A History of Defeat, Yet a Triumph of Solidarity for “Human Dignity” Panel discussion: 
“The Legal Struggle over the Japanese Military ‘Comfort Women’ Issue and the ‘Comfort Women’ Movement” (1)

The Testimony of One Leading the Transformation of International Law

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : The Japanese Military “Comfort Women” issue has transcended the history of a specific nation or group, evolving into a matter of justice and international norms for the global community. It has been 34 years since December 6, 1991, when Kim Hak-sun filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court as one of the plaintiffs in a case seeking compensation for Korean victims of the Pacific War. The persistent legal struggle carried forward over these decades by survivors, civil society, and members of the legal community in Korea and abroad has led to significant accomplishments. On the occasion of Professor Timothy Webster’s visit to Korea, we have arranged this discussion to explore these issues together. Professor Webster, of Western New England University School of Law, has spent more than twenty years working and conducting research in the field of international dispute resolution. He is visiting Korea to present at the “2025 International Conference on the Japanese Military Sexual Slavery Issue: Global Citizenship and Solidarity,” hosted by the Research Institute on Japanese Military Sexual Slavery (hereinafter referred to as RIMSS).

Let us begin with brief introductions. I am an attorney at Law Firm Yangjae and a member of the Past History Settlement Committee of Lawyers for a Democratic Society (hereinafter referred to as MINBYUN), as well as the Special Committee on the Rights of Victims of Imperial Japan of the Korean Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as KBA). I have served on the legal team in lawsuits seeking damages for “Comfort Women” victims, information disclosure litigation, and constitutional petitions. In that sense, I am part of the second generation of lawyers who have carried forward the legal struggle to resolve the “Comfort Women” issue—following in the footsteps of the first generation who, in the 1990s, pioneered this effort with deep conviction and solidarity.

🧶 Lee Na-Young : I teach in the Department of Sociology at Chung-Ang University and have served as Chairperson of the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (hereinafter referred to as the Korean Council) since May 2020. My interest in the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” issue dates back to my doctoral studies, when I researched “Comfort Women” in U.S. military camp towns while preparing my dissertation. As an ordinary citizen and student, I participated in the Wednesday Demonstrations and the “Comfort Women” movement. Through these experiences, I gradually came to recognize my own narrow perspectives, and this process led me to become increasingly involved in the movement.

🧶 Timothy Webster : As a law student, I focused my research on the issue of forced labor of Chinese nationals in Japan, and later worked in international dispute resolution in Tokyo and New York. I also worked at a law firm that represented Mitsubishi, a Japanese company sued over its mobilization of Koreans and others for forced labor during the Japanese colonial period. However, I should clarify that the litigation took place before I joined the firm, so I was not involved in the case. I left the law firm to pursue writing on international disputes and reparations. Since then, I have taught Asian law at various universities in North America, Asia, and Europe, including Yale Law School and Case Western Reserve University.

Lost Litigation and Social Awakening

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : The “Comfort Women” issue is a complex one, encompassing multiple overlapping concerns such as wartime sexual violence, forced labor, gender, colonial rule, and imperialism. As related litigation, civic activism, and research have accumulated over time, the perspectives on this issue have gradually become clearer. With that in mind, I would like to ask both of you to share the themes or perspectives that you consider most important in approaching this issue.

🧶 Timothy Webster : As a lawyer, I naturally focus on the legal aspects. The paper I will present at this international conference examines the potential impact of the legal struggle surrounding the Korean “Comfort Women” issue as a transnational human rights litigation. Since Kim Hak-sun’s lawsuit, over 100 “Comfort Women” survivors have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government across five jurisdictions: Japan (10 cases), the United States (1 case), South Korea (3 cases), and China (1 case). However, with the exception of recent favorable rulings in Korean courts and the first-instance ruling in Japan’s Shimonoseki Trial, the plaintiffs have lost in all the other cases. Despite these outcomes and limitations, the “Comfort Women” lawsuits have advanced the movement in several ways. They have helped bring the issue into the public sphere, exposed the systemic and fundamental illegality of the system, united Korean civil society, and fostered solidarity with Japanese citizens and survivors across East Asia.

I am also interested in how civil society has evolved in response to these legal struggles. For example, in Japan, an organization known as the “Support Group for Lawsuit of Korean Former ‘Comfort Women’ in Japan” (hereinafter referred to as the Support Group) has supported the lawsuits. I am examining how civil society has evolved through such efforts and what forms of support it has provided for these lawsuits.

🧶 Lee Na-Young : As a scholar of women’s studies, I naturally prioritize feminist and women’s human rights perspectives. At its core, the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” issue is fundamentally a women’s issue. The central fact is that it constitutes a crime of wartime sexual violence in which countless women and girls across the Asia-Pacific region were systematically and forcibly mobilized by the Japanese government and military and compelled to live as “sexual slaves.” The issue is also closely connected to everyday sexual violence. It encompasses various forms of sexual exploitation against women, including physical abuse, rape and gang rape, forced abortions, and compulsory examinations for sexually transmitted diseases. Ultimately, the “Comfort Women” system stands as a stark example of how, throughout human history, women have been used as instruments of war and conquest. At the same time, the experiences of the survivors are deeply intertwined with multiple layers of oppression, including colonialism as well as issues of nationality, class, and race. For this reason, I believe a feminist perspective is essential to fully illuminate the complexity of this issue.

