Wartime Labor Mobilization Issue Continue To Plague Japan-South Korea Ties – Analysis
At a time when Japan-China ties are frayed over the remarks made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on 7 November 2025 in the Diet hinting that a Chinese blockade in the vicinity of Taiwan could be a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, potentially triggering the mobilisation of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (SDF) and the sharp reaction from China, another development in the Northeast Asia has threatened to derail Japan’s ties with its neighbour South Korea and send relations to a new low. This poses difficult challenges for Takaichi. Though Takaichi’s popularity rating at home is currently is impressive at over 70 per cent as revealed by several polls, this could soon plummet as Takaichi is unable to address these challenges.
The issue between Japan and South Korea at stake stems from the ruling by South Korea’s Supreme Court on 11 December 2025 that upheld an appellate court ruling in a damage lawsuit brought by four children of deceased wartime labourer against Nippon Steel, ordering the company to pay a combined 100 million Won, approximately $70,000. This ruling making the Japanese corporations to bear civil liability for the wartime mobilisation of Koreans during Japan’s colonial era now risks unsettling the fragile diplomatic thaw between Japan and Korea. The court ruling risks reopening a diplomatic would that was thought already healed. And, these are no signs of resolution forever.
The wartime compensation is one of the two major issues that have plagued relations between the two Asian neighbours, the other being the Comfort Women issue. The Supreme Court ruling on 11 December came after the court examined the victim Jeong’s testimony furnished by the plaintiff that he suffered harm after being forcibly mobilised to work at a steel mill in Iwate Prefecture between 1940 and 1942. Based on this, the surviving members filed a suit in April in 2019, seeking roughly double the amount ultimately granted. What the court verdict now means that old wounds are yet to be healed and new cases could appear soon.
Japan’s contention is that when the Treaty of Basic Relations was signed between the two countries in 1965. Under this Korea-Japan Claims Agreement, all compensation issues for victims of forced mobilisation during the colonial era were resolved permanently and therefore could not accept additional claims. It contended that the court rulings are invalid. The court ruling now since 2018 means that the normalisation treaty of 1965 did not cover individuals’ rights to seek damages over wartime mobilisation. The court interpreted that the treaty settled state-to-state claims, leaving to interpretation that individual plaintiffs are free to pursue compensation from Japanese companies.
Now there are conflicting, sometimes opposing, interpretations of the court’s ruling by analysts and scholars. Some view that this is court’s overreach and encroaching to what falls under the executive branch. What effectively it means that the ruling reopens questions that previous governments had thought permanently resolved.
The war mobilisation issue has been simmering for quite some time. The controversy dates back to February 2005 when four South Korean plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that they had been forcibly conscripted into labour in Japan during the colonial era. It may be remembered that Japan colonised Korea for 35 years from 1910 to 1945 when it was defeated during the World War II. Japan’s dealings and treatment of the Koreans during these 35 years have remained issues that have troubled bilateral ties till today. The intervention by the court has added another dimension to the troubled ties between the two Asian neighbours.
The court’s stance has also not remained consistent. For example, in 2008 a trial court had dismissed the claims. An appellate court upheld that decision in 2009. However, in 2012 the Supreme Court overturned both rulings and remanded the case. Then in October 2018, in a landmark ruling the Supreme Court declared Japan’s colonial rule illegal and preserved individuals’ right to pursue damages against Japanese companies.
This ruling led to academics in Japan and Korea to step in and floated the “illegal annexation theory”. This theory was advanced first by left-leaning Japanese scholars, and soon picked up by Korean legal fraternity and academics. What this theory meant was that Japan’s colonial period following annexation in 1910 was illegal and therefore null and void. After Korea was liberated following Japan’ defeat in World War II, all of Japan’s actions during the colonisation period, including wartime mobilisation, were interpreted to lack legal legitimacy.
How did the Japanese government take the court rulings by the Korean courts? Since Japan’s official position which has remained consistent that the treaty of 1965 settled all colonial-era disputes, Japanese companies felt emboldened and therefore declined to comply with the ruling. South Korean courts went further and started freezing and seizing the domestic assets of Japanese companies in 2019 to enforce compensation orders.
The diplomatic costs were heavy for both. In July 2019, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded with export control orders on South Korea, citing security concerns. South Korea responded by boycotting Japanese goods and thus triggered escalation of tit-for-tit retaliation. This standoff continued till 2023, when then but now deposed Yoon Suk-yeol administration tried to reset ties by advancing a “third party compensation scheme”, operated through a government-run foundation and financed by voluntary contributions from South Korean companies, rather than Japanese firms. Under the plan, the Foundation for Korean Victims of Forced Mobilization by Imperial Japan (FOMO), an affiliate of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, would use funds raised through voluntary private contributions to pay compensation and accrued interest to victims who won final judgments in their lawsuits, in place of the Japanese corporations.
Tokyo was keen not to escalate the issue further and accepted the proposal. Yoon’s overtures led to 26 former wartime labourers or their bereaved families receive compensation of up to $216,000 per person. The ties looked stabilised. However, the 11 December ruling reopened the old wounds. Because by then, the October 2028 ruling by the Supreme Court emboldened 87 more plaintiffs to file similar suits pursuing similar claims against 11 Japanese companies. More cases are still pending. There is a possibility that the number of possible compensation recipients could reach staggering figure of around 200,000. That would complicate the issue further. The demand for formal apologies from Japanese firms and even the government could also increase, further vitiating the situation. The funds are already depleted early this year, which gives rise to doubts about the long-term viability of the arrangement.
Though the present President Lee Jae-myung is keen to maintain the agreed compensation framework established by Yoon, the court ruling could dent the future ties with Japan and regional diplomacy would prove to be ineffective. There are demands in some lawsuits that demand direct compensation payment by Japanese corporations, including through asset liquidation. The court ruling of 11 December thus keeps such avenues open, directly impacting bilateral relations. If this is the case, can one hope for reconciliation efforts stay alive and relevant? That is a million dollar question for which there is no easy answer.
As expected, Japan rejected the ruling on forced mobilisation compensation. The Japanese government lodged a protest after the court verdict that held Japan accountable for forced mobilisation during its colonial rule. The Japanese government conveyed to the Korean government its position that the matter should be resolved through a third-party repayment method.
Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release stating that "Masaki Kanai, director-general for Asian and Oceanian Affairs, conveyed views to Kim Jang-hyeon, minister for political affairs at the Korean Embassy in Japan, based on Japan's consistent position to date." The same day, the Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) ruled partially in favour of the plaintiffs in a damages suit filed by four children of forced-labour victim Jeong Hyeong-pal against Nippon Steel (formerly Shin-Nippon Steel), ordering, "The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs a total of 100 million won."
That the two economically developed Asian neighbours are unfortunately locked in disputes relating to pre-War years till the present days is a subject matter that has engaged scholars to dissect and demystify what prevents real reconciliation between the two. Chizuko T, Allen’s 2019 book titled “Anti-Japan Tribalism: The Root of the Japan-Korea Crisis” that sold over 4 lakh copies in quick time is illustrative of the emotive factor that plagues the bilateral ties. The book encompasses many critical issues in modern Japan-Korean relations, ranging from Japan’s colonial policies in 1910-1945, to wartime Japan’s mobilization of Korean men and women, to the 1965 Japan-South Korea normalization treaty, to South Korea’s territorial claim of Tokdo or Takeshima.
Like the Nankin massacre controversy, there are several exaggerations of Japanese military’s alleged brutality. Unfortunately, history often hides complexity. Even many present day Koreans believe that during the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake, many Koreans in Tokyo were slaughtered by paranoid racists in the aftermath of a horrible natural disaster. Such incomplete historical narratives continue to influence the thought process till today. The labour mobilisation compensation issue is one of the many such issues that remain as shadow of history. Whether true or not, the present generation of peoples both in Japan and Korea continue to confront historical facts in conflicting and sometimes contradictory narratives and thus remain as prisoners of history. Both sides are unwilling to buy the past. That is unfortunate.