top of page
Search

The Korean Victims of the Japanese Military’s Sexual Slavery System and Their Ongoing Fight for Justice

  • Apr 22
  • 17 min read

Updated: Apr 23

Written by Erika Nannette

Edited by Yatika Singh


Erika Nannette is an undergraduate student at Sciences Po Paris, Le Havre Campus, in the Social Sciences track. She plans to major in Politics and Government with a minor in International Relations. She is passionate about law, human rights and East-Asian history.


Introduction: Korean ‘comfort women’, victims of the Japanese military sexual slavery system


The term ‘comfort women’ designates the 200,000 women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese imperial army from 1932 to 1945. In structures labelled as ‘comfort stations’, these women were subject to daily and repetitive rape – sometimes by over 50 men in one day – but also to beatings, cigarette burns, multilation, knife and bayonet stabings, torture and in some cases, murder. This system was structured primarily around women who were under  20-years-old – sometimes as young as 12. A great part of these women came from Korea between 1910 and 1945, when the country was still a Japanese colony.


Indeed, during the Pacific War, the Japanese military used sexual slavery as a weapon of war. On the one hand, this system aimed to destroy the opposition by taking hostages of their civilians who were captured to serve as sexual slaves. On the other hand, it had the purpose of providing so-called ‘entertainment’ and ‘fuel’ to Japanese soldiers and relieving them of ‘combat stress’. Thus, for such purposes, thousands of women were recruited through deception or violence. Most women were easily deceived as they came from underprivileged rural areas and were promised the offer of  a factory job with good wages or training for skilled professions such as nursing. Other women were abducted through ‘slave raids’, extremely violent military raids done to forcefully take the women to comfort stations. In some cases, soldiers broke the bones of the women before tying and throwing them in trucks.


This sexual slavery system destroyed the lives of countless women and children. While 80% of the comfort women could not make it through the war, most survivors were unable to carry on with their lives as well. On the one hand, a great majority of them suffered irreversible physical damage due to their continuous pregnancies, excessive bleeding, repetitive injections of drugs to prevent STDs; and for those who were near the fronts, the exposure to attacks and bombings added to their suffering. For example, most of the women had swollen genitals and became infertile, some of them had broken bones or cut-off body parts, while others had turned deaf. Irreversible psychological damage was also a consequence. Lifelong trauma was an addition to the social ostracism many had to suffer upon return to Korea. In fact, most of the survivors were rejected by their families who saw them as ‘tainted’ and ‘impure’ and thus unmarriable. This rejection was especially strong in a poverty-stricken post-war Korea. Thus, many of them attempted or committed suicide.


Such psychological weight was especially heavy to carry for the comfort women as their case only came to public attention in the early 1990s, forcing them to suffer in silence for over 50 years. Even during the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), these women were not given justice, let alone mentioned. The 1946 Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East clearly attests the way their case was ignored, as it does not explicitly mention Japan’s sexual crimes despite condemning “enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war.” Likewise, the post-war peace treaties signed by the Allies and Japan never addressed this issue. A key example is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty which, despite touching upon the topic of prisoners of war, does not make any references to the sexual slaves. Prior to 1992, discussions on this issue were also avoided within Japanese political institutions as the Japanese government consistently denied its involvement in the enslavement of women for sexual purposes and blamed private agents for it. Later on, continually avoiding the comfort women’s case only fueled the survivors’ fight for justice as it was not only a result of Japan’s refusal to acknowledge its international war crimes but also the Allies’. Indeed, having interviewed several comfort women immediately after the war, the Allied powers were well-aware of the Japanese military sexual slavery system.


It was only by the 1990s that the issue of the comfort women was brought to public attention. In August 1991, the Korean comfort woman Kim Hak-Sun broke the silence – at age 67 – by making the first public testimony as a past Japanese sexual slave. As a ripple effect, numerous comfort women began to speak publicly of their experiences and global movements demanding justice for the victims arose. The following year, with Professor Yoshimi Yoshiaki releasing documentary evidence of Japan’s sexual war crimes, the Japanese government was forced to admit its direct involvement in sexual slavery and act upon the demands for the nation to provide reparations to the victims. However, even today, over 30 years after the issue was made public, many support that Korean comfort women did not obtain justice due to the insufficiency of the political and legal initiatives taken by the Japanese government. Thus, despite the cultural and economic rapprochement between South Korea and Japan in recent decades, the issue of the Korean comfort women remains one of great tension between the two countries.


