Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

ENBANC

ISABELITAC.VINUYA,VICTORIA G.R.No.162230
C.DELAPEA,HERMINIHILDA
MANIMBO,LEONORH.SUMAWANG,
CANDELARIAL.SOLIMAN,MARIA
L.QUILANTANG,MARIAL.MAGISA,
NATALIAM.ALONZO,LOURDESM.
NAVARO,FRANCISCAM.ATENCIO,
ERLINDAMANALASTAS,TARCILA
M.SAMPANG,ESTERM.PALACIO,
MAXIMAR.DELACRUZ,BELENA.
SAGUM,FELICIDADTURLA,
FLORENCIAM.DELAPEA, Present:
EUGENIAM.LALU,JULIANAG.
MAGAT,CECILIASANGUYO,ANA PUNO,C.J.,
ALONZO,RUFINAP.MALLARI, CARPIO,
ROSARIOM.ALARCON,RUFINAC. CORONA,
GULAPA,ZOILAB.MANALUS, CARPIOMORALES,
CORAZONC.CALMA,MARTAA. VELASCO,JR.,
GULAPA,TEODORAM.HERNANDEZ, NACHURA,
FERMINB.DELAPEA,MARIADELA LEONARDODECASTRO,
PAZB.CULALA,ESPERANZA BRION,
MANAPOL,JUANITAM.BRIONES, PERALTA,
VERGINIAM.GUEVARRA,MAXIMA BERSAMIN,
ANGULO,EMILIASANGIL,TEOFILA DELCASTILLO,
R.PUNZALAN,JANUARIAG.GARCIA, ABAD,
PERLAB.BALINGIT,BELENA. VILLARAMA,JR.,
CULALA,PILARQ.GALANG, PEREZ,and
ROSARIOC.BUCO,GAUDENCIAC. MENDOZA,JJ.
DELAPEA,RUFINAQ.CATACUTAN,
FRANCIAA.BUCO,PASTORAC.
GUEVARRA,VICTORIAM.DELA
CRUZ,PETRONILAO.DELACRUZ,
ZENAIDAP.DELACRUZ,CORAZON
M.SUBA,EMERINCIANAA.VINUYA,
LYDIAA.SANCHEZ,ROSALINAM.
BUCO,PATRICIAA.BERNARDO,
LUCILAH.PAYAWAL,MAGDALENA
LIWAG,ESTERC.BALINGIT,JOVITA
A.DAVID,EMILIAC.MANGILIT,
VERGINIAM.BANGIT,GUILLERMA
S.BALINGIT,TERECITAPANGILINAN,
MAMERTAC.PUNO,CRISENCIANA
C.GULAPA,SEFERINAS.TURLA, Promulgated:
MAXIMAB.TURLA,LEONICIAG. April28,2010
GUEVARRA,ROSALINAM.CULALA,
CATALINAY.MANIO,MAMERTAT.
SAGUM,CARIDADL.TURLA,etal.
Intheircapacityandasmembersofthe
MalayaLolasOrganization,
Petitioners,

versus

THEHONORABLEEXECUTIVE
SECRETARYALBERTOG.
ROMULO,THEHONORABLE
SECRETARYOFFOREIGN
AFFAIRSDELIADOMINGO
ALBERT,THEHONORABLE
SECRETARYOFJUSTICE
MERCEDITASN.GUTIERREZ,
andTHEHONORABLESOLICITOR
GENERALALFREDOL.BENIPAYO,
Respondents.
xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

TheTreatyofPeacewithJapan,insofarasitbarredfutureclaimssuchasthoseassertedbyplaintiffsintheseactions,exchangedfullcompensationof
plaintiffsforafuturepeace.Historyhasvindicatedthewisdomofthatbargain.Andwhilefullcompensationforplaintiffs'hardships,inthepurely
economicsense,hasbeendeniedtheseformerprisonersandcountlessothersurvivorsofthewar,theimmeasurablebountyoflifeforthemselvesand
[1]
theirposterityinafreesocietyandinamorepeacefulworldservicesthedebt.

ThereisabroadrangeofvitallyimportantareasthatmustberegularlydecidedbytheExecutiveDepartmentwithouteitherchallengeor
interferencebytheJudiciary.Onesuchareainvolvesthedelicatearenaofforeignrelations.Itwouldbestrangeindeedifthecourtsandthe
executivespokewithdifferentvoicesintherealmofforeignpolicy.Preciselybecauseofthenatureofthequestionspresented,andthelapse
ofmorethan60yearssincetheconductcomplainedof,wemakenoattempttolaydowngeneralguidelinescoveringothersituationsnot
involvedhere,andconfinetheopiniononlytotheveryquestionsnecessarytoreachadecisiononthismatter.

FactualAntecedents

ThisisanoriginalPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtwithanapplicationfortheissuanceofawritof
preliminarymandatoryinjunctionagainsttheOfficeoftheExecutiveSecretary,theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofForeignAffairs(DFA),
theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),andtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG).

PetitionersareallmembersoftheMALAYALOLAS,anonstock,nonprofitorganizationregisteredwiththeSecurities
andExchangeCommission,establishedforthepurposeofprovidingaidtothevictimsofrapebyJapanesemilitaryforcesinthe
PhilippinesduringtheSecondWorldWar.

PetitionersnarratethatduringtheSecondWorldWar,theJapanesearmyattackedvillagesandsystematicallyrapedthewomenas
partofthedestructionofthevillage.Theircommunitieswerebombed,houseswerelootedandburned,andcivilianswerepubliclytortured,
mutilated, and slaughtered. Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and held them in houses or cells, where they were repeatedly
raped,beaten,andabusedbyJapanesesoldiers.AsaresultoftheactionsoftheirJapanesetormentors,thepetitionershavespenttheirlives
[2]
inmisery,havingenduredphysicalinjuries,painanddisability,andmentalandemotionalsuffering.
Petitionersclaimthatsince1998,theyhaveapproachedtheExecutiveDepartmentthroughtheDOJ,DFA,andOSG,requesting
assistanceinfilingaclaimagainsttheJapaneseofficialsandmilitaryofficerswhoorderedtheestablishmentofthecomfortwomenstations
inthePhilippines.However,officialsoftheExecutiveDepartmentdeclinedtoassistthepetitioners,andtookthepositionthattheindividual
claimsofthecomfortwomenforcompensationhadalreadybeenfullysatisfiedbyJapanscompliancewiththePeaceTreatybetweenthe
PhilippinesandJapan.

Issues

Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amountingtolackorexcessofdiscretioninrefusingtoespousetheirclaimsforthecrimesagainsthumanityandwarcrimescommitted
againstthemand(b)compeltherespondentstoespousetheirclaimsforofficialapologyandotherformsofreparationsagainstJapan
beforetheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ)andotherinternationaltribunals.

Petitionersarguments

PetitionersarguethatthegeneralwaiverofclaimsmadebythePhilippinegovernmentintheTreatyofPeacewithJapanisvoid.
TheyclaimthatthecomfortwomensystemestablishedbyJapan,andthebrutalrapeandenslavementofpetitionersconstitutedacrime
[3] [4] [5]
againsthumanity, sexualslavery, andtorture. Theyallegethattheprohibitionagainsttheseinternationalcrimesisjuscogensnorms
fromwhichnoderogationispossibleassuch,inwaivingtheclaimsofFilipinacomfortwomenandfailingtoespousetheircomplaints
againstJapan,thePhilippinegovernmentisinbreachofitslegalobligationnottoaffordimpunityforcrimesagainsthumanity.Finally,
petitionersassertthatthePhilippinegovernmentsacceptanceoftheapologiesmadebyJapanaswellasfundsfromtheAsianWomens
Fund(AWF)werecontrarytointernationallaw.

RespondentsArguments

RespondentsmaintainthatallclaimsofthePhilippinesanditsnationalsrelativetothewarweredealtwithintheSanFranciscoPeace
[6]
Treatyof1951andthebilateralReparationsAgreementof1956.
[7]
Article14oftheTreatyofPeace provides:

Article14.ClaimsandProperty

a)ItisrecognizedthatJapanshouldpayreparationstotheAlliedPowersforthedamageandsufferingcausedbyitduringthewar.Neverthelessitis
alsorecognizedthattheresourcesofJapanarenotpresentlysufficient,ifitistomaintainaviableeconomy,tomakecompletereparation
forallsuchdamageandsufferingandatthepresenttimemeetitsotherobligations.

b)ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthepresentTreaty,theAlliedPowerswaiveallreparationsclaimsoftheAlliedPowers,otherclaims
oftheAlliedPowersandtheirnationalsarisingoutofanyactionstakenbyJapananditsnationalsinthecourseoftheprosecutionofthe
war,andclaimsoftheAlliedPowersfordirectmilitarycostsofoccupation.


[8]
In addition, respondents argue that the apologies made by Japan have been satisfactory, and that Japan had addressed the
individualclaimsofthewomenthroughtheatonementmoneypaidbytheAsianWomensFund.
HistoricalBackground

ThecomfortwomensystemwasthetragiclegacyoftheRapeofNanking.InDecember1937,Japanesemilitaryforcescapturedthe
cityofNankinginChinaandbeganabarbariccampaignofterrorknownastheRapeofNanking,whichincludedtherapesandmurdersof
[9]
anestimated20,000to80,000Chinesewomen,includingyounggirls,pregnantmothers,andelderlywomen.

[10]
Inreactiontointernationaloutcryovertheincident,theJapanesegovernmentsoughtwaystoendinternationalcondemnation by
establishingthecomfortwomensystem.Underthissystem,themilitarycouldsimultaneouslyappeasesoldiers'sexualappetitesandcontain
[11]
soldiers'activitieswithinaregulatedenvironment. Comfortstationswouldalsopreventthespreadofvenerealdiseaseamongsoldiers
[12]
anddiscouragesoldiersfromrapinginhabitantsofoccupiedterritories.

[13]
Dailylifeasacomfortwomanwasunmitigatedmisery. Themilitaryforcedvictimsintobarracksstylestationsdividedintotiny
[14]
cubicles wheretheywereforcedtolive,sleep,andhavesexwithasmany30soldiersperday. The 30 minutes allotted for sexual
[15] [16]
relations with each soldier were 30minute increments of unimaginable horror for the women. Disease was rampant. Military
doctorsregularlyexaminedthewomen,butthesecheckswerecarriedouttopreventthespreadofvenerealdiseaseslittlenoticewastaken
ofthefrequentcigaretteburns,bruises,bayonetstabsandevenbrokenbonesinflictedonthewomenbysoldiers.

[17]
Fewerthan30%ofthewomensurvivedthewar. Theiragonycontinuedinhavingtosufferwiththeresidualphysical,psychological,
andemotionalscarsfromtheirformerlives.Somereturnedhomeandwereostracizedbytheirfamilies.Somecommittedsuicide.Others,
[18]
outofshame,neverreturnedhome.

EffortstoSecureReparation

ThemostprominentattemptstocompeltheJapanesegovernmenttoacceptlegalresponsibilityandpaycompensatorydamagesfor
thecomfortwomensystemwerethroughaseriesoflawsuits,discussionattheUnitedNations(UN),resolutionsbyvariousnations,andthe
WomensInternationalCriminalTribunal.TheJapanesegovernment,inturn,respondedthroughaseriesofpublicapologiesandthecreation
[19]
oftheAWF.

Lawsuits

InDecember1991,KimHakSunandtwoothersurvivorsfiledthefirstlawsuitinJapanbyformercomfortwomenagainstthe
[20] [21]
Japanesegovernment.TheTokyoDistrictCourthoweverdismissedtheircase. Othersuitsfollowed, buttheJapanesegovernment
[22]
has,thusfar,successfullycausedthedismissalofeverycase.

