Criticism has erupted around the world over the paper “Contracting for sex in the Pacific War” written by Mark Ramseyer, a Mitsubishi professor at Harvard University Law School. Ramseyer insists tha “comfort women” by Japanese imperial military made “credible contracts” with recruiters regardless of the Japanese government or the Japanese military. Ramseyer further insists that the “comfort women” were certified prostitutes. However, the Japanese government selected recruiters secretly and provided them with convenience in mobilizing women. Recruiters have deceived women, mainly by job fraud, into kidnapping them to military brothels. The recruiters signed with Japanese women as barmaids (shakuhu), meaning women who served drinks. However, the Japanese military brothels were prohibited from drinking. Almost Korean women were illiterate in 1940’s, so recruiters did not make contract papers with them. It was very easy to deceive Korean women to make sexual slaves of Japanese military. The surviving Japanese military’s surgeon or soldiers testified that Korean “comfort women” had been sexual slaves.

The Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan was signed as a result of Korea-Japan talks from October 1951 to June 1965. Article 2 of the Korea- Japan Basic Treaty stipulates the so-called “Article Related to the Former Treaties and Agreements.” A compromise was adopted with the term, “already null and void.” As regards this expression, Japan asserts that the period of Japanese occupation was once valid, while Korea maintains that it has been “fundamentally null and void.” So, the meaning does not change even if ‘already’ is inserted in the beginning. Korean cultural properties taken away to Japan during the period of Japanese occupation should all be returned to Korea, but Japan evaded the expression, ‘return’ until Korea referred to the term, ‘turn over’ as an intermediate expression between ‘return’ and ‘donation.’ The author believes that the more both sides mutually communicate with each other for universal value, the earlier they arrive at the final resolution for these issues under international law and justice.

This paper provides detailed analysis of the so-called ‘Rusk Letter’ which has been generally referred to as an evidence of Japan’s territorial claim to Dokdo island. The Rusk Letter is a diplomatic epistle which was drafted by Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State and sent to the Korean Embassy in the US on August 10, 1951. This letter considers Dokdo as Japan’s territory. However, the Rusk Letter has been legally and historically criticized from mainly two aspects. First, the Rusk Letter referred to the ownership of Dokdo only considering the Japanese position which was not true. Second, this letter was a confidential and unofficial document which was sent only to Korea; Japan and even the US Embassy to Korea did not know the Rusk Letter. It did not influence on the decision of Peace Treaty. Therefore, the Rusk Letter cannot be a critical evidence of Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo.