by bringing the Nazis to trial and punishment, and through the reconciliation with the victims. Nevertheless, there were not any postwar reparations between the Nazis and other countries. However, Japan made utmost efforts to complete the postwar settlement such as signing San Francisco Peace Treaty and treaties with other countries, and paying reparations for them, which eventually gained the recognition across the globe. (Foreign Minister Official Hitoshi Tanaka on April 11, 2005).