Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of March 13, 1997, 51 Minshu 3-1233, 1607 Hanji 11, 946 Hanta 70.  The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for past wages and damages stemming from the Soviet Union's forced labor of Japanese prisoners of war in Siberia during and after World War II (Tokyo High Court Decision of March 5, 1993, 1466 Hanji 40) approximately 700,000 Japanese prisoners were forced into labor by the Soviet Union, approximately 60,000 died during their imprisonment.  The Court affirmed the lower court's determinations regarding each of the plaintiffs' claims indicating (a) that no obligation to compensate the former prisoners for their labor or for the injuries they sustained may be imposed on the Soviet Union by retroactive application of the 1949 Geneva Treaty between Japan and the Soviet Union, nor may such a duty be considered a part of international customary law prior to the Geneva Treaty, (b) that the plaintiffs' assertion that the Japanese government had released the plaintiff's claims against the Soviet Union under Article 6 of the Japan-Soviet Union Joint Declaration (1956) and had therefore itself assumed a duty of compensation under the eminent domain provisions of Article 29(3) of the Constitution misconstrued both the nature of the Japan-Soviet Union Joint Declaration, which was a document of surrender, and the scope of Article 29(3) of the Constitution, (c) that the Japanese government assumed no further obligation to compensate based on the plaintiffs' contention that their war-related sacrifices were beyond the scope of the human rights protected by the Constitution as these sacrifices, although great, could not be differentiated from the war-related sacrifices of all Japanese and (d) that despite immediate postwar efforts to compensate Japanese prisoners for forced labor endured in other areas, a refusal to compensate the plaintiffs did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution relating to equal treatment, as this compensation was undertaken at the behest of the forces occupying Japan immediately after World War II, and upon the restoration of sovereignty, whether or not to compensate forced laborers as a type of war-related damage became a legislative issue on which the Diet had never acted.

Supreme Court Third Petty Bench Decision of September 9, 1997, 51 Minshu 8-3850, 1631 Hanji 57, 967 Hanta 116.  The Court dismissed the appeal of the estate of a hospital director, affirming a lower court's denial of the plaintiff's claims against a former Diet member and the national government for state redress stemming from comments made by the Diet member concerning the hospital director's violent attitude towards patients (Sapporo High Court Decision of March 15, 1994, unpublished).  During a House of Representatives debate on medical reform, the defendant had used reports concerning the hospital director's violent acts as exemplifying the need for medical reform.  On the following day, the hospital director committed suicide.  While acknowledging that a Diet member may bear liability for utterances unrelated to his duties made with knowledge of their falsity or for an illegal or inappropriate purpose, the utterance in this case were none of these characteristics, and, as a result, was not subject to state redress, even assuming the hospital administrator suffered thereby.

Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of November 17, 1997, 51 Keishu 10-855, 1624 Hanji 143, 959 Hanta 159.  The Court dismissed the appeal of Korean resident in Japan challenging the constitutionality of the system of requiring foreign residents in Japan to file with local authorities confirmation of the information contained in their foreign resident registration papers upon the issuance or renewal of these papers.  While the plaintiff had renewed her papers, she was found to have been approximately one year late in providing confirmation to local authorities.  The plaintiff alleged that the registration confirmation system violated Articles 13, 14, and 31 of the Constitution.  The Court agreed with the lower court's determination that the administrative purpose of the registration confirmation system to monitor and ensure the accuracy of information regarding foreign residents is necessary and the means utilized to achieve this goal rational and appropriate.   Moreover, the registration confirmation system is necessary insofar as foreign residents are not registered in the Family Registry as Japanese citizens are required to be.  While the two groups are not treated identically, there is a rational basis for the disparity in treatment and thus, the requirements imposed of foreign residents under the registration confirmation system do not result in unconstitutional unequal treatment.  The plaintiff was fined $500, suspended for a period of one year.