UndoubtedlyfrustratedbythefailureoflitigationbeforeJapanesecourts,victimsofthecomfortwomensystembroughttheirclaims
beforetheUnitedStates(US).OnSeptember18,2000,15comfortwomenfiledaclassactionlawsuitintheUSDistrictCourtforthe
[23]
DistrictofColumbia "seekingmoneydamagesfor[allegedly]havingbeensubjectedtosexualslaveryandtorturebeforeandduring
WorldWarII,"inviolationof"bothpositiveandcustomaryinternationallaw."ThecasewasfiledpursuanttotheAlienTortClaimsAct
[24] [25]
(ATCA), whichallowedtheplaintiffstosuetheJapanesegovernmentinaUSfederaldistrictcourt. OnOctober4,2001,thedistrict
courtdismissedthelawsuitduetolackofjurisdictionoverJapan,statingthat[t]hereisnoquestionthatthiscourtisnottheappropriate
foruminwhichplaintiffsmayseektoreopenxxxdiscussionsnearlyhalfacenturylaterxxx[E]venifJapandidnotenjoysovereign
immunity,plaintiffs'claimsarenonjusticiableandmustbedismissed.

[26]
TheDistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsaffirmedthelowercourt'sdismissalofthecase. Onappeal,theUSSupremeCourt
grantedthewomenspetitionforwritofcertiorari,vacatedthejudgmentoftheDistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppeals,andremandedthe
[27]
case. Onremand,theCourtofAppealsaffirmeditspriordecision,notingthatmuchaswemayfeelfortheplightoftheappellants,the
[28]
courtsoftheUSsimplyarenotauthorizedtoheartheircase. ThewomenagainbroughttheircasetotheUSSupremeCourtwhich
deniedtheirpetitionforwritofcertiorarionFebruary21,2006.

EffortsattheUnitedNations

In1992,theKoreanCouncilfortheWomenDraftedforMilitarySexualSlaverybyJapan(KCWS),submittedapetitiontotheUN
Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), asking for assistance in investigating crimes committed by Japan against Korean women and
[29]
seekingreparationsforformercomfortwomen. TheUNHRCplacedtheissueonitsagendaandappointedRadhikaCoomaraswamyas
theissue'sspecialinvestigator.In1996,CoomaraswamyissuedaReportreaffirmingJapan'sresponsibilityinforcingKoreanwomentoact
assexslavesfortheimperialarmy,andmadethefollowingrecommendations:

A.Atthenationallevel
137.TheGovernmentofJapanshould:

(a)AcknowledgethatthesystemofcomfortstationssetupbytheJapaneseImperialArmyduringtheSecondWorldWarwasaviolationofits
obligationsunderinternationallawandacceptlegalresponsibilityforthatviolation

(b)PaycompensationtoindividualvictimsofJapanesemilitarysexualslaveryaccordingtoprinciplesoutlinedbytheSpecialRapporteurofthe
SubCommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinoritiesontherighttorestitution,compensationandrehabilitation
forvictimsofgraveviolationsofhumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms.Aspecialadministrativetribunalforthispurposeshouldbesetup
withalimitedtimeframesincemanyofthevictimsareofaveryadvancedage

(c)MakeafulldisclosureofdocumentsandmaterialsinitspossessionwithregardtocomfortstationsandotherrelatedactivitiesoftheJapanese
ImperialArmyduringtheSecondWorldWar

(d)MakeapublicapologyinwritingtoindividualwomenwhohavecomeforwardandcanbesubstantiatedaswomenvictimsofJapanesemilitary
sexualslavery

(e)Raiseawarenessoftheseissuesbyamendingeducationalcurriculatoreflecthistoricalrealities

(f)Identifyandpunish,asfaraspossible,perpetratorsinvolvedintherecruitmentandinstitutionalizationofcomfortstationsduringtheSecond
WorldWar.

GayJ.McDougal,theSpecialRapporteurfortheUNSubCommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities,also
presentedareporttotheSubCommitteeonJune22,1998entitledContemporaryFormsofSlavery:SystematicRape,SexualSlaveryand
Slaverylike Practices During Armed Conflict. The report included an appendix entitled An Analysis of the Legal Liability of the
[30]
GovernmentofJapanfor'ComfortWomenStations'establishedduringtheSecondWorldWar, whichcontainedthefollowingfindings:

68.ThepresentreportconcludesthattheJapaneseGovernmentremainsliableforgraveviolationsofhumanrightsandhumanitarianlaw,violations
thatamountintheirtotalitytocrimesagainsthumanity.TheJapaneseGovernmentsargumentstothecontrary,includingargumentsthatseekto
attacktheunderlyinghumanitarianlawprohibitionofenslavementandrape,remainasunpersuasivetodayastheywerewhentheywerefirstraised
beforetheNurembergwarcrimestribunalmorethan50yearsago.Inaddition,theJapaneseGovernmentsargumentthatJapanhasalreadysettledall
claimsfromtheSecondWorldWarthroughpeacetreatiesandreparationsagreementsfollowingthewarremainsequallyunpersuasive.Thisisdue,
inlargepart,tothefailureuntilveryrecentlyoftheJapaneseGovernmenttoadmittheextentoftheJapanesemilitarysdirectinvolvementinthe
establishment and maintenance of these rape centres.The Japanese Governments silence on this point during the period in which peace and
reparationsagreementsbetweenJapanandotherAsianGovernmentswerebeingnegotiatedfollowingtheendofthewarmust,asamatteroflaw
andjustice,precludeJapanfromrelyingtodayonthesepeacetreatiestoextinguishliabilityinthesecases.

69.Thefailuretosettletheseclaimsmorethanhalfacenturyafterthecessationofhostilitiesisatestamenttothedegreetowhichthelivesofwomen
continuetobeundervalued.Sadly,thisfailuretoaddresscrimesofasexualnaturecommittedonamassivescaleduringtheSecondWorldWarhas
addedtothelevelofimpunitywithwhichsimilarcrimesarecommittedtoday.TheGovernmentofJapanhastakensomestepstoapologizeand
atone for the rape and enslavement of over 200,000 women and girls who were brutalized in comfort stations during the Second World War.
However,anythinglessthanfullandunqualifiedacceptancebytheGovernmentofJapanoflegalliabilityandtheconsequencesthatflowfromsuch
liabilityiswhollyinadequate.ItmustnowfalltotheGovernmentofJapantotakethenecessaryfinalstepstoprovideadequateredress.

TheUN,sincethen,hasnottakenanyofficialactiondirectingJapantoprovidethereparationssought.
Women'sInternationalWarCrimes

Tribunal

TheWomen'sInternationalWarCrimesTribunal(WIWCT)wasapeople'stribunalestablishedbyanumberofAsianwomenandhuman
[31]
rightsorganizations,supportedbyaninternationalcoalitionofnongovernmentalorganizations. Firstproposedin1998,theWIWCT
convenedinTokyoin2000inordertoadjudicateJapan'smilitarysexualviolence,inparticulartheenslavementofcomfortwomen,tobring
thoseresponsibleforittojustice,andtoendtheongoingcycleofimpunityforwartimesexualviolenceagainstwomen.

Afterexaminingtheevidenceformorethanayear,thetribunalissueditsverdictonDecember4,2001,findingtheformerEmperor
[32]
HirohitoandtheStateofJapanguiltyofcrimesagainsthumanityfortherapeandsexualslaveryofwomen. Itbearsstressing,however,
thatalthoughthetribunalincludedprosecutors,witnesses,andjudges,itsjudgmentwasnotlegallybindingsincethetribunalitselfwas
organizedbyprivatecitizens.

ActionbyIndividualGovernments

On January 31, 2007, US Representative Michael Honda of California, along with six cosponsor representatives, introduced House
Resolution121whichcalledforJapaneseactioninlightoftheongoingstruggleforclosurebyformercomfortwomen.TheResolutionwas
[33]
formallypassedonJuly30,2007, andmadefourdistinctdemands:

[I]tisthesenseoftheHouseofRepresentativesthattheGovernmentofJapan(1)shouldformallyacknowledge,apologize,andaccepthistorical
responsibilityinaclearandunequivocalmannerforitsImperialArmedForces'coercionofyoungwomenintosexualslavery,knowntotheworldas
comfortwomen,duringitscolonialandwartimeoccupationofAsiaandthePacificIslandsfromthe1930sthroughthedurationofWorldWarII(2)
wouldhelptoresolverecurringquestionsaboutthesincerityandstatusofpriorstatementsifthePrimeMinisterofJapanweretomakesuchan
apologyasapublicstatementinhisofficialcapacity(3)shouldclearlyandpubliclyrefuteanyclaimsthatthesexualenslavementandtraffickingof
thecomfortwomenfortheJapaneseImperialArmyneveroccurredand(4)shouldeducatecurrentandfuturegenerationsaboutthishorriblecrime
[34]
whilefollowingtherecommendationsoftheinternationalcommunitywithrespecttothecomfortwomen.

In December 2007, the European Parliament, the governing body of the European Union, drafted a resolution similar to House
[35]
Resolution121. Entitled,JusticeforComfortWomen,theresolutiondemanded:(1)aformalacknowledgmentofresponsibilitybythe
Japanese government (2) a removal of the legal obstacles preventing compensation and (3) unabridged education of the past. The
resolutionalsostressedtheurgencywithwhichJapanshouldactontheseissues,stating:therightofindividualstoclaimreparationsagainst
thegovernmentshouldbeexpresslyrecognizedinnationallaw,andcasesforreparationsforthesurvivorsofsexualslavery,asacrime
underinternationallaw,shouldbeprioritized,takingintoaccounttheageofthesurvivors.

TheCanadianandDutchparliamentshaveeachfollowedsuitindraftingresolutionsagainstJapan.Canada'sresolutiondemandsthe
Japanesegovernmenttoissueaformalapology,toadmitthatitsImperialMilitarycoercedorforcedhundredsofthousandsofwomeninto
[36]
sexual slavery, and to restore references in Japanese textbooks to its war crimes. The Dutch parliament's resolution calls for the
Japanesegovernmenttoupholdthe1993declarationofremorsemadebyChiefCabinetSecretaryYoheiKono.

TheForeignAffairsCommitteeoftheUnitedKingdomsParliamentalsoproducedareportinNovember,2008entitled,"Global
Security:JapanandKorea"whichconcludedthatJapanshouldacknowledgethepaincausedbytheissueofcomfortwomeninorderto
ensurecooperationbetweenJapanandKorea.

StatementsofRemorsemadebyrepresentativesoftheJapanesegovernment

VariousofficialsoftheGovernmentofJapanhaveissuedthefollowingpublicstatementsconcerningthecomfortsystem:

a)StatementbytheChiefCabinetSecretaryYoheiKonoin1993:

TheGovernmentofJapanhasbeenconductingastudyontheissueofwartime"comfortwomen"sinceDecember1991.Iwishtoannouncethe
findingsasaresultofthatstudy.

Asaresultofthestudywhichindicatesthatcomfortstationswereoperatedinextensiveareasforlongperiods,itisapparentthatthereexistedagreat
numberofcomfortwomen.Comfortstationswereoperatedinresponsetotherequestofthemilitaryauthoritiesoftheday.ThethenJapanese
militarywas,directlyorindirectly,involvedintheestablishmentandmanagementofthecomfortstationsandthetransferofcomfortwomen.The
recruitmentofthecomfortwomenwasconductedmainlybyprivaterecruiterswhoactedinresponsetotherequestofthemilitary.TheGovernment
study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing coercion, etc., and that, at times,
administrative/militarypersonneldirectlytookpartintherecruitments.Theylivedinmiseryatcomfortstationsunderacoerciveatmosphere.

Astotheoriginofthosecomfortwomenwhoweretransferredtothewarareas,excludingthosefromJapan,thosefromtheKoreanPeninsula
accountedforalargepart.TheKoreanPeninsulawasunderJapaneseruleinthosedays,andtheirrecruitment,transfer,control,etc.,wereconducted
generallyagainsttheirwill,throughcoaxing,coercion,etc.