Another point to note is that the pioneers of the “Comfort Women” movement were also women. At a time when no one was speaking publicly about the issue, courageous Korean women stepped forward. They formed a coalition of 37 organizations to demand a full investigation and officially raise the issue, bringing it to international attention. Their efforts ultimately created the conditions for survivors to come forward and speak openly with dignity. If, on one side, there was the suffering inflicted on women, on the other, there was also a powerful movement that emerged to overcome that suffering. Therefore, a feminist perspective is essential for comprehending this transnational movement.

The Limitations and Possibilities of the “State Immunity” Clause

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : Professor Webster has spoken about the solidarity between civil society and litigation, and Professor Lee has highlighted the perspective of women’s human rights. However, when we look at the lawsuits brought against Japan, it is difficult to say that the issues of women’s rights and wartime sexual violence were clearly foregrounded. In the early stages of the “Comfort Women” movement, discussions tended to focus primarily on postwar compensation, colonial rule, and issues of state responsibility. As litigation continued in Korea, however, the issue of women’s human rights increasingly came to the forefront. Personally, I see the trajectory of the “Comfort Women” lawsuits as running parallel to the democratization of Korean society and the advancement of women’s rights. In that context, I would be interested to hear which particular developments in the course of these legal proceedings you find especially significant.

🧶 Timothy Webster : I believe there has been a meaningful shift at the level of international law. In the past, international law offered very limited protection for women’s rights and for people living under colonial rule. More recently, however, we have begun to see changes. Among the many issues in international law, one that has become particularly significant is state immunity. The key question is whether the Japanese government can be held legally responsible for acts committed in the 1930s and 1940s. Korean courts have ruled that state immunity does not shield the Japanese government in these cases. In the early 2000s, Japanese courts also issued rulings in a similar vein. I consider this development highly significant. Of course, the precedents and perspectives surrounding state immunity are complex. Nonetheless, in litigation related to the “Comfort Women” issue, there have been instances in which such arguments have gained some degree of recognition even within Japan. From a strategic perspective, the fact that lawyers can draw on this in bringing cases against the Japanese government concerning the “Comfort Women” issue could be a powerful force.

A Virtuous Cycle of Growth: Korean Civil Society and the “Comfort Women” Movement

🧶 Lee Na-Young : I’d like to explain this idea of “change” from a somewhat different angle. When victims first came forward in Korean society, there was not even a law such as the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, commonly known as the Special Act on Sexual Violence. At the time, social awareness of sexual violence was extremely limited, to the extent that the Criminal Code only contained Crimes against Chastity. In that context, the 37 women’s organizations that came together to address the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” issue also worked to enact the Special Act on Sexual Violence and the Special Act on Domestic Violence, while engaging in anti-prostitution activism. Through their collective action and growth within Korean society, they made significant contributions to reforming laws and institutions and transforming social awareness. It is important to recognize that over the past 35 years, as democratization movements have unfolded across various sectors, Korean society’s understanding of the “Comfort Women” movement has likewise evolved and deepened. The growth of civil society fueled the growth of the movement, which in turn broadened and strengthened its perspective, ultimately contributing to three favorable court rulings.

This trajectory has also continued at the international level. The year after Korea joined the United Nations in 1991, the Korean Council began engaging with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Together with survivors, it brought the “Comfort Women” issue to the attention of the international community and facilitated survivors’ testimonies on the global stage. I would say with confidence that Korean “Comfort Women” survivors, the Korean women’s movement that steadfastly supported them, and Japanese citizens who stood in solidarity played a pivotal role in reshaping international human rights norms concerning wartime sexual violence. A notable example is the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, where Korean women organized a large delegation and accompanied survivors to participate. Their efforts contributed to the adoption of the “Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,” which affirmed that “women’s rights are human rights” and recognized that human rights violations in armed conflict—particularly systematic rape and sexual slavery—require special and effective responses. At the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, the “Comfort Women” issue was again raised as a major agenda item. The movement’s sustained advocacy helped generate momentum for the UN Commission on Human Rights to appoint a Special Rapporteur, whose subsequent visits, reports, and recommendations further advanced international recognition of the issue. These efforts continue to this day. I would like to emphasize once more that, because international human rights law originated in the context of imperialism and colonialism and was long shaped primarily by white male actors, it failed to adequately reflect women’s experiences, and that it was ultimately the survivors and the women’s movement who led the global awakening to this limitation and the effort to transform it.

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : Although your overall positions are not fundamentally different, I sense a slight difference in the ways each of you approaches the issue. Compared to the steady advances in women’s rights and democratization within Korean society since the early 1990s, the progress of the litigation—regardless of the underlying reasons—can feel somewhat frustrating. Professor Lee, as someone who has long been involved in the movement, I would be interested in hearing your assessment of the litigation processes in both Korea and Japan. Professor Webster, I would like to ask about the relationship between the Support Group in Japanese civil society and the lawyers who handled these cases—specifically regarding what they were able to share, what they could not share, and the tensions that may have existed between them. In practice, the relationship between civil society organizations that support survivors and the lawyers representing them in court is often both collaborative and tense. Given your long-standing research on litigation in Japan and your observations of the activities of the Support Group, I would appreciate your perspective on this dynamic.