Osaka High Court Decision of September 10, 1999, (Unpublished). The Court dismissed an appeal from a lower court ruling (Osaka District Court Decision of October 11, 1995, 901 Hanta 84) dismissing the plaintiff’s petition for reversal of a 1991 determination by the Ministry of Health and Welfare that the plaintiff was ineligible for veteran permanent injury benefits under the Law Regarding Assistance to Families of War Injured and War Dead ("Law"). The plaintiff, a Korean national, had been brought to Japan for education prior to World War II, was subsequently inducted into the Imperial Japanese Navy, and in 1942 was dispatched to the Marshall Islands where, on November 15, 1943, he was injured in an Allied bombing attack. After his discharge, the plaintiff had lived in Osaka as a Korean permanent resident of Japan. In denying the plaintiff’s application for benefits as a veteran of the Japanese armed forces, the Ministry of Health and Welfare had cited Section 2 of the regulations promulgated in connection with the Law which in effect limited application of the Law to Japanese citizens. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claims, the lower court had acknowledged that after the execution of the Japan-Korea Claim and Economic Cooperation Treaty ("Treaty"), Koreans resident in Japan who had been inducted into the Japanese armed forces were precluded from seeking further reparations but that this disparity in treatment between citizen and non-citizen veterans raised a concern of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court found revision of the requirements for eligibility for benefits under the Law to be within the purview of legislative rather than judicial authority. In February of 1996, shortly after filing for appeal of the lower court’s decision, the plaintiff died, and the appeal was prosecuted by his heirs. Affirming the court below, the Court stated that the Law serves at once as a means of providing reparations to those who have been injured or killed in war in the service of the state and as a means of providing social welfare to soldiers and their families. On the one hand, the determination as to whom and to what extent reparations are to be provided lies within the appropriate discretion of legislature. On the other hand, the provision of social welfare is an obligation of the state to those designated as eligible for receipt of such benefits. The requirement that recipients of reparations be Japanese nationals is a reasonable and appropriate exercise of legislative authority especially in light of the fact that, at the time the Law was passed, the issue of compensation of Korean nationals participating in the Japanese armed forces was considered a matter of international diplomacy and therefore specifically excluded from the provisions of the Law. Unfortunately, under the Treaty, the allocation of compensation of Korean nationals was left to the Korean government which excluded Koreans resident in Japan from the allocation process. While there is some hope that a legislative solution may be forthcoming with respect to the issue of reparations to Korean nationals residing in Japan, the application of the Law solely to Japanese nationals cannot be said to be unconstitutional.

Nagoya District Court Decision of December 26, 1994, 1521 Hanji 3. With respect to claims by residents nearby the Komatsu Military Base for injunctive relief and compensatory damages relating to the air and noise pollution associated with military aircraft activity, the Court followed the trend of other decisions regarding airport pollution litigation, allowing claims for injunctive limitations on the timing of flight activity and claims for past damages, but rejecting claims for prospective damages.

Tokyo District Court Decision of September 22, 1999, (Unpublished). The Court rejected the claims of ten Chinese citizens for compensation for approximately 100 million yen in damages associated with the 1937 so-called "Rape of Nanking." The plaintiffs had argued that a private right of action was available under Article 3 of the Hague Convention with respect to Laws and Customs of War on Land ("Convention") and the accompanying Regulations Respecting The Laws And Customs Of War On Land ("Regulations"), ratified by Japan in 1907, which provides that in the event of violation of the Regulations, signatory combatants shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. Alternatively, the plaintiffs had asserted that the actions of the Japanese army had constituted "illegal action" as provided in Article 11 of the Japanese Law Governing the Application of Laws, which in turn provides that the governing law applicable to an illegal act is the then applicable law of the situs of the act or where damage is suffered. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that a private right of action exists under Article 184 of the Civil Code of the Republic of China. While acknowledging that Japan should apologize to the people of China for damages suffered as a result of the war, the Court found no legal framework under public or private international law which provided the plaintiffs with a private right of action against the government of another nation for compensation for wartime hardships. First, under public international law, the provisions of the Hague Convention are by their terms, an effort to codify existing international customary law with respect to warfare. While it is clear that the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs violated the terms of this Convention, customary legal interpretation at the time would suggest that Article 3 of the Convention does not provide for an individual right of action to seek compensation from a foreign government for damages suffered as a result of warfare. Similarly, under private international law, the issue of whether the Japanese government must assume liability is not an issue of the equitable allocation of liability, but is a problem linked to Japan’s national interests. There is no precedent for the application of a foreign nation’s laws. At the time the Law Governing the Application of Laws was adopted, the authority of Japan’s government was not questioned and the Law Governing the Application of Laws could not be considered to apply to the effects of an "illegal action" occurring in a foreign nation, provided the action was an exercise of governmental authority.