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.

Japanese immigration law has been amended several times since 2000. These revisions aimed at coping with globalization and regionalization in East Asia. Since mobility is a critical issue for establishing a transnational labor market and ultimately a regional community, this article examines the interaction between Japanese immigration law, especially that of the Industrial Training and Technical Internship Program, and the struggle to build an East Asian Community. This article proposes enhancing the mutual recognition of certifications of skill as a means to promote the movement of people in the region.