Japan Rejects China WWII Slavery Suit
The 42 former Chinese laborers had sought $6.89 million in damages from the Japanese government and 10 companies they worked for, including major contractors and mining operators. The lawsuit was originally filed in 1997, and only half the laborers are still alive.
Toru Takahashi, a Japanese lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the court issued "a decision to reject the appeal" on Friday, but had no other details.
The court was closed Saturday.
The case was dismissed in June last year by the Tokyo High Court, which ruled that the 42 plaintiffs could not seek compensation because a 20-year statute of limitations had expired.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, also citing the statute of limitations, rejected appeals by six Chinese people demanding $905,000 in compensation for being forced into slave labor at nickel mines in Kyoto in western Japan during World War II.
In that case, the court said the current government was not responsible for the wrongdoing of leaders who followed the wartime constitution. Japan enacted a pacifist constitution after its WWII defeat.
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that Chinese citizens lost their right to seek redress from Japan following the 1972 signing of a Joint Communique restoring bilateral ties between the countries. In the communique, Beijing abandoned its right to claim war reparations from Japan...
comments powered by Disqus
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign