This article focuses on the Korean claim for repatriation of cultural property currently located in Japan. Through an analysis of the relevant rules of international law, it demonstrates the established norm that the predecessor state is not obliged to repatriate the cultural property acquired in and exported from the annexed territory. It further shows that, even if Japan had not annexed the Empire of Korea and just occupied it, the repatriationists’ claim would not hold water, as the question has been conclusively settled by a bilateral agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea. Considering that the parties to a settlement should refrain from subsequently relitigating the matter, the author concludes that cultural property, which can be a powerful ambassador for promoting mutual understanding, should be dealt with in the framework of forward-looking cooperation, including mutual loans and possibly the creation of a multinational museum.

1. Introduction
 2. International Law
  A. Lack of Obligation to Repatriate Cultural Property Expatriatedfrom an Annexed Territory
  B. Settlement of Claim for Restitution of Cultural Property Expatriatedfrom an Occupied Territory
 3. International Tendency
 4. Policy Considerations
  A. Prudence in Prohibition of a Settled or Belated Claim
  B. Acknowledgment of History As Is
  C. Establishing One’s Identity Not Limited to Group Identity
  D. Overcoming Cultural Legitimization of Extreme Nationalism
  E. Promotion of Mutual Understanding of Peoples by CulturalEncounter
 5. Conclusion

• Yoshiaki Sato(Professor of Law at Seikei University)