In light of all of this, this article will focus on the case of the Korean comfort women and their fight for justice. 80 years after the end of sexual slavery in Japan, how far has the fight for the justice of South Korean comfort women come ? This analysis will focus on three key perspectives:  (1) the one of the Japanese government which has argued that the Korean comfort women issue has been resolved since 2015, (2) the perspective of the victims, their defenders and of the South Korean government, all convinced that Japan has been denying its war crimes, (3) and the outlook given by international law treaties – including the ones Japan ratified overtime – which support that, to this day, the survivors have not received reparations on par with the suffering they went through.


From the perspective of the Japanese government: a fight for justice that has ended long ago


From the Japanese perspective of the affair, Japan has done everything it can to settle the case and give justice to the Korean comfort women. 


In fact, since 1992, Japanese government officials have issued several apologies to South Korea and its comfort women. This was done alongside governmental projects which aimed to recover the truth about the military sexual slavery system and acknowledge the atrocities suffered by Korean comfort women. It published its first official research report in 1992 and soon after reinforced its credibility through the “Kono Declaration” – released by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono – in which Japan acknowledged its wrongdoings. Likewise, in 2005, it released significant documents recording the past negotiations between Korea and Japan. This particular decision facilitated the Korean survivors in demanding individual reparation from Japanese courts.


Moreover, Japan has provided South Korea and its victims with monetary support. First, it has done so by establishing the Asian Women’s Fund, a private-sector fund created to distribute “atonement money” to the survivors. Additionally, following the signing of the 1965 “Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea”, Japan has significantly contributed to South Korea’s post-war reconstruction. Finally, in 2015, after decades of political and judicial conflict around the case of the comfort women, Japan announced that the 2015 “South Korean-Japanese Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’” would “finally and irreversibly” settle the issue. Through this agreement, Japan promised to give 1 billion yen to the South Korean survivors, by funding an organization named “Reconciliation and Healing Foundation”, aimed at supporting the remaining comfort women.


However, even though Japan admits to have settled the issue on its side, it would seem like the fight for justice for the comfort women is still a subject of great concern to South Korea and especially to the victims and their supporters. Indeed, from their perspectives, Japan’s actions to resolve the issue are judged as highly insufficient and for two notable reasons. Firstly, because it refuses to fully acknowledge its responsibility for creating and maintaining the sexual slavery system by attempting to erase the memory of the comfort women. Secondly, because it is unwilling to pay for full reparations as demanded by the victims and imposed by international law.


From the perspective of the victims: an ongoing fight for justice


Korean comfort women and their defenders recognize that their fight for justice has come a long way since the 1990s. For example, their progress was clearly embodied in 2000 with the establishment of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery which, despite being a non-judicial body, significantly contributed to the disclosure of facts on the sexual slavery system. This initiative was especially significant as at the time as there were not any serious attempts made by the Japanese government to establish the truth of its war crimes. In fact, the several research papers and documents previously published by the Japanese government were severely criticized by activists for their limited scope and lack of hearings from victims. Adding on to the advancement of the Korean comfort women issue, from a legal point of view, the victims are well-aware that their efforts contributed to the recognition of sexual slavery as a crime in international law. For example, their voices and actions have led to its recognition in the Rome Statute. From these elements, it can be noticed that most of the actions that led to the advancement of the comfort women’s fight for justice were from either activists or international organizations and not Japan. For this reason, it is still relevant to highlight the situation of the Korean comfort women as an ongoing fight for justice.


Indeed, to this day, Korean comfort women consider Japan’s initiatives to be insufficient in regards to the sexual war crimes it committed. Since the early 1990s, through protests – and specifically, the Wednesday Demonstrations – the victims have put forward seven specific demands to Japan. These demands are: admitting the sexual slavery system it perpetrated as a war crime, disclosing all official documents, delivering an official and sincere apology, paying full reparations to the victims. punishing those responsible for the crimes, recording the sexual slavery system in history textbooks, erecting a memorial monument and building an official archive to maintain their memory. In 2000, the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery issued similar recommendations to the government of Japan. 


