“Enforced Reconciliation without Justice: The Absence of Procedural, Retributive, and Restorative Justice in the “Comfort Women” Agreement of 2015” by Jahyn Chun.

Jahyun Chun, a scholar of international relations, analyses Korea’s dissatisfaction with the 2015 “Comfort Women” agreement made with Japan. She describes South Korean Foreign Minister Kyung-Wha Kang’s investigation into the issue and analyses “how procedural, retributive, and restorative justice can help to effect reconciliation between South Korea and Japan, while acknowledging the honor and dignity of the victims” (85). The South Korean government reopened the comfort women issue, claiming that “the Japanese government still has responsibility over the matter” (87). This is due to Japan not accepting the truth in their implementation of history, not apologising to the ageing victims, and not prosecuting those involved in the perpetration.

Chun argues that the 2015 Comfort Women agreement lacked procedural justice and can therefore not be accepted. Furthermore, in light of retributive justice, she illustrates that the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal (WIWCT), which was a criminal court case to deal with sexual slavery by the Japanese, remained a people’s tribunal that did not have the legal force to impose sentences or order reparations. Chun critiques the international failure to prosecute the perpetrators during earlier trials, such as the Tokyo Trial from April 29th, 1946 to November 12th, 1948. Similarly, the 2015 agreement also “failed to serve retributive justice by neglecting to clearly state Japan’s legal responsibilities” (89). 

Chun’s investigation of Japan’s failed restorative justice illustrates that even though there were some forms of reparations between the Korean victims and the Japanese perpetrators, other measures, such as “the victims’ right to participate in the agreement were ignored in the negotiation process” (90). To conclude, Chun remarks that the government-led approach of South Korea and Japan did not take into account the victims’ wishes, as they did not want “a coerced agreement, but an environment that will make it possible for them to accept an apology from the perpetrators and forgive them” (91). Chun’s analysis illustrates how Japan’s inability to properly address their perpetration and to apologise led to a reconciliation agreement that failed to conform to procedural, retributive, and restorative justice and thus failed to hold Japan accountable and give the Korean victims their closure.

Author of this entry: Anne van Buuren

Chun, Jahyun. “Enforced reconciliation without justice: The absence of procedural, retributive, and restorative justice in the “Comfort Women” Agreement of 2015.” Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 49, no. 2, 2021, 84-92.