English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article focuses on the Korean claim for repatriation of cultural property currently located in Japan. Through an analysis of the relevant rules of international law, it demonstrates the established norm that the predecessor state is not obliged to repatriate the cultural property acquired in and exported from the annexed territory. It further shows that, even if Japan had not annexed the Empire of Korea and just occupied it, the repatriationists’ claim would not hold water, as the question has been conclusively settled by a bilateral agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea. Considering that the parties to a settlement should refrain from subsequently relitigating the matter, the author concludes that cultural property, which can be a powerful ambassador for promoting mutual understanding, should be dealt with in the framework of forward-looking cooperation, including mutual loans and possibly the creation of a multinational museum.

"Settled Completely and Finally": A Japanese Perspective on the Repatriationism of Cultural Property