Tokyo, November 19, 1958

GIST OF TALKS TWELFTH SESSION COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and place: 3:00-5:00 p.m.,November 17,1958 Rm.411 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, apanese Government.
2. Conferees:
Korean side: Mr. CHOI, Kyu Hah
Mr. EA, Chai Hang
Mr. CHIN, Pil Shik
Mr. MOON, Chul Soon
Mr. ROH, Jae Won
Mr. OHM, Yung Dal
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO, Yasusuke
Mr. HIRAGA, Kenta
Mr. HIRAZUKA
Mr. SHIMIZU, Shiro
Mr. HAKAGAWA, Toyokichi
Mr. NAGAHASHI, Hisa
Mr. SUGANUMA, Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
Mr. KKEBE, Ken
3.Gist of Talks:
Mr. KATSUNO:
At the last session I said that Mr. HIRAGA would ask a few questions at today's session regarding the Korean proposal. But, if you can give us answer to the questions we made at the previous session in connection with Articles 4 wad 5, Paragraph 3 of Article 7 and Korean reservation Item No.3, we would like to hear it first.
Mr. CHOI:
If Mr. HIRAGA has anything to say in connection with the draft agreement, we would listen to him.
Mr. HIRAGA
My questions will touch rather upon the tachnical points of the Korean draft agreement. Therefore, whether, to my questions, you will give me answers item by item now or you leave them for the later occasions, will be up to you.
Mr. CHOI:
Anyhow, I will listen to your questions, Now.
Mr. HIRAGA:
1. In Article 1 of the Korean draft agreement regarding the phrase "... the date of the termination of hostilities of the Pacific War or since...", the Japanese side understands the date as September 2, 1945, and wishes to know the view thereon of the Korean side.
2. In Article 1 of the same draft agreement regarding the word "descendants", the Japanese side wishes to be clarlified of the extent to which the word applys in this proposal. We understand that the word ordinarily will mean lineal descendants but we wish to know where that word falls into among the following three possible classifications: (1) Those descendants whose(both) parents are Korean residents in Japan, (2) Those of Korean father, and (3) Those of Korean mother and particularly, of father of a third nationality. There would be those descendants living outside of Japan whose parent, however, are Korean residents in Japan. I also would like to know whether the word will cover the descendants of Korean residents to be born in future without limit of time.
3. Also in regard to "descendants" in the same Article 1, I would like to know the reasons why they were included in the category of Korean residents in Japan in the draft agreement. It is the view of the Japanese side that the reason for considering a special status and treatment for the Korean residents in Japan is from the necessity of a relief measure for those who had to change their nationality under special circumstances, as a result of the termination of World War II. We don't see any particlular reasons existing with the descendants thereof in granting the same status and treatment. What will be the view of the Korean side in this regard?
4. We would like to be clarified of the intent of the word "confirm" as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Article 2, whether the stipulation in that particular draft agreement mans a decision of the nationality which was already made. If the later is the case, I would like to learn what was the cause of the change of nationality, as we view that, by coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Korean residents in Japan lost their Japanese nationality.
5. Also, in connection with the above, I would like to know the relations or distinction between the words "confirm" in Article 2 and "affirm" in the preamble.
6. As regards Paragraph 2 of Article 2, the stipulation seems to be for the purpose of justifying the effect of damestic laws concerned. Though there exists International Private Law in each country, the effect of the International Private Law of a country is not always to be recognized by the other country. But, according to the above mentioned stipulation in the Korean proposal, it sets forth the unconditional recognition of the effect of the application of laws with respect to the personal status of Koreans and Japanese in relation to each other. Therefore, we feel it quite necessary to know the details of the Korean laws concerned.
7. As regards Paragraph 1 of Article 3, I would like to know, (1) the meaning of "permanent residence" and (2) the view of the Korean side on "permission thereof". I wish to know whether the word "permanent residence" means the same under the Japanese Immigration Control Law and whether the word "permission" means the same under the Japanese law.
8. Also in regard to Paragraph 1 of Article 3, concerning the application of the phrase "within two years..." to the descendants of Korean residents in Japan, the Japanese side wishes to know the view of the Korean side on the application of the same stipulation to those descendants who will be born after two years since the coming into force of this contemplated agreement.
9. Refering to the same paragraph, concerning those Koreans who would not take the prescribed procedures for the permanent residence, I would like to know the Korean view as to their status and treatment, though their nationality still seems to be Korean in the light of Article 2.
10. As to the deportation in connection with Paragraph 1 of Article 3, the Japanese side wishes to learn the Korean view on the measure to be taken in case the deportation of a Korean is necessitated before the end of the two years' period.
11. With regard to Paragraph 2 of Article 31 the Japanese side wishes to learn the meaning of the word "consult" used in the same paragraph, whether it implies that deportation cannot be carried out without consent of the other party, and what could be done regarding a case when such consent could not be obtained. We would like to know whether the Japanese Government has to consult with the Korean Government on each case of deportation case by case, and what exactly will be the extent of the words "such matters as are required for the enforcement thereof".
12. Also in regard to the above mentioned paragraph, I would like to know whether the Japanese Government could unilaterally deport those Koreans who may not obtain due permanent residence under Paragraph 1 of Article 3.