Undeniably,thiswasanact,withtheinvolvementofthemilitaryauthoritiesoftheday,thatseverelyinjuredthehonoranddignityofmanywomen.
TheGovernmentofJapanwouldliketotakethisopportunityonceagaintoextenditssincereapologiesandremorsetoallthose,irrespectiveofplace
oforigin,whosufferedimmeasurablepainandincurablephysicalandpsychologicalwoundsascomfortwomen.

Itisincumbentuponus,theGovernmentofJapan,tocontinuetoconsiderseriously,whilelisteningtotheviewsoflearnedcircles,howbestwecan
expressthissentiment.

Weshallfacesquarelythehistoricalfactsasdescribedaboveinsteadofevadingthem,andtakethemtoheartaslessonsofhistory.Wehereby
reiteratedourfirmdeterminationnevertorepeatthesamemistakebyforeverengravingsuchissuesinourmemoriesthroughthestudyandteaching
ofhistory.

AsactionshavebeenbroughttocourtinJapanandinterestshavebeenshowninthisissueoutsideJapan,theGovernmentofJapanshallcontinueto
payfullattentiontothismatter,includingprivateresearchedrelatedthereto.

b)PrimeMinisterTomiichiMurayamasStatementin1994

Ontheissueofwartimecomfortwomen,whichseriouslystainedthehonoranddignityofmanywomen,Iwouldliketotakethisopportunityonce
againtoexpressmyprofoundandsincereremorseandapologies

c)LettersfromthePrimeMinisterofJapantoIndividualComfortWomen
Theissueofcomfortwomen,withtheinvolvementoftheJapanesemilitaryauthoritiesatthattime,wasagraveaffronttothehonoranddignityofa
largenumberofwomen.

AsPrimeMinisterofJapan,Ithusextendanewmymostsincereapologiesandremorsetoallthewomenwhoenduredimmeasurableandpainful
experiencesandsufferedincurablephysicalandpsychologicalwoundsascomfortwomen.

Ibelievethatourcountry,painfullyawareofitsmoralresponsibilities,withfeelingsofapologyandremorse,shouldfaceupsquarelytoitspast
historyandaccuratelyconveyittofuturegenerations.

d)TheDiet(JapaneseParliament)passedresolutionsin1995and2005

Solemnlyreflectinguponthemanyinstancesofcolonialruleandactsofaggressionthatoccurredinmodernworldhistory,andrecognizingthat
Japancarriedoutsuchactsinthepastandinflictedsufferingonthepeopleofothercountries,especiallyinAsia,theMembersofthisHousehereby
expressdeepremorse.(ResolutionoftheHouseofRepresentativesadoptedonJune9,1995)

e)VariousPublicStatementsbyJapanesePrimeMinisterShinzoAbe
IhavetalkedaboutthismatterintheDietsessionslastyear,andrecentlyaswell,andtothepress.Ihavebeenconsistent.IwillstandbytheKono
Statement.Thisisourconsistentposition.Further,wehavebeenapologizingsincerelytothosewhosufferedimmeasurablepainandincurable
psychologicalwoundsascomfortwomen.FormerPrimeMinisters,includingPrimeMinistersKoizumiandHashimoto,haveissuedletterstothe
comfortwomen.IwouldliketobeclearthatIcarrythesamefeeling.Thishasnotchangedevenslightly.(ExcerptfromRemarksbyPrimeMinister
AbeatanInterviewbyNHK,March11,2007).

Iamapologizinghereandnow.IamapologizingasthePrimeMinisteranditisasstatedinthestatementbytheChiefCabinetSecretaryKono.
(ExcerptfromRemarksbyPrimeMinisterAbeattheBudgetCommittee,theHouseofCouncilors,theDietofJapan,March26,2007).

Iamdeeplysympathetictotheformercomfortwomenwhosufferedhardships,andIhaveexpressedmyapologiesfortheextremelyagonizing
circumstancesintowhichtheywereplaced.(ExcerptfromTelephoneConferencebyPrimeMinisterAbetoPresidentGeorgeW.Bush,April3,
2007).

Ihavetoexpresssympathyfromthebottomofmyhearttothosepeoplewhoweretakenaswartimecomfortwomen.Asahumanbeing,Iwould
liketoexpressmysympathies,andalsoasprimeministerofJapanIneedtoapologizetothem.Myadministrationhasbeensayingallalongthatwe
continuetostandbytheKonoStatement.Wefeelresponsibleforhavingforcedthesewomentogothroughthathardshipandpainascomfort
womenunderthecircumstancesatthetime.(Excerptfromaninterviewarticle"AConversationwithShinzoAbe"bytheWashingtonPost,April22,
2007).

xxxbothpersonallyandasPrimeMinisterofJapan,myheartgoesoutinsympathytoallthosewhosufferedextremehardshipsascomfortwomen
andIexpressedmyapologiesforthefactthattheywereforcedtoenduresuchextremeandharshconditions.Humanrightsareviolatedinmany
partsoftheworldduringthe20thCenturythereforewemustworktomakethe21stCenturyawonderfulcenturyinwhichnohumanrightsare
violated.AndtheGovernmentofJapanandIwishtomakesignificantcontributionstothatend.(ExcerptfromPrimeMinisterAbe'sremarksatthe
JointPressAvailabilityafterthesummitmeetingatCampDavidbetweenPrimeMinisterAbeandPresidentBush,April27,2007).

TheAsianWomen'sFund

Established by the Japanese government in 1995, the AWF represented the government's concrete attempt to address its moral
[37]
responsibilitybyofferingmonetarycompensationtovictimsofthecomfortwomensystem. ThepurposeoftheAWFwastoshow
atonementoftheJapanesepeoplethroughexpressionsofapologyandremorsetotheformerwartimecomfortwomen,torestoretheir
[38]
honor,andtodemonstrateJapansstrongrespectforwomen.

TheAWF announced three programs for former comfort women who applied for assistance: (1) an atonement fund paying 2 million
(approximately $20,000) to each woman (2) medical and welfare support programs, paying 2.53 million ($25,000$30,000) for each
womanand(3)aletterofapologyfromtheJapanesePrimeMinistertoeachwoman.FundingfortheprogramcamefromtheJapanese
governmentandprivatedonationsfromtheJapanesepeople.AsofMarch2006,theAWFprovided700million(approximately$7million)
fortheseprogramsinSouthKorea,Taiwan,andthePhilippines380million(approximately$3.8million)inIndonesiaand242million
(approximately$2.4million)intheNetherlands.

OnJanuary15,1997,theAWFandthePhilippinegovernmentsignedaMemorandumofUnderstandingformedicalandwelfaresupport
programs for former comfort women. Over the next five years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.

OurRuling

Strippeddowntoitsessentials,theissueinthiscaseiswhethertheExecutiveDepartmentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninnot
espousingpetitionersclaimsforofficialapologyandotherformsofreparationsagainstJapan.

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

FromaDomesticLawPerspective,theExecutiveDepartmenthastheexclusiveprerogativeto
determinewhethertoespousepetitionersclaimsagainstJapan.

[39]
Baker v. Carr remains the starting point for analysis under the political question doctrine. There the US Supreme Court
explainedthat:

xxxProminentonthesurfaceofanycaseheldtoinvolveapoliticalquestionisfoundatextuallydemonstrableconstitutionalcommitmentofthe
issuetoacoordinatepoliticaldepartmentoralackofjudiciallydiscoverableandmanageablestandardsforresolvingit,ortheimpossibilityof
decidingwithoutaninitialpolicydeterminationofakindclearlyfornonjudicialdiscretionortheimpossibilityofacourt'sundertakingindependent
resolutionwithoutexpressinglackoftherespectduecoordinatebranchesofgovernmentoranunusualneedforunquestioningadherencetoa
politicaldecisionalreadymadeorthepotentialityofembarrassmentfrommultifariouspronouncementsbyvariousdepartmentsonquestion.


[40]
InTaadav.Cuenco, weheldthatpoliticalquestionsrefer"tothosequestionswhich,undertheConstitution,aretobedecidedbythe
peopleintheirsovereigncapacity,orinregardtowhichfulldiscretionaryauthorityhasbeendelegatedtothelegislativeorexecutivebranch
ofthegovernment.Itisconcernedwithissuesdependentuponthewisdom,notlegalityofaparticularmeasure."

[41]
Certaintypesofcasesoftenhavebeenfoundtopresentpoliticalquestions. Onesuchcategoryinvolvesquestionsofforeignrelations.It
iswellestablishedthat"[t]heconductoftheforeignrelationsofourgovernmentiscommittedbytheConstitutiontotheexecutiveand
legislative'thepolitical'departmentsofthegovernment,andtheproprietyofwhatmaybedoneintheexerciseofthispoliticalpoweris
[42]
notsubjecttojudicialinquiryordecision." TheUSSupremeCourthasfurthercautionedthatdecisionsrelatingtoforeignpolicy

aredelicate,complex,andinvolvelargeelementsofprophecy.Theyareandshouldbeundertakenonlybythosedirectlyresponsibletothepeople
[43]
whosewelfaretheyadvanceorimperil.TheyaredecisionsofakindforwhichtheJudiciaryhasneitheraptitude,facilitiesnorresponsibility.

Tobesure,notallcasesimplicatingforeignrelationspresentpoliticalquestions,andcourtscertainlypossesstheauthoritytoconstrueor
[44]
invalidatetreatiesandexecutiveagreements. However,thequestionwhetherthePhilippinegovernmentshouldespouseclaimsofits
nationalsagainstaforeigngovernmentisaforeignrelationsmatter,theauthorityforwhichisdemonstrablycommittedbyourConstitution
nottothecourtsbuttothepoliticalbranches.Inthiscase,theExecutiveDepartmenthasalreadydecidedthatitistothebestinterestofthe
countrytowaiveallclaimsofitsnationalsforreparationsagainstJapanintheTreatyofPeaceof1951.Thewisdomofsuchdecisionisnot
forthecourtstoquestion.NeithercouldpetitionershereinassailthesaiddeterminationbytheExecutiveDepartmentviatheinstantpetition
forcertiorari.

[45]
IntheseminalcaseofUSv.CurtissWrightExportCorp., theUSSupremeCourtheldthat[t]hePresidentisthesoleorganofthenation
initsexternalrelations,anditssolerepresentativewithforeignrelations.

Itisquiteapparentthatif,inthemaintenanceofourinternationalrelations,embarrassmentperhapsseriousembarrassmentistobeavoidedand
successforouraimsachieved,congressionallegislationwhichistobemadeeffectivethroughnegotiationandinquirywithintheinternationalfield
mustoftenaccordtothePresidentadegreeofdiscretionandfreedomfromstatutoryrestrictionwhichwouldnotbeadmissiblewheredomestic
affairsaloneinvolved.Moreover,he,notCongress,hasthebetteropportunityofknowingtheconditionswhichprevailinforeigncountries,and
especiallyisthistrueintimeofwar.Hehashisconfidentialsourcesofinformation.Hehashisagentsintheformofdiplomatic,consularandother
officials.xxx

ThisrulinghasbeenincorporatedinourjurisprudencethroughBayanv.
[46] [47]
ExecutiveSecretary andPimentelv.ExecutiveSecretary itsoverreachingprinciplewas,perhaps,bestarticulatedin(nowChief)
[48]
JusticePunosdissentinSecretaryofJusticev.Lantion:

xxxTheconductofforeignrelationsisfullofcomplexitiesandconsequences,sometimeswithlifeanddeathsignificancetothenationespeciallyin
timesofwar.Itcanonlybeentrustedtothatdepartmentofgovernmentwhichcanactonthebasisofthebestavailableinformationandcandecide
withdecisiveness.xxxItisalsothePresidentwhopossessesthemostcomprehensiveandthemostconfidentialinformationaboutforeigncountries
forourdiplomaticandconsularofficialsregularlybriefhimonmeaningfuleventsallovertheworld.Hehasalsounlimitedaccesstoultrasensitive
militaryintelligencedata.Infine,thepresidentialroleinforeignaffairsisdominantandthePresidentistraditionallyaccordedawiderdegreeof
discretionintheconductofforeignaffairs.Theregularity,nay,validityofhisactionsareadjudgedunderlessstringentstandards,lesttheirjudicial
repudiationleadtobreachofaninternationalobligation,ruptureofstaterelations,forfeitureofconfidence,nationalembarrassmentandaplethoraof
otherproblemswithequallyundesirableconsequences.

