We welcome the recent improvement in relations between Japan and South Korea.

However, touchy issues stemming from the history of their ties remain smoldering disputes that could come to the fore again to strain the bilateral ties.

To keep their relationship in good shape, both countries need to carefully address these unresolved differences without stirring nationalism and making them boil over again. 

The Seoul High Court on Nov. 23 overturned a lower court ruling and ordered the Japanese government to pay compensation to 16 plaintiffs, including former “comfort women” for the Imperial Japanese Army.

The decision did not apply the principle of "sovereign immunity" under international law, which precludes a state from the jurisdiction of another country's courts.

The Japanese government maintained that the compensation issue had already been resolved and did not participate in the lawsuit, citing sovereign immunity.

Japan has protested to South Korea over the verdict and maintains its policy of not paying compensation.

However, neither Tokyo nor Seoul is responding to the ruling in a way that would reverse the improving trend in their relations.

After the verdict, a $10 billion (1.431 trillion yen) bilateral currency swap agreement, designed to help each other by supplying U.S. dollars in times of a currency crisis, was restored after eight years of having lapsed.

Both sides deserve to be lauded for their restrained response to the court decision.

Japan-South Korea relations became mired in a bitter conflict after Japan took de facto retaliatory measures following the South Korean Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that ordered Japanese companies to pay compensation to former Korean wartime laborers, known as “choyoko” (drafted workers) in Japan.

Another lawsuit brought by former comfort women also led to a court ruling that ordered the Japanese government to pay compensation, further exacerbating the relationship.

However, not all lawsuits filed in South Korea regarding historical grievances have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In the lawsuit heard and decided by the high court, the lower court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds of sovereign immunity.

The South Korean judiciary's decisions over these disputes have been inconsistent, and it is wiser for Tokyo and Seoul not to overreact to individual decisions to avoid arousing fresh animosity between the two sides.

Instead, the two countries should focus political and diplomatic efforts on advancing bilateral relations while trying to provide relief to victims.

This spring, the South Korean government proposed settling the wartime laborer dispute by having a foundation within the country pay compensation to the victims on behalf of the Japanese companies that were ordered by the nation’s Supreme Court to compensate them.

The move helped mend the strained bilateral ties, but some plaintiffs have refused to accept the money. There is considerable opposition to this plan among the South Korean public as well.

Some South Korean government officials are calling for the Japanese defendant companies to contribute to a fund established by the business communities of Japan and South Korea to promote exchanges of young people between the two countries.

The Japanese side should also consider what measures are possible.

With regard to the comfort women issue, following the 2015 Japan-South Korea agreement, the Japanese government contributed 1 billion yen to a foundation established by South Korea, and more than 70 percent of the surviving former comfort women received aid money under this program.

Although the foundation was dissolved by the previous South Korean administration, which did not support the deal, the current administration has shown its backing for the agreement.

Japan and South Korea should make renewed joint efforts to work out mutually acceptable ways to settle the issue once and for all in line with the spirit and framework of the agreement, which was aimed at restoring the honor and dignity of the former comfort women.

These emotionally charged history-related issues cannot be resolved entirely by judicial decisions or political agreements between the two governments.

It is vital for both sides to continuously engage in efforts to share perceptions by squarely facing up to the past without dismissing these issues as “done deals.”

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 8