Pride in the “Comfort Women” Movement Beyond Legal Remedies

🧶 Timothy Webster : In general, litigation centers on the plaintiff and their legal counsel. However, when civil society organizations, such as the Support Group, join to back the plaintiffs, the scope of the lawsuit expands significantly. Although not directly involved in the case, hundreds or even thousands of people become supporters, effectively participating in the litigation process. In Japan, support groups have played a crucial role in welcoming survivors from Korea and China. They also helped humanize what could otherwise be a deeply impersonal legal process that deals with profoundly inhumane acts. By standing together against historical injustice, these groups made the human dimension of the issue visible and tangible. At the same time, they demonstrated that Japan, too, is a pluralistic society composed of diverse individuals. By bringing to light the issue that had remained unaddressed and largely unacknowledged in Japanese society for half a century after the war, these groups fulfilled a vital social role. This dynamic, of course, is not unique to Japan. In fact, such social roles may not be the primary concern of legal practitioners. Yet in shaping the “Comfort Women” litigation as a significant social issue, civil society activists, scholars—including sociologists—and journalists all played indispensable roles.

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : Personally, I believe that in the “Comfort Women” litigation, the social significance might actually be its most fundamental aspect. To clarify my earlier question, I wasn’t referring to tension arising from conflict, but rather to the possibility that the expectations of the support groups may not have been fully reflected in the litigation. At the time, certain limitations may not have been apparent, and only later—through dialogue with the support organizations—might those gaps have come into focus. Given your extensive communication with Japanese lawyers, I was curious whether there were instances in which the expectations of the support groups were not adequately incorporated into the proceedings.

🧶 Timothy Webster : If I understand correctly, your question concerns whether there was tension between civil society, support organizations, and the legal team. The reality is that the legal system can offer only certain types of remedies. In civil litigation, relief is generally limited to “monetary compensation.” However, in both the “Comfort Women” and forced labor cases, the plaintiffs have consistently emphasized that what they seek is not simply financial compensation, but a sincere “apology.”

While alternative forms of redress can be contemplated, within the constraints of the legal framework, there may inevitably be a gap between the expectations of the victims and civil society on the one hand, and what lawyers can realistically pursue through litigation on the other. Even a legal victory does not necessarily bring a sense of fulfillment to the plaintiffs. For example, would an award of 100 million won in damages truly be satisfying? Most likely, it would not.

Yesterday, I visited the War and Women's Human Rights Museum and learned about the late Park Du-ri. She won at the first trial in the Shimonoseki Branch of the Yamaguchi District Court, but lost on appeal at the Hiroshima High Court and in the final judgment in the Supreme Court. Yet, I was struck to learn that, shortly before her passing in 2006, her final words were, “I won.” I was deeply moved. Even at the moment of her death, she was expressing pride in having confronted the Japanese government, transcending the outcome of any legal ruling.

The “Comfort Women” Legal Struggle: Challenging Even Ongoing War Crimes

🧶 Lee Na-Young : Litigation is, at its core, a process of holding perpetrators accountable and pursuing legal justice, so whether a case is won or lost is extremely important. At the same time, however, lawsuits create opportunities for survivors’ experiences to spread beyond the courtroom into the broader public sphere, deepening our empathy and understanding. In the process, the scope of solidarity expands—among civil society actors, journalists, scholars, and legal professionals alike. This has been true not only in Korea but also in Japan and the United States. Through these legal proceedings, many people came to see the “Comfort Women” issue as their own and stood in solidarity with the survivors. As the issue gained international attention, it became clear that it was not simply a particular crime against humanity confined to the past, but one connected to the many forms of wartime sexual violence that continue to occur today. For this reason, rather than judging the litigation solely by whether we won or lost a verdict, I believe it should be highly valued for the impact the “Comfort Women” movement has had on the international community and on the development of international law.

In the Korean lawsuits where I was more directly involved, the objectives articulated by the attorneys were as follows: first, to establish and place on the historical record the crimes against humanity committed by the Japanese state and military; second, to clarify Japan’s legal responsibility and thereby create an opportunity for reflection and a renewed commitment to ensure that such crimes never recur; third, to confirm that the issue was not fully and finally resolved by the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement or the 2015 Korea-Japan “Comfort Women” Agreement, contrary to Japan’s longstanding claims; and fourth, ultimately, to restore the dignity and honor of the victims. For these reasons, bringing the “Comfort Women” issue before the courts was never simply about obtaining monetary compensation. Although the barrier of state immunity remains high, litigation provides an important opportunity to bring the victims’ voices into the public sphere and inscribe their experiences into the historical record. That is why we have continued to pursue these cases with such dedication.

🧶 Ryu Gwang-ok : As one of the legal representatives in these cases, I feel as though I have been met with both encouragement and criticism at the same time.