TheExecutiveDepartmenthasdeterminedthattakinguppetitionerscausewouldbeinimicaltoourcountrysforeignpolicyinterests,and
coulddisruptourrelationswithJapan,therebycreatingseriousimplicationsforstabilityinthisregion.ForustooverturntheExecutive
Departmentsdeterminationwouldmeananassessmentoftheforeignpolicyjudgmentsbyacoordinatepoliticalbranchtowhichauthority
tomakethatjudgmenthasbeenconstitutionallycommitted.

Inanyevent,itcannotreasonablybemaintainedthatthePhilippinegovernmentwaswithoutauthoritytonegotiatetheTreatyofPeacewith
Japan.Anditisequallytruethat,sincetimeimmemorial,whennegotiatingpeaceaccordsandsettlinginternationalclaims:

xxx[g]overnmentshavedealtwithxxxprivateclaimsastheirown,treatingthemasnationalassets,andascounters,`chips',ininternational
bargaining.Settlementagreementshavelumped,orlinked,claimsderivingfromprivatedebtswithothersthatwereintergovernmentalinorigin,and
concessionsinregardtoonecategoryofclaimsmightbesetoffagainstconcessionsintheother,oragainstlargerpoliticalconsiderationsunrelatedto
[49]
debts.


Indeed,exceptasanagreementmightotherwiseprovide,internationalsettlementsgenerallywipeouttheunderlyingprivateclaims,thereby
[50]
terminatinganyrecourseunderdomesticlaw.InWarev.Hylton, acasebroughtbyaBritishsubjecttorecoveradebtconfiscatedbythe
CommonwealthofVirginiaduringthewar,JusticeChasewrote:

Iapprehendthatthetreatyofpeaceabolishesthesubjectofthewar,andthatafterpeaceisconcluded,neitherthematterindispute,northeconduct
ofeitherparty,duringthewar,caneverberevived,orbroughtintocontestagain.Allviolences,injuries,ordamagessustainedbythegovernment,or
peopleofeither,duringthewar,areburiedinoblivionandallthosethingsareimpliedbytheverytreatyofpeaceandthereforenotnecessarytobe
expressed.Henceitfollows,thattherestitutionof,orcompensationfor,Britishpropertyconfiscated,orextinguished,duringthewar,byanyofthe
UnitedStates,couldonlybeprovidedforbythetreatyofpeaceandiftherehadbeennoprovision,respectingthesesubjects,inthetreaty,theycould
notbeagitatedafterthetreaty,bytheBritishgovernment,muchlessbyhersubjectsincourtsofjustice.(Emphasissupplied).

Thispracticeofsettlingclaimsbymeansofapeacetreatyiscertainly
[51]
nothingnew.Forinstance,inDames&Moorev.Regan, theUSSupremeCourtheld:

Notinfrequentlyinaffairsbetweennations,outstandingclaimsbynationalsofonecountryagainstthegovernmentofanothercountryaresourcesof
frictionbetweenthetwosovereigns.UnitedStatesv.Pink,315U.S.203,225,62S.Ct.552,563,86L.Ed.796(1942).Toresolvethesedifficulties,
nationshaveoftenenteredintoagreementssettlingtheclaimsoftheirrespectivenationals.Asonetreatisewriterputsit,internationalagreements
settlingclaimsbynationalsofonestateagainstthegovernmentofanotherareestablishedinternationalpracticereflectingtraditionalinternational
theory.L.Henkin,ForeignAffairsandtheConstitution262(1972).Consistentwiththatprinciple,theUnitedStateshasrepeatedlyexercisedits
sovereignauthoritytosettletheclaimsofitsnationalsagainstforeigncountries.xxxUndersuchagreements,thePresidenthasagreedtorenounce
orextinguishclaimsofUnitedStatesnationalsagainstforeigngovernmentsinreturnforlumpsumpaymentsortheestablishmentofarbitration
procedures.Tobesure,manyofthesesettlementswereencouragedbytheUnitedStatesclaimantsthemselves,sinceaclaimant'sonlyhopeof
obtaininganypaymentatallmightlieinhavinghisGovernmentnegotiateadiplomaticsettlementonhisbehalf.Butitisalsoundisputedthatthe
UnitedStateshassometimesdisposedoftheclaimsofitscitizenswithouttheirconsent,orevenwithoutconsultationwiththem,usuallywithout
exclusiveregardfortheirinterests,asdistinguishedfromthoseofthenationasawhole.Henkin,supra,at262263.Accord,Restatement(Second)of
ForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStates213(1965)(Presidentmaywaiveorsettleaclaimagainstaforeignstatexxx[even]withouttheconsent
ofthe[injured]national).Itisclearthatthepracticeofsettlingclaimscontinuestoday.

Respondents explain that the Allied Powers concluded the Peace Treaty with Japan not necessarily for the complete atonement of the
sufferingcausedbyJapaneseaggressionduringthewar,notforthepaymentofadequatereparations,butforsecuritypurposes.Thetreaty
sought to prevent the spread of communism in Japan, which occupied a strategic position in the Far East. Thus, the Peace Treaty
compromisedindividualclaimsinthecollectiveinterestofthefreeworld.

[52]
ThiswasalsothefindinginasimilarcaseinvolvingAmericanvictimsofJapaneseslavelaborduringthewar. Inaconsolidatedcasein
[53] [54]
theNorthernDistrictofCalifornia, thecourtdismissedthelawsuitsfiled,relyingonthe1951peacetreatywithJapan, becauseof
thefollowingpolicyconsiderations:

Theofficialrecordoftreatynegotiationsestablishesthatafundamentalgoaloftheagreementwastosettlethereparationsissueonceandforall.As
thestatementofthechiefUnitedStatesnegotiator,JohnFosterDulles,makesclear,itwaswellunderstoodthatleavingopenthepossibilityof
futureclaimswouldbeanunacceptableimpedimenttoalastingpeace:

Reparationisusuallythemostcontroversialaspectofpeacemaking.Thepresentpeaceisnoexception.

Ontheonehand,thereareclaimsbothvastandjust.Japan'saggressioncausedtremendouscost,lossesandsuffering.

Ontheotherhand,tomeettheseclaims,therestandsaJapanpresentlyreducedtofourhomeislandswhichareunabletoproducethe
fooditspeopleneedtolive,ortherawmaterialstheyneedtowork.xxx

ThepolicyoftheUnitedStatesthatJapaneseliabilityforreparationsshouldbesharplylimitedwasinformedbytheexperienceofsixyearsofUnited
StatesledoccupationofJapan.DuringtheoccupationtheSupremeCommanderoftheAlliedPowers(SCAP)fortheregion,GeneralDouglas
MacArthur,confiscatedJapaneseassetsinconjunctionwiththetaskofmanagingtheeconomicaffairsofthevanquishednationandwithaviewto
reparationspayments.ItsoonbecameclearthatJapan'sfinancialconditionwouldrenderanyaggressivereparationsplananexercisein
futility.Meanwhile,theimportanceofastable,democraticJapanasabulwarktocommunismintheregionincreased.Attheendof1948,
MacArthur expressed the view that [t]he use of reparations as a weapon to retard the reconstruction of a viable economy in Japan should be
combatedwithallpossiblemeansandrecommendedthatthereparationsissuebesettledfinallyandwithoutdelay.

ThatthispolicywasembodiedinthetreatyisclearnotonlyfromthenegotiationshistorybutalsofromtheSenateForeignRelationsCommittee
reportrecommendingapprovalofthetreatybytheSenate.Thecommitteenoted,forexample:

Obviouslyinsistenceuponthepaymentofreparationsinanyproportioncommensuratewiththeclaimsoftheinjuredcountriesand
theirnationalswouldwreckJapan'seconomy,dissipateanycreditthatitmaypossessatpresent,destroytheinitiativeofitspeople,
andcreatemiseryandchaosinwhichtheseedsofdiscontentandcommunismwouldflourish.Inshort,[it]wouldbecontrarytothe
basicpurposesandpolicyofxxxtheUnitedStatesxxx.

Wethusholdthat,fromamunicipallawperspective,thatcertiorariwillnotlie.Asageneralprincipleandparticularlyhere,wheresuchan
extraordinarylengthoftimehaslapsedbetweenthetreatysconclusionandourconsiderationtheExecutivemustbegivenamplediscretion
toassesstheforeignpolicyconsiderationsofespousingaclaimagainstJapan,fromthestandpointofboththeinterestsofthepetitionersand
thoseoftheRepublic,anddecideonthatbasisifapologiesaresufficient,andwhetherfurtherstepsareappropriateornecessary.

ThePhilippinesisnotunderanyinternationalobligationtoespousepetitionersclaims.

Intheinternationalsphere,traditionally,theonlymeansavailableforindividualstobringaclaimwithintheinternationallegalsystemhas
[55]
beenwhentheindividualisabletopersuadeagovernmenttobringaclaimontheindividualsbehalf. Eventhen,itisnottheindividuals
rightsthatarebeingasserted,butrather,thestatesownrights.Nowhereisthispositionmoreclearlyreflectedthaninthedictumofthe
PermanentCourtofInternationalJustice(PCIJ)inthe1924MavrommatisPalestineConcessionsCase:

Bytakingupthecaseofoneofitssubjectsandbyresortingtodiplomaticactionorinternationaljudicialproceedingsonhisbehalf,aStateisin
realityassertingitsownrighttoensure,inthepersonofitssubjects,respectfortherulesofinternationallaw.Thequestion,therefore,whetherthe
presentdisputeoriginatesinaninjurytoaprivateinterest,whichinpointoffactisthecaseinmanyinternationaldisputes,isirrelevantfromthis
standpoint.OnceaStatehastakenupacaseonbehalfofoneofitssubjectsbeforeaninternationaltribunal,intheeyesofthelattertheStateissole
[56]
claimant.
SincetheexerciseofdiplomaticprotectionistherightoftheState,relianceontherightiswithintheabsolutediscretionofstates,and
thedecisionwhethertoexercisethediscretionmayinvariablybeinfluencedbypoliticalconsiderationsotherthanthelegalmeritsofthe
[57]
particularclaim. AsclearlystatedbytheICJin
BarcelonaTraction:

TheCourtwouldhereobservethat,withinthelimitsprescribedbyinternationallaw,aStatemayexercisediplomaticprotectionbywhatevermeans
andtowhateverextentitthinksfit,foritisitsownrightthattheStateisasserting.Shouldthenaturalorlegalpersononwhosebehalfitis
actingconsiderthattheirrightsarenotadequatelyprotected,theyhavenoremedyininternationallaw.Alltheycandoisresorttonational
law,ifmeansareavailable,withaviewtofurtheringtheircauseorobtainingredress.ThemunicipallegislatormaylayupontheStateanobligation
toprotectitscitizensabroad,andmayalsoconferuponthenationalarighttodemandtheperformanceofthatobligation,andclothetherightwith
[58]
correspondingsanctions.However,allthesequestionsremainwithintheprovinceofmunicipallawanddonotaffectthepositioninternationally.
(Emphasissupplied)


TheState,therefore,isthesolejudgetodecidewhetheritsprotectionwillbegranted,towhatextentitisgranted,andwhenwillit
cease.Itretains,inthisrespect,adiscretionarypowertheexerciseofwhichmaybedeterminedbyconsiderationsofapoliticalorother
nature,unrelatedtotheparticularcase.

TheInternationalLawCommissions(ILCs)DraftArticlesonDiplomaticProtectionfullysupportthistraditionalview.They(i)state
[59]
that"therightofdiplomaticprotectionbelongstoorvestsintheState, (ii)affirmitsdiscretionarynaturebyclarifyingthatdiplomatic
[60]
protectionisa"sovereignprerogative"oftheState and(iii)stressthatthestate"hastherighttoexercisediplomaticprotection
[61]
onbehalfofanational.Itisundernodutyorobligationtodoso."

Ithasbeenargued,aspetitionersarguenow,thattheStatehasadutytoprotectitsnationalsandactonhis/herbehalfwhenrightsare
[62]
injured. However, at present, there is no sufficient evidence to establish a general international obligation for States to exercise
[63]
diplomaticprotectionoftheirownnationalsabroad. Though,perhapsdesirable,neitherstatepracticenoropiniojurishasevolvedin
[64]
suchadirection.Ifitisadutyinternationally,itisonlyamoralandnotalegalduty,andthereisnomeansofenforcingitsfulfillment.

We fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under
[65]
contemporaryinternationallaw. However,petitionerstakequiteatheoreticalleapinclaimingthattheseproscriptionsautomatically
implythatthatthePhilippinesisunderanonderogableobligationtoprosecuteinternationalcrimes,particularlysincepetitionersdonot
demandtheimputationofindividualcriminalliability,butseektorecovermonetaryreparationsfromthestateofJapan.Absenttheconsent
ofstates,anapplicabletreatyregime,oradirectivebytheSecurityCouncil,thereisnononderogabledutytoinstituteproceedingsagainst
Japan. Indeed, precisely because of states reluctance to directly prosecute claims against another state, recent developments
[66]
supportthemoderntrendtoempowerindividualstodirectlyparticipateinsuitsagainstperpetratorsofinternationalcrimes.
Nonetheless,notwithstandinganarrayofGeneralAssemblyresolutionscallingfortheprosecutionofcrimesagainsthumanityandthe
strongpolicyargumentswarrantingsucharule,thepracticeofstatesdoesnotyetsupportthepresentexistenceofanobligationtoprosecute
[67]
internationalcrimes. Ofcourseacustomarydutyofprosecutionisideal,butwecannotfindenoughevidencetoreasonablyassertits
existence.Totheextentthatanystatepracticeinthisareaiswidespread,itisinthepracticeofgrantingamnesties,immunity,selective
[68]
prosecution,ordefactoimpunitytothosewhocommitcrimesagainsthumanity.

Eventheinvocationofjuscogensnormsandergaomnesobligationswillnotalterthisanalysis.Evenifwesidestepthequestionofwhether
juscogensnormsexistedin1951,petitionershavenotdeignedtoshowthatthecrimescommittedbytheJapanesearmyviolatedjuscogens
prohibitionsatthetimetheTreatyofPeacewassigned,orthatthedutytoprosecuteperpetratorsofinternationalcrimesisanergaomnes
obligationorhasattainedthestatusofjuscogens.

Thetermergaomnes(Latin:inrelationtoeveryone)ininternationallawhasbeenusedasalegaltermdescribingobligationsowedby
Statestowardsthecommunityofstatesasawhole.TheconceptwasrecognizedbytheICJinBarcelonaTraction:

xxxanessentialdistinctionshouldbedrawnbetweentheobligationsofaStatetowardstheinternationalcommunityasawhole,andthosearising
visvisanotherStateinthefieldofdiplomaticprotection.Bytheirverynature,theformeraretheconcernofallStates.Inviewoftheimportanceof
therightsinvolved,allStatescanbeheldtohavealegalinterestintheirprotectiontheyareobligationsergaomnes.

Suchobligationsderive,forexample,incontemporaryinternationallaw,fromtheoutlawingofactsofaggression,andofgenocide,asalsofromthe
principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the
correspondingrightsofprotectionhaveenteredintothebodyofgeneralinternationallawothersareconferredbyinternationalinstrumentsofa
universalorquasiuniversalcharacter.


TheLatinphrase,ergaomnes, has since become one of the rallying cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence of a valuebased
internationalpublicorder.However,asissooftenthecase,therealityisneithersoclearnorsobright.Whatevertherelevanceofobligations
[69]
ergaomnesasalegalconcept,itsfullpotentialremainstoberealizedinpractice.
The term is closely connected with the international law concept of jus cogens. In international law, the term jus cogens (literally,
compellinglaw)referstonormsthatcommandperemptoryauthority,supersedingconflictingtreatiesandcustom.Juscogensnormsare
consideredperemptoryinthesensethattheyaremandatory,donotadmitderogation,andcanbemodifiedonlybygeneralinternational
[70]
normsofequivalentauthority.

[71]
Earlystrainsofthejuscogensdoctrinehaveexistedsincethe1700s, butperemptorynormsbegantoattractgreaterscholarlyattention
[72]
withthepublicationofAlfredvonVerdross'sinfluential1937article,ForbiddenTreatiesinInternationalLaw. Therecognitionofjus
cogensgainedevenmoreforceinthe1950sand1960swiththeILCspreparationoftheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties(VCLT).
[73] [74]
Thoughtherewasaconsensusthatcertaininternationalnormshadattainedthestatusofjuscogens, theILCwasunabletoreacha
consensusonthepropercriteriaforidentifyingperemptorynorms.
After an extended debate over these and other theories of juscogens, the ILC concluded ruefully in 1963 that there is not as yet any
[75]
generally accepted criterion by which to identify a general rule of international law as having the character of jus cogens. In a
commentaryaccompanyingthedraftconvention,theILCindicatedthattheprudentcourseseemstobetoxxxleavethefullcontentofthis
[76]
ruletobeworkedoutinStatepracticeandinthejurisprudenceofinternationaltribunals. Thus,whiletheexistenceofjuscogensin
[77] [78]
internationallawisundisputed,noconsensusexistsonitssubstance, beyondatinycoreofprinciplesandrules.

Ofcourse,wegreatlysympathizewiththecauseofpetitioners,andwecannotbegintocomprehendtheunimaginablehorrorthey
underwentatthehandsoftheJapanesesoldiers.Wearealsodeeplyconcernedthat,inapparentcontraventionoffundamentalprinciplesof
law,thepetitionersappeartobewithoutaremedytochallengethosethathaveoffendedthembeforeappropriatefora.Needlesstosay,our
governmentshouldtaketheleadinprotectingitscitizensagainstviolationoftheirfundamentalhumanrights.Regrettably,itisnotwithin
ourpowertoordertheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeupthepetitionerscause.OursisonlythepowertourgeandexhorttheExecutive
Departmenttotakeuppetitionerscause.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.


MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice




ANTONIOT.CARPIO RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




TONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




ARTUROD.BRION DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



LUCASP.BERSAMIN ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice








CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
InReWorldWarIIEraJapaneseForcedLaborLitigation,114F.Supp.2d939(N.D.Cal.2000).
[2]
U.N.Doc.E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1(January4,1996),ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronviolenceagainstwomen,itscausesandconsequences,Ms.RadhikaCoomaraswamy,in
accordancewithCommissiononHumanRightsresolution1994/45.
[3]
Treatyandcustomarylawbothprovidethatwhenrapeiscommittedaspartofawidespreadorsystematicattackdirectedatanycivilianpopulation,regardlessofitsinternational
orinternalcharacter,thenitconstitutesoneofthegravestcrimesagainsthumanity.ThisprincipleiscodifiedunderArticle6(c)ofthe1945NurembergCharteraswellasArticle
5(c)oftheTokyoCharter,whichenumeratedmurder,extermination,enslavement,deportation,andotherinhumaneactscommittedagainstanycivilianpopulations,beforeor
duringthewarascrimesagainsthumanity,andextendedinscopetoincludeimprisonment,tortureandrapebyControlCouncilLawNo.10.
[4]
Article1oftheSlaveryConventionprovides:
ForthepurposeofthepresentConvention,thefollowingdefinitionsareagreedupon:
(1)Slaveryisthestatusorconditionofapersonoverwhomanyorallofthepowersattachingtotherightofownershipareexercised.
(2)Theslavetradeincludesallactsinvolvedinthecapture,acquisitionordisposalofapersonwithintenttoreducehimtoslaveryallactsinvolvedintheacquisitionofaslave
withaviewtosellingorexchanginghimallactsofdisposalbysaleorexchangeofaslaveacquiredwithaviewtobeingsoldorexchanged,and,ingeneral,everyactof
tradeortransportinslaves.
Slavery,Servitude,ForcedLabourandSimilarInstitutionsandPracticesConventionof1926(SlaveryConventionof1926),60L.N.T.S.253,enteredintoforceMarch9,1927.
[5]
Tortureisdefinedasanyactbywhichseverepainorsuffering,whetherphysicalormental,isintentionallyinflictedonapersonforsuchpurposesasobtainingfromhimora
thirdperson,informationoraconfession,punishinghimforanactheorathirdpersonhascommittedorissuspectedofhavingcommitted,orintimidatingorcoercinghimora
thirdperson,orforanyreasonbasedondiscriminationofanykind,whensuchpainorsufferingisinflictedbyorattheinstigationoforwiththeconsentoracquiescenceofa
publicofficialorotherpersonactinginanofficialcapacity.Itdoesnotincludepainorsufferingarisingonlyfrom,inherentinorincidentaltolawfulsanctions.(Convention
AgainstTorture,Article1.1)
[6]
SignedatSanFrancisco,September8,1951Initialentryintoforce:April28,1952.ThetreatywassignedbyArgentina,Australia,Belgium,Bolivia,Brazil,Cambodia,Canada,
Chile,Colombia,CostaRica,Cuba,Czechoslovakia,DominicanRepublic,Ecuador,Egypt,ElSalvador,Ethiopia,France,Greece,Guatemala,Haiti,Honduras,Indonesia,Iran,
Iraq,Japan,Laos,Lebanon,Liberia,Luxembourg,Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, The Philippines, Poland,
SaudiArabia,theSovietUnion,SriLanka,SouthAfrica,Syria,Turkey,theUnitedKingdom,theUnitedStates,Uruguay,Venezuela,Vietnam.ThesignatoriesfortheRepublic
ofthePhilippineswereCarlosP.Romulo,J.M.Elizalde,VicenteFrancisco,DiosdadoMacapagal,EmilianoTirona,andV.G.Sinco.
[7]
SignedinSanFrancisco,September8,1951,ratifiedbythePhilippineSenateonJuly16,1956.SignedbythePhilippinePresidentonJuly18,1956.EnteredintoforceonJuly
23,1956.
[8]
OnSeptember21,1992,theJapaneseEmbassyformallyconfirmedtothePhilippinegovernmenttheinvolvementoftheJapaneseImperialArmyintheestablishmentofcomfort
womenstations.
InMay1993,JapanapprovedtextbooksfeaturinganaccountofhowcomfortwomenwereforcedtoworkasprostitutesfortheJapaneseImperialArmy.
OnAugust4,1993,JapanesePrimeMinisterMiyazawa,beforeresigning,formallyapologizedtowomenallovertheworldwhowereforcedtoserveascomfortwomen:
TheJapanesegovernmentregretsandsincerelyapologizesfortheunbearablepainthatthesewomenregardlessoftheirnationalities,sufferedwhilebeingforcedto
workassocalledcomfortwomen.
TheJapanesegovernmentexpressesitsheartfeltsentimentsofreflectionandapologytoallthewomenfortheirmanysufferingsandtheinjuriestomindandbody
thatcannotbehealed.
ThePhilippinegovernment,undertheadministrationofthenPresidentFidelV.Ramos,acceptedtheformalapologygiventheJapaneseGovernment.Thoughtheformalapology
camelate,itisamostwelcomegesturefromthegovernmentofJapan,whichhasbeenverysupportiveofoureconomicdevelopment.
[9]
RichardJ.Galvin,TheCaseforaJapaneseTruthCommissionCoveringWorldWarIIEraJapaneseWarCrimes,11TUL.J.INT'L&COMP.L.59,64(2003).
[10]
SeeArgibay,AdLitemJudge,InternationalCriminalTribunalfortheFormerYugoslavia,SpeechattheStefanA.RiesenfeldSymposium:SexualSlaveryandtheComfortWomen
ofWorldWarII,in21BERKELEYJ.INT'LL.375,376(2003).
[11]
Id.
[12]
Nearey,SeekingReparationsintheNewMilleunium:WillJapanCompensatetheComfortWomenofWorldWarII?,15TEMP.INT'L&COMP.L.J.121,134(2001).
[13]
USTINIADOLGOPOL&SNEHALPARANJAPE,COMFORTWOMEN:ANUNFINISHEDORDEAL15(1994).
[14]
Id.at48.
[15]
SeeJohnson,Comment,JusticeforComfortWomen:WilltheAlienTortClaimsActBringThemtheRemediesTheySeek?,20PENNST.INT'LL.REV.253,260(2001).
[16]
Id.at261.Soldiersdisregardedrulesmandatingtheuseofcondoms,andthusmanywomenbecamepregnantorinfectedwithsexuallytransmitteddiseases.
[17]
Boling,MassRape,EnforcedProstitution,andtheJapaneseImperialArmy:JapanEschewsInternationalLegalResponsibility?3OCCASIONALPAPERS/REPRINTSERIES
CONTEMPORARYASIANSTUDIES8(1995).
[18]
Id.
[19]
YAMAMOTOETAL.,RACE,RIGHTSANDREPARATION43538(2001).
[20]
Meade,FromShanghaitoGlobocourt:AnAnalysisoftheComfortWomen'sDefeatinHwangv.Japan,35VAND.J.TRANSNAT'LL.211,233(2002).
[21]
Numerouslawsuitsimmediatelyfollowed,includinglawsuitsfiledbytheKoreanCouncilforWomenDraftedforSexualSlavery,andasuitbyaDutchformercomfortwoman
Fisher,Japan'sPostwarCompensationLitigation,22WHITTIERL.REV.35,44(2000).
[22]
ThelowercourtrulinginHav.Japanhasbeenthelonecourtroomvictoryforcomfortwomen.OnDecember25,1992,tenKoreanwomenfiledthelawsuitwiththeYamaguchi
PrefecturalCourt, seeking an official apology and compensation from the Japanese government. The plaintiffs claimed that Japan had a moral duty to atone for its wartime
crimesandalegalobligationtocompensatethemunderinternationalanddomesticlaws.Morethanfiveyearslater,onApril27,1998,thecourtfoundtheJapanesegovernment
guiltyofnegligenceandorderedittopay300,000,or$2,270,toeachofthethreeplaintiffs.However,thecourtdeniedplaintiffsdemandsthatthegovernmentissueanofficial
apology.Bothpartiesappealed,butJapan'sHighCourtlateroverturnedtheruling.SeePark,BrokenSilence:RedressingtheMassRapeandSexualEnslavementofAsianWomen
bytheJapaneseGovernmentinanAppropriateForum,3ASIANPAC.L.&POL'YJ.40(2002)Kim&Kim,DelayedJustice:TheCaseoftheJapaneseImperialMilitarySex
Slaves,16UCLAPAC.BASINL.J.263(1998).Park,ComfortWomenDuringWWII:AreU.S.CourtsaFinalResortforJustice?,17AM.U.INT'LL.REV.403,408(2002).
[23]
HwangGeumJoov.Japan(HwangI),172F.Supp.2d52(D.D.C.2001),affirmed,332F.3d679(D.C.Cir.2003),vacated,542U.S.901(2004),remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.
Cir.2005),cert.denied,126S.Ct.1418(2006).
[24]
AlienTortClaimsAct,28U.S.C.1350(2000).TheATCAgivesUSfederaldistrictcourtsoriginaljurisdictiontoadjudicatecivilcasesandawardtortdamagesforviolationsof
the law of nations or UnitedStates treaties. SeeAhmed,TheShame of Hwang v. Japan: How the InternationalCommunity Has Failed Asia's Comfort Women, 14 TEX. J.
WOMEN&L.121,14142(2004).
[25]
UndertheATCA,whenacauseofactionisbroughtagainstasovereignnation,theonlybasisforobtainingpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendantisthroughanexceptiontothe
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). See Jeffords, Will Japan Face Its Past? The Struggle for Justice for Former Comfort Women, 2REGENT J. INT'L L. 145, 158
(2003/2004).TheFSIA(28U.S.C.1604(1994&Supp.1999).)grantsforeignstatesimmunityfrombeingsuedinUSdistrictcourtsunlessthestatewaivesitsimmunityorthe
claims fall within certain enumerated exceptions. The Japanese government successfully argued that it is entitled to sovereign immunity under the FSIA. The government
additionallyarguedthatpostwartreatieshadresolvedtheissueofreparations,whichwerenonjusticiablepoliticalquestions.
[26]
SeeHwangGeumJoov.Japan(HwangII),332F.3d679,68081(D.C.Cir.2003),vacated,542U.S.901(2004),remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.Cir.2005),cert.denied,126S.
Ct.1418(2006).
[27]
SeeHwangGeumJoov.Japan(HwangIII),542U.S.901(2004)(memorandum),remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.Cir.2005),cert.denied,126S.Ct.1418(2006).
[28]
Id.
[29]
SOH,THECOMFORTWOMENPROJECT,SANFRANCISCOSTATEUNIVERSITY(19972001),http://online.sfsu.edu/~soh/comfortwomen.html,at123435.
[30]
An Analysis Of The Legal Liability Of The Government Of Japan For Comfort Women Stations Established During The Second World War (Appendix) REPORT ON
CONTEMPORARYFORMSOFSLAVERY:SYSTEMATICRAPE,SEXUALSLAVERYANDSLAVERYLIKEPRACTICESDURINGARMEDCONFLICT,Finalreport
submitted by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur, SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Commission on Human Rights
(FiftiethSession)E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13(June22,1998).
[31]
Chinkin,Women'sInternationalTribunalonJapaneseSexualSlavery,95AM.J.INT'L.L.335(2001).
[32]
Alargeamountofevidencewaspresentedtothetribunalforexamination.SixtyfourformercomfortwomenfromKoreaandothersurroundingterritoriesintheAsiaPacific
region testified before the court. Testimony was also presented by historical scholars, international law scholars, and two former Japanese soldiers. Additional evidence was
submittedbytheprosecutionteamsoftendifferentcountries,including:NorthandSouthKorea,China,Japan,thePhilippines,Indonesia,Taiwan,Malaysia,EastTimor,andthe
Netherlands.Id.at336.
[33]
PressRelease,CongressmanMikeHonda,Rep.HondaCallsonJapantoApologizeforWorldWarIIExploitationofComfortWomen(January31,2007).
[34]
H.R.Res.121,110thCong.(2007)(enacted).
[35]
European Parliament, Human rights: Chad, Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, Japan's Wartime Sex Slaves, Dec. 17, 2007, http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
language=EN&type=IMPRESS&reference=20071210BRI14639&secondRef=ITEM008EN.
[36]
TheComfortWomenAHistoryofTrauma,
http://taiwan.yam.org.tw/womenweb/conf_women/index_e.html.
[37]
YAMAMOTO ET AL., supra note 19 at 437. The government appointed Bunbei Hara, former Speaker of the Upper House of the Diet, as the first President of the Asian
Women'sFund(19951999).FormerPrimeMinisterTomiichiMurayamasucceededHaraasthesecondpresidentoftheprogram(1999present).SeeJeffords,supranote25at
158.
[38]
TheAsianWomen'sFund,http://www.awf.or.jp/english/project_atonement.html,at55.
[39]
369U.S.186,82S.Ct.691,7L.Ed.2d663(1962).
[40]
103Phil1051,1068(1957).
[41]
SeeBakerv.Carr,369U.S.at211222.
[42]
Oetjenv.CentralLeatherCo.,246U.S.297,302(1918).
[43]
Chicago&S.AirLines,Inc.v.WatermanS.S.Corp.,333U.S.103,111(1948).
[44]
CONSTITUTION,Art.VIII,Sec.5(2)(a).
[45]
299US304,57S.Ct.216,81L.Ed,255(1936).
[46]
396Phil623,663(2000).Weheld:
Byconstitutionalfiatandbytheintrinsicnatureofhisoffice,thePresident,asheadofState,isthesoleorganandauthorityintheexternalaffairsofthecountry.In
manyways,thePresidentisthechiefarchitectofthenation'sforeignpolicyhis"dominanceinthefieldofforeignrelationsis(then)conceded."Wieldingvast
powersandinfluence,hisconductintheexternalaffairsofthenation,asJeffersondescribes,is"executivealtogether".
[47]
501Phil.304,313(2005).Westated:
In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole
representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs.
