강제송환문제에 관한 건
No.66
December 9th, 1959.
Your Excellency:
Two weeks ago I supplied information concerning the possibility of ICJ, and also replied to the enquiry made by the Government on the subject of possible intervention from the Communist regime.
Under these circumstances such intervention, according to the prevailing interpretation of International Law on this subject, cannot be made as an independent party because of lack of jurisdiction: should it be made, it would be intervention siding with one party - Japan. However, the main question is whether we shall be able to get enough evidence to get a favourable decision from ICJ on the substantial matter. Anyway, it seems that the Government is not so interested in such a measure.
2. Should Japan deport our people on the 14th, I believe a strong protest will be made to the Japanese Government mentioning the reparations. The nature of these reparations, from the point of view of International Law, is a sort of compensation for the breach of their obligation, the breaking of the status quo-illegal deportation of our people to northern Korea, etc.
3. We still have to gather all the evidence as to how the Japanese and ICRC failed to confirm free will at the embarcation port, our people being sent to northern Korea. This will be very important because we can use it even at a later stage. Up to now I understand that those who will be deported by the Japanese number a little more than 4,000. But as the Japanese agreement with the Communists is for a year and three months there is no doubt that next year the Japanese will again start deporting more people from Japan to the northern part of Korea. Under these circumstances, evidence should be collected as to how the Japanese handle our people at the Niigata port.
With sentiments of loyalty and esteem,
Two weeks ago I supplied information concerning the possibility of ICJ, and also replied to the enquiry made by the Government on the subject of possible intervention from the Communist regime.
Under these circumstances such intervention, according to the prevailing interpretation of International Law on this subject, cannot be made as an independent party because of lack of jurisdiction: should it be made, it would be intervention siding with one party - Japan. However, the main question is whether we shall be able to get enough evidence to get a favourable decision from ICJ on the substantial matter. Anyway, it seems that the Government is not so interested in such a measure.
2. Should Japan deport our people on the 14th, I believe a strong protest will be made to the Japanese Government mentioning the reparations. The nature of these reparations, from the point of view of International Law, is a sort of compensation for the breach of their obligation, the breaking of the status quo-illegal deportation of our people to northern Korea, etc.
3. We still have to gather all the evidence as to how the Japanese and ICRC failed to confirm free will at the embarcation port, our people being sent to northern Korea. This will be very important because we can use it even at a later stage. Up to now I understand that those who will be deported by the Japanese number a little more than 4,000. But as the Japanese agreement with the Communists is for a year and three months there is no doubt that next year the Japanese will again start deporting more people from Japan to the northern part of Korea. Under these circumstances, evidence should be collected as to how the Japanese handle our people at the Niigata port.
With sentiments of loyalty and esteem,
I remain,
Faithfully yours,
His Excellency President Syngman Rhee,
SEOUL,
Corée.
SEOUL,
Corée.
색인어
- 지명
- Japan, Japan, northern Korea, northern Korea, Japan, northern part of Korea, Niigata
- 관서
- the Japanese Government
- 단체
- ICJ, ICJ, ICRC
