Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan

Country of proceedings: US
Context of crimes: Asia-Pacific, World War II (Japan)
Date: 2001 - 2006
Keywords: Crimes against humanity (rape/sexual slavery), jurisdiction, immunities (sovereign)

Court Documents
18-09-2000 - Lawsuit filed
27-04-2001 - US State Department Statement of Interest
04-10-2001 - US District Court Opinion
27-06-2003 - US District Appeals Court Opinion
14-06-2004 - Supreme Court grants certiorari
28-06-2005 - US District Appeals Court Decision
21-02-2006 - Supreme Court denies certiorari

Other information
10-08-2010 - Statement by Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan [in English] [in Korean] [in Japanese]
04-01-1996 - UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1 - Report on the mission to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartime
15-08-1995 - Murayama Statement [in English] [in Korean] [in Japanese]

Presentation of the case
Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan is a case brought before the US courts by fifteen former ‘Comfort women’ who were forcibly abducted and used as sex slaves by the Japanese army during WWII. In a complaint filed in September 2000, the women claim that they were subjected to rape and sexual slavery as part of human trafficking operation. The operation was so widespread that it has elsewhere been termed, “state-sanctioned rape and enslavement”. The women sought reparations and an apology from the Japanese government.

The Japanese government maintained that the US courts lacked jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity under US law. According to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the immunity applies unless a commercial activity exception could be established. In the October 2001 Opinion of the District Court, the Court found that the ‘Comfort women’ system did not fall within this exception since it occurred in the context of the Japanese war effort. On 27 June 2003, the Appeals Court confirmed the decision.

Nonetheless, on 14 June 2004 the US Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court. However, the case was against dismissed since the Court found that it was unable to hear the case because a determination of the plaintiffs claims required matters solely within the power of the Executive – namely, determining whether Japan’s post-war treaties excluded private claims by war victims.

Related cases

• The 'Comfort Women' case
• Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al.