13. In regard to Article 4 and its relation with Paragraph 3 of Article 7, I would like to be informed of the effect and result of the application of Article 4 retroactively on the date as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 7. I also wish to know how the provision of Article 4 is to be applied to the descendants, especially those who will be born in distant future.
14. In regard to Article 5, we hold the same question as the above on Article 4.
15. As regards Article 6, I would like to know whether the Korean residents in Japan in this article include their descendants, including those who might be born in distant future.
They are about all for me to ask.
Mr. CHOI:
Mr. HIRAGA's questions dealt with many detailed points in the draft agreement. I remember I made answers at the previous session to a series of questions Mr. KATSUNO raised at the tenth meeting, and I think that, comparing the questions Mr. HIRAGA has made now with those of Mr. KATSUNO, my answers made at the previous session have covered mast of Mr. HIRAGA's questions. To the other questions, I will study thereon and will give answers on later occasions.
Mr. KATSUNO:
Since the points of Mr. HIRAGA's questions are different from those of mine, I hope you would answer to Mr. HIRAGA's questions one by one.
Mr. CHOI:
Concerning the principles of the draft agreement, I have already answered thereon. Also, regarding the procedures to obtain the permanent residence,(Paragraph 1 of Article 3), I told the Japanese side at the previous session that it would be worth considering to work out procedure to be more effective, as well as more economic and timesaving. As to Paragraph 2 of Article 3, sufficient explanations have been made at the previous session. Regarding the same paragraph, refering to item 11 of Mr. HIRAGA's questionnare, I have already made the explanation at the preceding session on the meaning of the word "consult", and, as to the extent of the words "such matters as are required for the enforcement thereof," I will make answers on the later occasion.
Besides, I do not find any justification for discussing such technical matters at this stage. The Japanese side can ask any such questions when we entered into article-by-article-deebate of the proposal. As I think that such exchanges of questions and answers at the stage would only waste the valuable time of this committee, I would like to suggest that this committee enter into article-by-article discussion on the draft agreement as soon as possible. Further, I would like to invite the attention of the Japanese side that it has failed to give answers to the questions I presented at the previous session along my answers to Mr. KATSUNO's questions.
Mr. KATSUNO:
We are still studying your questions. We asked questions in order to have a better grasp of the meanings of the Korean draft agreement, which I hope you will understand.
Mr. CHOI:
Since a sufficient explanation was made regarding the fundamental structures of the Korean draft agreement, I believe the Japanese side has fully understood principles thereof. Therefore I wish the Japanese side would sincerely try to find a constructive and time-saving way for an early settlement of the works of this committee. I would like to suggest again that the committee enter into article-by-article discussion on the draft agreement, in the course of which both sides can enjoy ample time to exchange questions and answer on detailed matters concerning relevant articles.
The Japanese side must be well aware of the fact that the matters covered by this draft agreement have been the problems for a long time to be settled between the two governments. Both sides have had enough experiences to feel that there should be a fundamental settlement thereof. It is also true that we know the background of the problems more than any other problems. However, as the Japanese side is lingering with so-called "general questions", including those which are too clear to be questioned, we cannot but think that the Japanese side is purposely wasting valuable time of tbe committee and delaying the solution of the pending problem. Now I like to know when will the Japanese side present its official views on our proposal.
Mr. KATSUNO:
Since Mr. HIRAGA has finished with his questions, we will be ready for our views as soon as the answers to Mr. HIRKAGA's questions are given by the Korean side.
Mr. CHOI:
As regards items 13 and 14 of Mr. HIRKAGA's questionnare, I would like to explain on Articles 4 and 5 and their relations with Paragraph 3 of Article 7, respectively, of the draft agreement. According to the Japanese view that Korean residents in Japan lost so-called "Japanese" nationality on April 28, 1952 when San Francisco Peace Treaty entered into effect, though the Korean side does not regognize the Japanese view, those Korean residents should have enjoyed up to that date the same treatment as "national treatment". And in view of the fact that the acquired rights of those Koreans should naturally be respected, Articles 4 and 5 were proposed on the basis of the natural logics that those Koreans should be able to enjoy the same treatment up to this date 2nd will be entitled to do so up to the date of the coming into effect of this draft agreement. We made reservation item 3 when the Korean draft proposal was presented to the committee, because we have to be sure of what treatment the Japanese Government has granted to the Koreans concerned after the end of World War II. What kind of treatment are they now enjoying? We have to know it first. Therefore, the conclusive answer thereon can be given according to the Japanese answer to our question mentioned above, and Articles 4 and 5 should be re-considered accordingly, if the Japanese answer is different from our expection.
Mr. KATSUNO:
As to the details of the treatments being rendered to the Korean residents in Japan, we will present them to the committee as soon as the whole picture is in hand.
Mr. CHOI:
It seems to be almost at the end of discussion for today. But, before closing the session, I would like to reiterate my wish that the Japanese side would cooperate with us in finding ways to expedite the works of the committee. Now, when shall we meet again?
Mr. KATSUNO
Let us meet at 3:00 p.m., November 24, 1958
Mr. CHOI:
No objection.
REMARKS: Before the meeting was adjourned, the committee agreed to the Joint Press Release which reads: "The committee continued substantial discussions on the legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan, and it was decided that the next meeting would be held at 3:00 p.m., November 24, 1958.

- The end -