日本在慰安妇问题上与荷兰、韩国的和解:务实与反思的和解

N. Kumagai
{"title":"日本在慰安妇问题上与荷兰、韩国的和解:务实与反思的和解","authors":"N. Kumagai","doi":"10.5771/0947-9511-2019-1-51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reconciliation among states tends to be pragmatic, based on cost/benefit national interest calculation. But it can be reflective, involving the perpetrator’s responsibility and remorse and the victims’ forgiveness, thus enhancing their mutual confidence. Japan’s moral compensation for the former Dutch and South Korean comfort women was pragmatic, based on the post-war legal agreements, but its scheme with atonement projects for each survivor had reflective elements. The Netherlands mostly accepted and South Korea mostly rejected Japan’s moral compensation for their distinctive historical and political reasons. However, Japan’s occasional excuse-like denial of coercive recruitment of comfort women based on the absence of public documents significantly reduced their confidence in Japan. This shows that the vindication of the victims’ dignity, anchored with the perpetrator’s consistent acknowledgement of its offense, is at the core of reconciliation. Reflective reconciliation is difficult to achieve but pragmatic reconciliation leaves room for dialogue among all parties concerned toward genuine understanding of the victims and thus to the restoration of their dignity.","PeriodicalId":53497,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Japan’s Reconciliation in the Issue of Comfort Women with the Netherlands and South Korea: Pragmatic and Reflective Reconciliation\",\"authors\":\"N. Kumagai\",\"doi\":\"10.5771/0947-9511-2019-1-51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reconciliation among states tends to be pragmatic, based on cost/benefit national interest calculation. But it can be reflective, involving the perpetrator’s responsibility and remorse and the victims’ forgiveness, thus enhancing their mutual confidence. Japan’s moral compensation for the former Dutch and South Korean comfort women was pragmatic, based on the post-war legal agreements, but its scheme with atonement projects for each survivor had reflective elements. The Netherlands mostly accepted and South Korea mostly rejected Japan’s moral compensation for their distinctive historical and political reasons. However, Japan’s occasional excuse-like denial of coercive recruitment of comfort women based on the absence of public documents significantly reduced their confidence in Japan. This shows that the vindication of the victims’ dignity, anchored with the perpetrator’s consistent acknowledgement of its offense, is at the core of reconciliation. Reflective reconciliation is difficult to achieve but pragmatic reconciliation leaves room for dialogue among all parties concerned toward genuine understanding of the victims and thus to the restoration of their dignity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Integration History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Integration History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9511-2019-1-51\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Integration History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9511-2019-1-51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国家之间的和解往往是务实的,基于成本/收益的国家利益计算。但它也可以是反思性的,包括加害者的责任和悔恨以及受害者的原谅,从而增强他们的相互信任。日本对前荷兰和韩国慰安妇的道德赔偿是基于战后法律协议的,是务实的,但其为每个幸存者提供赎罪项目的计划却有反思的成分。荷兰出于各自不同的历史和政治原因,大多接受日本的道德赔偿,而韩国则大多拒绝。然而,日本偶尔以缺乏公开文件为借口,否认强制招募慰安妇,这大大降低了他们对日本的信心。这表明,和解的核心是维护受害者的尊严,并以加害者对其罪行的一贯承认为基础。深思熟虑的和解很难实现,但务实的和解为所有有关各方之间的对话留下了空间,以便真正理解受害者,从而恢复他们的尊严。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Japan’s Reconciliation in the Issue of Comfort Women with the Netherlands and South Korea: Pragmatic and Reflective Reconciliation
Reconciliation among states tends to be pragmatic, based on cost/benefit national interest calculation. But it can be reflective, involving the perpetrator’s responsibility and remorse and the victims’ forgiveness, thus enhancing their mutual confidence. Japan’s moral compensation for the former Dutch and South Korean comfort women was pragmatic, based on the post-war legal agreements, but its scheme with atonement projects for each survivor had reflective elements. The Netherlands mostly accepted and South Korea mostly rejected Japan’s moral compensation for their distinctive historical and political reasons. However, Japan’s occasional excuse-like denial of coercive recruitment of comfort women based on the absence of public documents significantly reduced their confidence in Japan. This shows that the vindication of the victims’ dignity, anchored with the perpetrator’s consistent acknowledgement of its offense, is at the core of reconciliation. Reflective reconciliation is difficult to achieve but pragmatic reconciliation leaves room for dialogue among all parties concerned toward genuine understanding of the victims and thus to the restoration of their dignity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of European Integration History
Journal of European Integration History Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信