Hence,thePresidentisvestedwiththeauthoritytodealwithforeignstatesandgovernments,extendorwithholdrecognition,maintaindiplomaticrelations,enter
into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treatymaking, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other
states.
[48]
379Phil.165,233234(2004).
[49]
HENKIN,FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE CONSTITUTION 300 (2d 1996) see Dames and Moore v. Regan,453 U.S. 654, 688, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918 (1981)
(upholdingthePresident'sauthoritytosettleclaimsofcitizensas"anecessaryincidenttotheresolutionofamajorforeignpolicydisputebetweenourcountryandanother[at
least] where ... Congress acquiesced in the President's action") Am. Ins. Ass'n v. Garamendi,539 U.S. 396, 424, 123 S.Ct. 2374, 156 L.Ed.2d 376 (2003) (acknowledging
"President'sauthoritytoprovideforsettlingclaimsinwindingupinternationalhostilities").SeealsoAkbayanCitizensActionParty(AKBAYAN)v.Aquino,G.R.No.170516,
July16,2008,558SCRA468,517whereweheldthat:
xxxWhile,onfirstimpression,itappearswisetodeterPhilippinerepresentativesfromenteringintocompromises,itbearsnotingthattreatynegotiations,orany
negotiation for that matter, normally involve a process of quid pro quo, and oftentimes negotiators have to be willing to grant concessions in an area of lesser
importanceinordertoobtainmorefavorabletermsinanareaofgreaternationalinterest.
[50]
3U.S.(3Dall.)199,230,1L.Ed.568(1796).
[51]
453U.S.654,101S.Ct.2972(1981)(retheestablishmentoftheIranUnitedStatesClaimsTribunalfollowingtheseizureofAmericanpersonnelashostagesattheAmerican
EmbassyinTehran).
[52]
Bazyler,TheHolocaustRestitutionMovementinComparativePerspective,20BERKELEYJ.INTL.L.11,2532(2002).
[53]
InReWorldWarIIEraJapaneseForcedLaborLitigation,supranote1.
[54]
TreatyofPeacewithJapan1951,136UNTS45.
[55]
The conceptual understanding that individuals have rights and responsibilities in the international arena does not automatically mean that they have the ability to bring
internationalclaimstoasserttheirrights.Thus,thePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticedeclaredthatitisscarcelynecessarytopointoutthatthecapacitytopossesscivil
rightsdoesnotnecessarilyimplythecapacitytoexercisethoserightsoneself.AppealfromaJudgmentoftheHungaro/CzeochoslovakMixedArbitralTribunal,Judgment,1933,
PCIJ,Ser.A/BNo.61,p.208at231.
[56]
PCIJ,Ser.A,No.2,p.11,at16.ThistraditionalviewwasrepeatedbythePCIJinthePanevezysSaldutiskisRailwayCase,theCaseConcerningthePaymentofVariousSerbian
LoansissuedinFrance,JudgmentofJuly12,1929, PCIJ Reports, Series A No. 20and in theCase Concerning the Factory at Chorzow, Judgment of September 13, 1928,
Merits,PCIJReports,SeriesANo.17.TheICJhasadopteditintheReparationforinjuriessufferedintheserviceoftheUnitedNationsAdvisoryOpinion:ICJReports1949,p.
174theNottebohmCase(secondphase)JudgmentofApril6,1955:ICJReports1955,p.4atp.24theInterhandelCase(JudgmentofMarch21st,1959:ICJReports1959,p.
6atp.27)andtheBarcelonaTraction,LightandPowerCompany,Limitedcase,(Belg.v.Spain),1970I.C.J.3,32(Feb.5).
[57]
SeeBORCHARD,E.,DIPLOMATICPROTECTIONOFCITIZENSABROADATVI(1915).Underthisview,theconsiderationsunderlyingthedecisiontoexerciseornot
diplomaticprotectionmayvarydependingoneachcaseandmayrelyentirelyonpolicyconsiderationsregardlessoftheinterestsofthedirectlyinjuredindividual,andtheState
isnotrequiredtoprovidejustificationforitsdecision.
[58]
BarcelonaTraction,LightandPowerCompany,Limited,case,supranote56,atp.44par.78.
[59]
ILC First Reading Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/484, ILC Report, A/53/10 (F), par. 60, Commentary to Draft Article 2, par. (1) see also,
CommentarytoDraftArticle1,par.(3),andtextofDraftArticle2.
[60]
ReportoftheInternationalLawCommissionontheworkofits50thsession,supranote60,par.77.
[61]
ILCFirstReadingDraftArticlesonDiplomaticProtection,supranote60,commentarytoDraftArticle2,par.(2).
[62]
Forinstance,SpecialRapporteurDugardproposedthattheILCadoptinitsDraftArticlesaprovisionunderwhichStateswouldbeinternationallyobligedtoexercisediplomatic
protection in favor of their nationals injured abroad by grave breaches to jus cogens norms, if the national so requested and if he/she was not afforded direct access to an
internationaltribunal.Theproposedarticlereadsasfollows:
Article[4]1.Unlesstheinjuredpersonisabletobringaclaimforsuchinjurybeforeacompetentinternationalcourtortribunal,theStateofhis/hernationalityhasa
legaldutytoexercisediplomaticprotectiononbehalfoftheinjuredpersonuponrequest,iftheinjuryresultsfromagravebreachofajuscogensnormattributable
to another State. 2. The state of nationality is relieved of this obligation if: (a) The exercise of diplomatic protection would seriously endanger the overriding
interestsoftheStateand/oritspeople(b)AnotherStateexercisesdiplomaticprotectiononbehalfoftheinjuredperson(c)Theinjuredpersondoesnothavethe
effectiveanddominantnationalityoftheState.Statesareobligedtoprovideintheirmunicipallawfortheenforcementofthisrightbeforeacompetentdomestic
court or other independent national authority". Special Rapporteur John Dugard, appointed in 1999, First Report on Diplomatic Protection, par. 74 (UN Doc.
A/CN.4/506(March7,2000)andCorr.1(June7,2000)andAdd.1(April20,2000).
However,theproposalwasnotacceptedbytheILC,as"thequestionwasstillnotripefortreatment"because"theStatepracticeandtheiropiniojurisstillhadnotevolvedin
suchdirection".OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly:55thsession,SupplementNo.10,Doc.A/55/10(2000),ReportoftheILContheworkofits52ndsession,p.131.
Instead,DraftArticle19,entitledRecommendedPractice,suggeststhatstatesshouldbeencouragedtoexercisediplomaticprotectionespeciallywhensignificantinjuryoccurred
tothenational.Draftedinsoftlanguage,theArticledoesnotpurporttocreateanybindingobligationsonthestate.
Inaddition,someStateshaveincorporatedintheirmunicipallawadutytoexercisediplomaticprotectioninfavoroftheirnationals.(Dugardidentifiesthis"obligation"to
existintheConstitutionsofAlbania,Belarus,BosniaandHerzegovina,Bulgaria,Cambodia,China,Croatia,Estonia,Georgia,Guyana,Hungary,Italy,Kazakhstan,LaoPeoples
Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey,
Ukraine,VietNamandYugoslavia,albeitwithdifferentreaches.J.Dugard,FirstReportondiplomaticprotection,supranote13,par.80),buttheirenforceabilityisalso,tosay
theleast,questionable(inmanycasestherearenotevencourtscompetenttoreviewthedecision).Moreover,theirexistenceinnowayimpliesthatinternationallawimposes
such an obligation, simply suggesting "that certain States consider diplomatic protection for their nationals abroad to be desirable" (ILC First Reading Draft Articles on
DiplomaticProtection,supranote60,CommentarytoDraftArticle2,par(2)).
[63]
Evendecisionsofnationalcourtssupportthethesisthatgeneralinternationallawasitstandsdoesnotmandateanenforceablelegaldutyofdiplomaticprotection.
ThetraditionalviewhasbeenchallengedintheUKinacasearisingfromtheunlawfuldetentionbytheUSofprisonersinGuantanamoBay.InAbbasi v. Secretary of State for
ForeignandCommonwealthAffairs([2002]EWCACiv1316,19September2002),theapplicant(aBritishnational)soughtjudicialreviewoftheadequacyofthediplomatic
actions of the British government with the US government. The UK Court of Appeals came to the conclusion that diplomatic protection did not as such give rise to an
enforceabledutyunderEnglishLaw.ItfoundthatonnoviewwoulditbeappropriatetoordertheSecretaryofStatetomakeanyspecificrepresentationstotheUnitedStates,
eveninthefaceofwhatappearstobeaclearbreachofafundamentalhumanright,asitisobviousthatthiswouldhaveanimpactontheconductofforeignpolicy.
CourtsintheUKhavealsorepeatedlyheldthatthedecisionstakenbytheexecutiveinitsdealingswithforeignstatesregardingtheprotectionofBritishnationalsabroadare
nonjusticiable.
(1)R.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,expartePirbhai(107ILR462(1985):
"xxxinthecontextofasituationwithseriousimplicationsfortheconductofinternationalrelations,thecourtsshouldactwithahighdegreeofcircumspectionin
theinterestsofallconcerned.Itcanrarely,ifever,beforjudgestointervenewherediplomatsfeartotread."(p.479,perSirJohnDonaldsonMR)
(2)R.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,exparteFerhutButt(116ILR607(1999):
"The general rule is well established that the courts should not interfere in the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive, most particularly where such
interferenceislikelytohaveforeignpolicyrepercussions(seeR.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,exparteEverett[1989]1QB811at
820).Thisextendstodecisionswhetherornottoseektopersuadeaforeigngovernmentofanyinternationalobligation(e.g.torespecthumanrights)whichithas
assumed.WhatifanyapproachshouldbemadetotheYemeniauthoritiesinregardtotheconductofthetrialoftheseterroristchargesmustbeamatterfordelicate
diplomacyandtheconsideredandinformedjudgmentoftheFCO.Insuchmattersthecourtshavenosupervisoryrole."(p.615,perLightmanJ).
"Whetherandwhentoseektointerfereortoputpressureoninrelationtothelegalprocess,ifeveritisasensibleandarightthingtodo,mustbeamatterforthe
Executiveandnooneelse,withtheiraccesstoinformationandtolocalknowledge.Itisclearlynotamatterforthecourts.Itisclearlyahighpolicydecisionofa
governmentinrelationtoitsforeignrelationsandisnotjusticiablebywayofjudicialreview."(p.622,perHenryLJ).
(3)R.(SureshandManickavasagam)v.SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment[2001]EWHCAdmin1028(unreported,16November2001):
"...thereis,inmyjudgment,nodutyupontheSecretaryofStatetoensurethatothernationscomplywiththeirhumanrightsobligations.Theremaybecaseswhere
theUnitedKingdomGovernmenthas,forexamplebydiplomaticmeans,chosentoseektopersuadeanotherStatetotakeacertaincourseinitstreatmentofBritish
nationalsbutthereisnodutytodoso."(paragraph19,perSirRichardTucker).
TheSouthAfricanConstitutionalCourtinKaundaandothersv.PresidentoftheRepublicofSouthAfricaandothers(CaseCCCT23/04)recognizedtheconstitutionalbasisofthe
rightofdiplomaticprotectionasenshrinedintheSouthAfricanConstitution,butwentontoholdthatthenatureandextentofthisobligationwasanaspectofforeignpolicy
withinthediscretionoftheexecutive.
[64]
BORCHARD,E.,DIPLOMATICPROTECTIONOFCITIZENSABROAD,29(1915).
[65]
Theconceptofrapeasaninternationalcrimeisrelativelynew.Thisisnottosaythatrapehasneverbeenhistoricallyprohibited,particularlyinwar.Butmoderndaysensitivity
tothecrimeofrapedidnotemergeuntilafterWorldWarII.IntheNurembergCharter,thewordrapewasnotmentioned.Thearticleoncrimesagainsthumanityexplicitlyset
forthprohibitedacts,butrapewasnotmentionedbyname.(Forexample,theTreatyofAmityandCommercebetweenPrussiaandtheUnitedStatesprovidesthatintimeofwar
allwomenandchildrenshallnotbemolestedintheirpersons.TheTreatyofAmityandCommerce,BetweenhisMajestytheKingofPrussiaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,
art.23,Sept.10,1785, U.S.Pruss., 8TREATIES & OTHER INT'L AGREEMENTS OF THE U.S. 78, 85. The 1863 Lieber Instructions classified rape as a crime of troop
discipline.(Mitchell,TheProhibitionofRapeinInternationalHumanitarianLawasaNormofJuscogens:ClarifyingtheDoctrine,15DUKEJ.COMP.INTL.L.219,224).It
specifiedrapeasacapitalcrimepunishablebythedeathpenalty(Id.at236).The1907HagueConventionprotectedwomenbyrequiringtheprotectionoftheirhonour.(Family
honourandrights,thelivesofpersons,andprivateproperty,aswellasreligiousconvictionsandpractice,mustberespected.Convention(IV)RespectingtheLaws&Customs
ofWaronLand,art.46,Oct.18,1907.GeneralAssemblyresolution95(I)ofDecember11,1946entitled,AffirmationofthePrinciplesofInternationalLawrecognizedbythe
Charter of the Nrnberg Tribunal General Assembly documentA/64/Add.1 of 1946 See Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the