Hearing the women, the Japanese government has granted several of their demands. For example, it has done so through its apologies and by providing compensation. However, the victims are convinced of the insincerity of the official apologies as the actions that go along with them do not reflect Japan’s intention to acknowledge its full responsibility for creating and maintaining the sexual slavery system. Indeed, even the Asian Women’s Fund is reflective of the State’s unwillingness to assume such responsibility as it was not directly associated with the Japanese government by being categorized as a non-governmental, private fund. This explains why many comfort women, supported by feminist groups, strongly opposed the initiative and even refused to accept the compensation offered by the fund. Furthermore, the economic support South Korea received through the 1965 agreement – which is often referred to by defenders of the Japanese perspective – never made mention of the sexual slavery system. Additionally, despite providing South Korea with powerful economic resources, it did not do so to the victims themselves – the compensation went to the State, not to the individuals.


Another major reason why South Korean comfort women are convinced of Japan’s unwillingness to acknowledge its past is the number of court cases which were filed on their side and were dismissed by Japanese courts. On top of that, most of the courts which had decided to provide reparation for Korean survivors were overturned a few years later against them. For example, in 1998, during the ‘Korean comfort women v. Japan, Shimonoseki Branch’ lawsuit, the Yamaguchi District Court judged that the Japanese government’s failure to enact legislation ensuring reparation was unconstitutional, thus concluding that reparation should be provided to the victims who had filed the complaint. However, only three years after the decision, the Hiroshima High Court judged that the Japanese Constitution did not oblige the State to legislate laws regarding reparation and overturned its initial judgement. Moreover, despite holding trials, most courts were said to issue judgements without establishing facts of the matter, making judges unable to grasp the severity of the comfort women’s cases before setting a judgement. This refusal to establish facts and recover the truth is the most reflective of the Japanese government’s refusal to acknowledge its past actions.


Additionally, one of the demands the most insisted upon by the survivors and their supporters is the recognition and the honoring of the victims; especially through textbooks, memorials and museums. Thus, in the early 2000s, the Japanese government reported to the United Nations that all of its textbooks touched upon the issue of comfort women. However, out of the 12 history textbooks which were made to be used by Japanese high school students as of 2022, only one was found to mention the coercive nature of the sexual slavery system – as a footnote – and only seven mentioned the system itself – in one or two sentences. For decades, this was interpreted as Japan’s reluctance to accept its responsibility and initiative to erase the past. 


This interpretation was notably confirmed in 2015, first, during the signing of the “South-Korean Japanese Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’” as in exchange for the 1 billion yen it promised to give to South Korean survivors, Japan demanded the removal of the ‘Statue of Peace’ erected in front of the Japanese embassy in South Korea – in 2011 – to honor the victims. Hence, refusing to grant this unreasonable demand, in 2018, South Korea decided to dismantle the “Reconciliation and Healing Foundation” in charge of compensating the survivors, in exchange of keeping alive the memory of the comfort women. In the words of the ex-Korean Gender Equality Minister Jin Sun Mee, the closing of this policy was necessary to “restore the honor and dignity” of the Korean comfort women. Moreover, one of the ex-Japanese Prime Ministers – Shinzo Abe’s – concern at that time was undoing the words of the Kono Statement, which had marked a significant step forward for the recognition of women's rights. Indeed, under Abe's governance, a special committee was created to supposedly ‘review’ the apology and verify its historical validity and cast doubt on the veracity of the victims’ testimonies. However, while this measure might seem important in an effort to stay true to history, the Japanese government’s intention to erase its ties with its sexual slavery system could be understood as the committee contained only one historian – Ikuhiko Hata – who strongly supported the rewriting of the Kono Declaration. To add on, around that time, Japan had denied that “200,000” comfort women were “forcefully [taken] away” from their homes to serve as “sex slaves”. They have considered these claims to be “allegations” that are not based on historical facts. Despite having acknowledged part of its sexual war crimes with the Kono Statement of 1993, Japan’s current actions clearly showcase that it is against acknowledging the sufferings of the Korean comfort women.


Confronted to the Japanese’s efforts to erase its war crimes against Korean women, the South Korean government has continuously supported the victims. This support was done by acknowledging and memorializing their past, but also by allowing the victims to bring claims against Japan before their national courts. However, as experts had claimed “it [was] very likely that [the lawsuits would] never be delivered, unless Japan’s claim of state immunity is overcome.” In international law, the principle of ‘state immunity’ defends that all States are sovereign and therefore equal. Thus, one State should not submit another to its national law. To overcome this principle, Korean courts ruled that the premise of state immunity could not be applied in the case of Japan’s sexual war crimes in regard to the severity of the issue and the extent of the damage suffered by the comfort women. In fact, in 2021, the Seoul Central District Court developed on this idea as “if the defendant state destroyed the universal values of the international community and inflicted extreme damage on the victims with anti-human rights acts”, state immunity must be waived. Nonetheless, despite this ruling, the Japanese government did not respond to the victims’ lawsuits, justifying their choices with the rule of state immunity. For example, in a statement issued by its Foreign Minister, Japan made clear its stance as it declared that “[it] strongly urges the Republic of Korea to immediately take appropriate measures to remedy the status of its breaches of international law.” However, once again, Japan’s claims against Korea only reflect its intention to deny its war crimes. Indeed, by having its own national law emphasize that state immunity does not apply in certain cases of human right abuses, Japan should be aware that it is not South Korea which is going against international law, but itself. The specific law referred to is the ‘Act on Japan’s Civil Jurisdiction Over Foreign Countries, etc.’, adopted in 2009.


Therefore, because of Japan’s reluctance to acknowedge its war crimes and unwillingness to memorialize the victims of the sexual slavery system it perpetuated, Korean comfort women continue to demand justice in the face of Japan’s “ongoing cycle of impunity for wartime sexual violence.”


Nonetheless, while it might seem like the only opposition against the Korean comfort women’s fight for justice is the Japanese government and their supporters, that is not the case. Even within South Korea, there are several conservative groups protesting against the government’s actions for comfort women. For example, there have been recent protests led by the far-right group ‘Citizens for Abolishing the Comfort Women Act’, advocating for the removal of the Statues of Peace established in different parts of the country.


According to international law: a case that remains unresolved because of the Japanese government’s refusal to accept its legal responsibility


Since the early 1990s, international law treaties have emphasized the importance of providing full reparations to the victims of crimes against humanity, specifically in a way that is acceptable to the survivors themselves. Thus, multiple international organizations have accused Japan of its “continued denial of justice” and pressured the State to provide full reparations for the atrocities it committed against the victims of its sexual slavery system. Up until now, Japan has consistently argued that this legal obligation was not applicable in its case as the treaties constraining it to provide such reparations to the survivors were only ratified years after the end of the sexual slavery system. However, the treaties ratified by the Japanese government before 1945 say otherwise, making it clear that Japan’s continual refusal to provide reparations is not legally acceptable and amount to its attempt to not take the blame of the sexual slavery system and erase the past of the comfort women.


To begin with, several international law texts ratified by Japan before 1945 suggest the State’s obligation to provide for individual reparation when the rights of individuals were violated by the State itself. A notable example is the “Hague Regulations of 1907”, also known as “Convention (IV) respecting Laws and Customs of war on Land: guarantees the protection of civilians and war prisoners during wartime (including from enslavement and forced labor).” This text clearly guarantees individual right to reparation for war prisoners and victims of slavery as it claims that “[a] belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.” Additionally, even though it is not from a treaty specifically ratified by Japan, international law began to recognize individual reparation as a fundamental component of international jurisdiction in the 1920s. For example, in its ruling in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions in 1924, the Permanent Court of International Justice judged that in cases where individual rights were violated, reparation had to be directed towards the individual and not towards the State it belonged to. Specifically, it judged that the “[r]ights or interests of an individual [...] are always in a different plane to rights belonging to the State [...]. The damage suffered by an individual is never therefore identical with that which will be suffered by a State [...].” Moreover, the Permanent Court of International Justice emphasized the necessity of providing full reparations to such victims in 1928, by declaring that “reparations must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability have existed [i]f that act had not been committed.”


