Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Legal and Legitimacy Issues surrounding Japan and Korean Relations,…

- - - - "According to Japan, these chemicals concern mateirals and tech that may be "diverted to military use" and Japan has a responsibility for managing the export of such dual-use materials" => therefore, export restrictions are legitimate
        
        export restrictions are subject to the "National Security Exception" under GATT Article XXI
        
        "the issue of the Korean Supreme Court's case on forced laborers is entirely separate from the export restrictions, albeit widespread suspicion even within Japan"
      - :star: Analysis of Article XXI
        
        The article "prohibits restrictions to trade other than duties, taxes, or other charges"
        
        Japanese export controls violate Article XI unless there's an exception
        
        Japan maintains the decision was made "solely from the standpoint of national security" and invokes GATT Article XXI's "essential security interests" to exception to justify their restrictions which are =>
        
        Require any contracting party to furnish any information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to its essetial security interests
        
        prevent any contracting party from taking action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests
        
        relating to fissionable materials
        
        relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition, and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment
        
        taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations
        
        prevent any contracting party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the UN charter for the maintenance of international peace and security
        
        stratiegic security information
        
        "fissionable" nuclear materials
        
        goods and services provisioned for military establishment
        
        war or other emergency in international relations
        
        UN charter obligations
        
        There is controversy that Article XXi is "self-judging" but the WTO made a ruling on this issue when Russia invoked Article XXI to justify their measure restricting trade on the grounds of Russia's national security interests
        
        "despite the "it considers" language of Article XXI, such language does not hand over a "blank check" to states to conduct a purely subjective determination when invoking the exception"
        
        a state's decisions to invoke Article XXI are reviewable by an adjudicating body and should be objectively justified by the state invoking the exception
        
        "In reviewing whether Russia's actions met the requirements, the panel also defined "essential security interests" as a concept that is "evidently .... narrower than 'security interests'" and continued that it "may generally be understood to refer to those interests relating to the quintessential functions of the state, namely, the protection of its territory and its population from external threats, and the maintenance of law and public order internally."
        
        the panel emphasises that the invoking state nonetheless faces a good-faith obligation => states need to carry the burden of proof in showing that there is "sufficiently enough" evidence of specific interests directly relevant to the protection of its territory or population or internal public order."
        
        Article XXi (b) - provisions for military establishment are criteria that can be objectively observed. Thus, when in dispute, such circumstance "must objectively be found to meet the requirements" by an adjudicating panel
        
        :star: Japan must be able to objectively justify that there is in fact an enumerated circumstance that warrants the invoking of Article XXI and demonstrate the truth behind their claim
        
        they must carry the proof that there is an essential security interest to be protected that involves threats to its territory, population, or internal order
        
        Japan must show evidence that the Export Restrictions to the three semiconductor materials and removal of South Korea from the White List are based on good-faith, by articularting the veracity of their claim behind an "essential security interest" that needs protection and the plausibility of the measures taken to protect the identified essential security concerns
        
        The Japanese government does not yet claim:
        
        The export restrictions are related to Japan's security information
        
        There is fissionable, nuclear material at stake
        
        Japan faces any war or international emergency that warrants the measure
        
        Korea violated any obligations of the UN charter
        
        Japan suggests that the Export Restrictions would be justified under Article XXI's military provisions "relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment"
        
        According to the Japanese government, the materials are wrongfully provisioned for military because the Korean laws concerning the mangement of dual-use items, including the matierals, are defective
        
        SK laws' "catch-all" provision concerning strategic items only concern weapons of mass destruction and does not include conventional weapons
        
        The Japanese government has yet to provide any objective evidence support such claims or a reasonable nexus between their claims and the specific measures taken
        
        No evidence provided by Japan that the 3 materials are wrongfully provisioned to a military => crucial inputs for the semiconductor production
        
        Japan fails to provide any specific instances in which the alleged defects in the law resulted in questionable or unlawful uses of exported items or how the current export control laws in place since 2002 suddenly threatens Japan's essential security interests
        
        Japan's assertions do not meet the Article XXI standard articulated in Russia Transit which require Japan at minimum to show objective evidence of wrongful military provisioning and how their security interests is plausibly protected by the measures taken
- - - - Not true, especially with comfort women