EuropeanAxis,Aug.8,1945,59Stat.1544,82U.N.T.S.279.Article6(c)oftheCharterestablishedcrimesagainsthumanityasthefollowing:
CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITY:namely,murder,extermination,enslavement,deportation,andotherinhumaneactscommittedagainstanycivilianpopulation,
before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the Jurisdiction of the
Tribunal,whetherornotinviolationofthedomesticlawofthecountrywhereperpetrated.
TheNurembergJudgmentdidnotmakeanyreferencetorapeandrapewasnotprosecuted.(JudgeGabrielleKirkMcDonald,TheInternationalCriminalTribunalsCrimeand
PunishmentintheInternationalArena,7ILSAJ.INTL.COMP.L.667,676.)However,InternationalMilitaryTribunalfortheFarEastprosecutedrapecrimes,eventhoughits
Statutedidnotexplicitlycriminalizerape.TheFarEastTribunalheldGeneralIwaneMatsui,CommanderShunrokuHataandForeignMinisterHirotacriminallyresponsiblefor
a series of crimes, including rape, committed by persons under their authority. (THE TOKYO JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY
TRIBUNALFORTHEFAREAST44554(1977).
ThefirstmentionofrapeasaspecificcrimecameinDecember1945whenControlCouncilLawNo.10includedthetermrapeinthedefinitionofcrimesagainsthumanity.
LawNo.10,adoptedbythefouroccupyingpowersinGermany,wasdevisedtoestablishauniformbasisforprosecutingwarcriminalsinGermancourts.(ControlCouncilfor
Germany, Law No. 10: Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, Dec. 20, 1945, 3 Official Gazette Control Council for
Germany50,53(1946))
The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to theTreatment of Prisoners of War was the first modernday international instrument to establish protections against rape for
women.GenevaConventionRelativetotheProtectionofCivilianPersonsinTimeofWar,Aug.12,1949,art.27,6U.S.T.3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 (entry into force Oct. 20,
1950) [hereinafter Fourth Geneva Convention].Furthermore, the ICC, the ICTY, and the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) have significantly advanced the
crimeofrapebyenablingittobeprosecutedasgenocide,awarcrime,andacrimeagainsthumanity.
Rapeisclearlyemergingasacorecrimewithinhumanitarianlaw.(APPLEMAN,MILITARYTRIBUNALSANDINTERNATIONALCRIMES299(1954)MERON,HUMAN
RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN NORMS AS CUSTOMARY LAW 47 (1989).A major step in this legal development came in 1949, when rape and sexual assault were
included in the Geneva Conventions. Rape is included in the following acts committed against persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions: willful killing, torture or
inhuman treatment, including biological experiments willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. Rape as a violation of the laws or customs of war
generallyconsistsofviolationsofArticle3ofthe1949GenevaConventions,which,inpart,prohibitsviolencetolifeandperson,inparticularmutilation,crueltreatmentand
tortureoutragesuponpersonaldignity,inparticularhumiliatinganddegradingtreatment.(SeeGenevaConventionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedand
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, art. 3(1)(c), 75 U.N.T.S. 31 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of
ArmedForcesatSea,art.3(1)(c),75U.N.T.S.85GenevaConventionRelativetotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,art.3(1)(c),75U.N.T.S.973FourthGenevaConvention,
supranote23,art.3(1)(c).
Article27oftheFourthGenevaConvention,directedatprotectingciviliansduringtimeofwar,statesthatwomenshallbeespeciallyprotectedagainstanyattackontheirhonour,
inparticularagainstrape,enforcedprostitution,oranyformofindecentassault.
ProtocolIoftheGenevaConventionscontinuestoexpandtheprotectedrightsbyprovidingthatwomenshallbetheobjectofspecialrespectandshallbeprotectedinparticular
againstrape,forcedprostitutionandanyformofindecentassault.(ProtocolAdditionaltotheGenevaConventionsofAugust12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictims
ofInternationalArmedConflicts(ProtocolI),Article76(1),1125U.N.T.S.4).
[66]
Forinstance,theInternationalCriminalCourtwasestablishedtodealwiththemostseriouscrimesofconcerntotheinternationalcommunity,withjurisdictionovergenocide,
crimesagainsthumanity,andwarcrimes,asdefinedintheRomeStatute.The ICC Prosecutor can investigate allegations of crimes not only upon referral from the Security
Councilandstateparties,butalsooninformationfromvictims,nongovernmentalorganizationsoranyotherreliablesource(Article15).SeealsotheStatuteoftheInternational
TribunalfortheProsecutionofPersonsResponsibleforSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritoryoftheFormerYugoslaviasince1991,
U.N.Doc.S/25704at36,annex(1993)andS/25704/Add.1(1993),adoptedbySecurityCouncilon25May1993,U.N.Doc.S/RES/827(1993).
[67]
Scharf,TheLetteroftheLaw:TheScopeoftheInternationalLegalObligationToProsecuteHumanRightsCrimes,59(4)LAW&CONTEMP.PROBS.41,59(1996).Dugard,
DealingwithCrimesofaPastRegime:IsAmnestyStillanOption?,12LEIDENJ.INT'LL.1001,1003(1999).Gavron,AmnestiesinLightofDevelopmentsinInternational
LawandtheEstablishmentoftheInternationalCriminalCourt,51INT'L&COMP.L.Q.91,106(2002).
[68]
O'SHEA,AMNESTYFORCRIMEININTERNATIONALLAWANDPRACTICE35(2002).
[69]
BrunoSimmasmuchquotedobservationencapsulatesthisfeelingofdisappointment:Viewedrealistically,theworldofobligationsergaomnesisstilltheworldoftheought
ratherthanoftheisTHECHARTEROFTHEUNITEDNATIONS:ACOMMENTARY125(Simma,ed.1995).SeeTams,EnforcingObligationsErgaomnesinInternational
Law(2005).Inallcaseswherethisprinciplehasbeencited,eventheICJhasfoundawaytoavoidgivingforcetotheclaimsbasedontheergaomnescharacteroftheobligation,
despitehavingrecognizedtheminprinciple.IntheSouthWestAfricaCase,theICJdeclaredthatanactionpopulariswasincompatiblewithexistinginternationallaw.Inthe
Nicaraguacase,itevadedtheconsequencesofaviolationofergaomnesobligationsbytreatinghumanrightsconventionsasselfcontainedregimes.Nicaraguav.US,Merits,
ICJReports1986,14etseq.(134,par.267):However,wherehumanrightsareprotectedbyinternationalconventions,thatprotectiontakestheformofsucharrangementsfor
monitoringorensuringrespectforhumanrightsasareprovidedforintheconventionsthemselves.IntheEastTimorCase,itdeniedjurisdictiononthegroundthatIndonesia
wasanindispensablethirdpartytotheproceedingswhichhadnotacceptedjurisdiction.(Portugalv.Australia,ICJReports1995,90(102,par29)Portugalsassertionthatthe
rightofpeoplestoselfdeterminationhasanergaomnescharacter,isirreproachable.
[70]
SeeViennaConventionontheLawofTreatiesart.53,openedforsignatureMay23,1969,1155U.N.T.S.331,8I.L.M.679[hereinafterVCLT].
[71]
ClassicalpublicistssuchasHugoGrotius,EmerdeVattel,andChristianWolffdrewupontheRomanlawdistinctionbetweenjusdispositivum(voluntarylaw)andjusscriptum
(obligatorylaw)todifferentiateconsensualagreementsbetweenstatesfromthenecessaryprinciplesofinternationallawthatbindallstatesasapointofconscienceregardlessof
consent.(SeeHugonisGrotii,DeJureBellietPacis[OntheLawofWarandPeace](WilliamWhewelled.&trans.,JohnW.Parker,London2009)(1625)EmerdeVattel,Le
DroitdesGensouPrincipesdelaLoiNaturelle[TheLawofNationsorPrinciplesofNaturalLaw]9,27(1758)(distinguishingleDroitdesGensNaturel,ouNcessairefromle
Droit Volontaire) Christian Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractorum [A Scientific Method for Understanding the Law of Nations] 5 (James Brown Scott ed.,
JosephH.Draketrans.,ClarendonPress1934)(1764)).EarlytwentiethcenturypublicistssuchasLassaOppenheimandWilliamHallassertedthatstatescouldnotabrogate
certainuniversallyrecognizedprinciplesbymutualagreement.(WilliamHall,ATreatiseonInternationalLaw38283(8thed.1924)(assertingthatfundamentalprinciplesof
international law may invalidate [], or at least render voidable, conflicting international agreements) 1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 528 (1905).) Judges on the
PermanentCourtofInternationalJusticeaffirmedtheexistenceofperemptorynormsininternationallawbyreferencingtreatiescontrabonosmores(contrarytopublicpolicy)
inaseriesofindividualconcurringanddissentingopinions.(Forexample,inthe1934OscarChinnCase,JudgeSchcking'sinfluentialdissentstatedthatneitheraninternational
courtnoranarbitraltribunalshouldapplyatreatyprovisionincontradictiontobonosmores.OscarChinnCase,1934P.C.I.J.(ser.A/B)No.63,at14950(Dec.12)(Schcking,
J.,dissenting).
[72]
Verdrossarguedthatcertaindiscreterulesofinternationalcustomhadcometoberecognizedashavingacompulsorycharacternotwithstandingcontrarystateagreements.At
first,Verdross'svisionofinternationaljuscogensencounteredskepticismwithinthelegalacademy.Thesevoicesofresistancesoonfoundthemselvesintheminority,however,
asthejuscogensconceptgainedenhancedrecognitionandcredibilityfollowingtheSecondWorldWar.(SeeLauriHannikainen,PeremptoryNorms(Juscogens)inInternational
Law:HistoricalDevelopment,Criteria,PresentStatus150(1988)(surveyinglegalscholarshipduringtheperiod194569andreportingthatabouteightypercent[ofscholars]
heldtheopinionthatthereareperemptorynormsexistingininternationallaw).
[73]
InMarch1953,theILC'sSpecialRapporteur,SirHerschLauterpacht,submittedfortheILC'sconsiderationapartialdraftconventionontreatieswhichstatedthat[a]treaty,or
anyofitsprovisions,isvoidifitsperformanceinvolvesanactwhichisillegalunderinternationallawandifitisdeclaredsotobebytheInternationalCourtofJustice.Hersch
Lauterpacht,LawofTreaties:ReportbySpecialRapporteur,[1953]2Y.B.Int'lL.Comm'n90,93,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/63.
[74]
SeeSummaryRecordsofthe877thMeeting,[1966]1Y.B.Int'lL.Comm'n227,230231,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/188(notingthattheemergenceofaruleofjuscogensbanning
aggressivewarasaninternationalcrimewasevidencethatinternationallawcontainsminimumrequirement[s]forsafeguardingtheexistenceoftheinternationalcommunity).
[75]
SecondReportontheLawofTreaties,[1963]2Y.B.Int'lL.Comm'n1,52,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/156.
[76]
Id.at53.
[77]
WhiletheICJrecentlyendorsedthejuscogensconceptforthefirsttimeinits2006JudgmentonPreliminary Objections in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
(Congov.Rwanda),itdeclinedtoclarifyjuscogens'slegalstatusortospecifyanycriteriaforidentifyingperemptorynorms.(ArmedActivitiesontheTerritoryoftheCongo,
Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda) (Judgment of February 3, 2006), at 3132, available at http://www.icj
cij.org/docket/files/126/10435.pdf.
Insomemunicipalcases,courtshavedeclinedtorecognizeinternationalnormsasperemptorywhileexpressingdoubtaboutthepropercriteriaforidentifyingjuscogens.
(See,e.g.,Sampsonv.FederalRepublicofGermany,250F.3d1145,1149(7thCir.2001)(expressingconcernthatjuscogensshouldbeinvoked[o]nlyasalastresort)).
Inothercases,nationalcourtshaveacceptedinternationalnormsasperemptory,buthavehesitatedtoenforcethesenormsforfearthattheymighttherebycompromisestate
sovereignty.(See,e.g.,Bouzariv.Iran,[2004]71O.R.3d675(Can.)(holdingthattheprohibitionagainsttorturedoesnotentailarighttoacivilremedyenforceableinaforeign
court)).
InCongov.Rwanda,forexample,JudgeadhocJohnDugardobservedthattheICJhadrefrainedfrominvokingthejuscogens concept in several previous cases where
peremptory norms manifestly clashed with other principles of general international law. (See Armed Activities on theTerritory of the Congo(Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda)
(JudgmentofFebruary3,2006),at2(DissentingOpinionofJudgeDugard))
Similarly,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasaddressedjuscogensonlyonce,inAlAdsaniv.UnitedKingdom,whenitfamouslyrejectedtheargumentthatjuscogens
violationswoulddepriveastateofsovereignimmunity.AlAdsaniv.UnitedKingdom,2001XIEur.Ct.H.R.79,61).
[78]
SZTUCKI,JUSCOGENSANDTHEVIENNACONVENTIONONTHELAWOFTREATIES119123(1974).