However, being aware that the question of the comfort women only came to public knowledge in the early 1990s, the application of international law treaties from after 1945 should be considered as highly relevant and legitimate. Among such treaties ratified by Japan, multiple emphasize the responsibility of the State and its duty for reparation. For example, the 1949 “Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims” imposes on States a duty to provide reparations as it explicits that “[a] Party [...] which violates the provisions of the Conventions or of this Protocol shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.” Other examples include the 1966 “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and 2001 "Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”. Additionally, similarly to the recognition of sexual slavery as a crime, the Japanese Constitution recognizes the State’s duty to provide reparation. Specifically, in its preamble, Article 9, Article 14, Article 17, Article 29, Article 40 and Article 98, the Constitution of Japan requires the National Diet to legislate a law providing compensation to war victims. 


Nonetheless, over the decades, Japan has dismissed multiple cases filed by Korean comfort women. In some cases, this was done by using the excuse that the Japanese Civil Code sets statutes of limitations of 20 years from the date of the incident which caused the damage. However, this action also represents a breach of international law as statutes of limitations do not apply to crimes that fall under international law, such as war crimes. Moreover, this is especially relevant considering that Japan concealed all evidence of its treatment of the Korean comfort women until the early 1990s as well as considering the time it takes for cases to be appealed to higher courts in Japan – as in extreme cases, it can last over ten years.


Therefore, multiple law texts highlight the reason why Japan’s legal actions done until now, to resolve the issue of the Korean comfort women, cannot be considered as sufficient: they do not fulfill the requirements disposed of by international law. Indeed, acknowledgement and full reparation are the two elements – yet the most important ones – that lack in the initiatives taken by the Japanese government. Thus, Japan’s actions and current stances on the issue clearly convey whether the fight for justice of the Korean comfort women has ended or not.


Concluson: After 80 years, a justice that is long overdue for the victims of the slavery system


Based on one’s perspective on the question of the Korean comfort women, opinions will diverge in telling whether the fight for justice of these victims has succeeded, is ongoing or has failed. However, it is a matter of fact that much support that the justice deserved by South Korean comfort women is long overdue, as even today, victims are waiting for the full reparations they have demanded from the Japanese government decades ago. These reparations insisted upon by the victims, but also imposed by international law, lie in Japan’s acknowledgement of its war crime and the memorialization of the victims’ sufferings as a way to prove that it is not trying to hide its past anymore.


Each year, this issue becomes even more pressing as the remaining survivors – all having reached above 90 – begin to reach an age limiting their scope of action. Today, only six survivors remain, among the 240 recorded by the Korean government since the 1990s, and it is only a matter of time before the comfort women’s fight for justice will remain forever unresolved.


While Japan is the main State pressured to accept its legal responsibility in the issue of the Korean comfort women, it is also important to recognize that this responsibility does not belong to the Japanese government alone. Even if their responsibility is not comparable to that of Japan – the nation which created and maintained the military sexual slavery system –, the Allied powers also contributed to the perpetuation of this process. Not only did they remain silent on Japan’s sexual war crimes during the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, comfort stations were also present in their colonized territories throughout the Second World War, giving them a significant part of legal responsibility to assume.


Exactly 81 years after the end of Japan's sexual slavery system and 35 years after the survivor Kim Hak-Sun broke the silence, the Korean comfort women’s fight for justice has not ended. Confronted by Japan which refuses to review the issue and the rise of movements in its defense, the fight of the victims has seen little progress in recent years. With only six survivors remaining, who have all reached an age which makes it difficult for them to stand up for themselves, it is now the role of the South Korean government and of those who recognize the severity of the human rights abuses they are suffering to stand up for the acknowledgement and memorialization of their past – meaning, for their fundamental human rights.


Bibliography

 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Ram in the Courtroom

Written by Krishiv Agarwal Edited by Yatika Singh Krishiv is a first-year student studying politics and economics at Sciences Po Paris, Campus du Havre. Why Ayodhya was Never Just Another Land Dispute

 
 

 

© 2025 by Sciences Po Le Havre Campus Undergraduate Law Review.  

 

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the respective authors and are not endorsed by the Sciences Po Undergraduate Law Review. The Sciences Po Undergraduate Law Review is a student-run, non-partisan publication and does not reflect the views of Sciences Po Le Havre or its administration. The views expressed do not represent those of the editorial board as a whole. This publication does not purport to be a graduate-level law review.

bottom of page