North Korean abductions of Japanese
January 22, 2007 10:15 PM   Subscribe

From 1977 to 1983, between 16-70 Japanese citizens were abducted in their home country by agents of the North Korean government. 13-year-old Megumi Yokota was the youngest. This is her story.
posted by JPowers (48 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
I just saw this on Australia's ABC netwrok the other day--very moving story.
posted by hadjiboy at 10:31 PM on January 22, 2007


Apparently it's DPRK Week on MetaFilter.

Luckily, I'm a sucker for this stuff.
posted by Brittanie at 10:50 PM on January 22, 2007


Wow, I guess everyone outside of Japan doesn't know about this. This girl's likely been dead for years, but she's still in the news every other week. This whole incident is one of the main reasons that Japan can barely bear to even speak to North Korea.
posted by donkeymon at 11:40 PM on January 22, 2007


Japan Boiled Comfort Woman to Make Soup. More on Comfort Women here...and since you posted a wikipedia article, check out Korea under Japanese rule. And for a more complete list, try this.
posted by paulinsanjuan at 11:54 PM on January 22, 2007


...and what japan is doing about it.
posted by paulinsanjuan at 12:05 AM on January 23, 2007


Japan Boiled Comfort Woman to Make Soup. More on Comfort Women here...and since you posted a wikipedia article, check out Korea under Japanese rule. And for a more complete list, try this.

It's true, the DPRK can do no wrong.
Or something.
posted by dreamsign at 12:34 AM on January 23, 2007


wow, paulinsanjuan, what insight. I mean, the Japanese killed lots more Koreans during WWII and it was more brutal, so I guess the Japanese should just shut up about this whole kidnapping thing, huh? Shouldn't make waves?
posted by zardoz at 12:50 AM on January 23, 2007


Ridiculous whataboutery paulinsanjuan. Are you trying to say the North Korean state is somehow justified in kidnapping a 13 year old child because of historical crimes by her compatriots? What a fucked up mentality, regardless of any use of this issue by rightists in Japan.
posted by Abiezer at 12:53 AM on January 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


What nightmare stories on both sides: the kidnapping of hundreds of Japanese citizens by North Koreans and the Japanese torturing of between 80,000 and 200,000 Korean women, using them as sex slaves for the Japanese army.

It surprised me in the Wikipedia article about the abductions of Japanese that kidnappings also occurred in Madrid and London. I would have thought this created intense international furor. Apparently not. Or it was done so secretly and the crimes were covered up or ignored. Horrifying.

I knew nothing about either situation. Thanks for the post JPowers.
posted by nickyskye at 12:55 AM on January 23, 2007


While I'm deeply curious about life above the border, and there are several very easy ways to get there (and several tour companies that will help you skirt the logistics) this is exactly why I will never "visit" North Korea. They want someone to teach their soldiers English? Why not just kidnap a helpless little blonde tourist girl? It's happened before. No one would miss me.

Of course, if you need someone to star in your propaganda movies, why not one of the biggest stars of Korean cinema?
posted by Brittanie at 1:31 AM on January 23, 2007


Wow. The story of Hitomi Soga and Charles Jenkins is sad.

And look! Those DPRK bastards even kidnapped Susan Bradford!
posted by octobersurprise at 5:39 AM on January 23, 2007


paulinsanjuan: If you're going to blame a global economic power for bringing misfortune upon themselves due to actions decades ago under different governments, you'd better make sure you're talking about the US, otherwise you're going to get shouted down.
posted by loquax at 6:50 AM on January 23, 2007


Actually, there's a point to be made about the Japanese government not wanting to formally apologize to the former comfort women in this context. First of all, some of them are still alive (or were until recently), so the "decades ago" card does not compute. Secondly, many of these women have turned down money, asking in exchange for a formal apology.

People who are not familiar with the (east?)-Asian concept of "saving face" might want to look it up before going ballistic on paulinsanjuan. Both governments seem bent on NOT relieving people of their misery for the exact same reason.

As for the misery in itself, you are gooing to have to convince me that living in DPRK against you will is necessarily worse than being a stigmatized member the community in a large number of other Asian hell-holes.
posted by magullo at 7:23 AM on January 23, 2007


Why not just kidnap a helpless little blonde tourist girl? It's happened before. No one would miss me.

Awww, now, Brittanie, I reckon there's at least a few folks round here in MeFi town who'd miss you!

Enough to stage a daring raid into the DPRK to rescue you from their clutches? Er... probably not.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:31 AM on January 23, 2007


Protest at a Megumi Yokota film showing

Japan has not ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

In practical terms, however, in cases of international parental child abduction, foreign parents are greatly disadvantaged in Japanese courts, both in terms of obtaining the return of children to the United States, and in achieving any kind of enforceable visitation rights in Japan. The Department of State is not aware of any case in which a child taken from the United States by one parent has been ordered returned to the United States by Japanese courts, even when the left-behind parent has a United States custody decree. In the past, Japanese police have been reluctant to get involved in custody disputes or to enforce custody decrees issued by Japanese courts. (US Department of State)
posted by FieldingGoodney at 7:58 AM on January 23, 2007


First, there is no justification for evil acts. Just bringing attention to a big issue in E. Asia (not so well known here in US) where many people still have bitterness towards the Japanese.

What the Chinese think about Japan here and here

(sorry, former link, dont know how to get it to the right paragraph, but its 14th paragraph down starting with: "Her relationship with the camera...")
posted by paulinsanjuan at 8:15 AM on January 23, 2007


Imho, the U.S. should have invaded the DPRK after 9/11 with the message "Okay, yeah, we know people can blow shit up in our country. But, if people are actually going to start doing it, then we'll start invading anybody psychotic who gets nukes." Plus it'd have been pretty cool to just publicly ignore Osama say, no, you don't really matter, we're doing more important things right now.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:43 AM on January 23, 2007


And to get critical of S. Korea, China, Japan and a number of other countries in Asia:

What happens to N. Korean refugees when they are found in China here. From Japan. From S. Korea.

What a group called LiNK is doing (old site with plenty of current links to news articles) and new site coming soon.

Or just try googling: north korea refugees
posted by paulinsanjuan at 8:55 AM on January 23, 2007


"Comfort women" is an outrageous euphemism for kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured sex slaves.
posted by nickyskye at 9:27 AM on January 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


magullo,
It must be so much easier to talk about things when you don't have to worry about knowing anything relating to them. Are you familiar at all with goes on in North Korea? Or Japan? Or why what you typed is beyond stupid, not to mention completely devoid of any sense or logic? "Saving face"? "Those crazy Asians and their mysterious ways." Are you seriously proposing that what the DPRK did was motivated by or even related to a a lack of a formal apology on Japan's part?

paulinsanjuan
Maybe you really were acting with good intentions, but the problem is that you're "just bringing attention to a big issue in E. Asia" that has nothing to do with the topic. Since it seems so random, and from the context, it appears that you were giving this information in relation to the topic of the kidnappings as an excuse. You say you aren't, but then provide the even less topical information about China's views on Japan, which has even less bearing on the discussion.

The point is that it's no secret that many Asian nations don't like Japan, but it's not like the kidnappings are the first and only bizarre, horrible thing North Korea has done, so it seems simplistic and silly to bring up bitterness towards Japan as a reason.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:50 AM on January 23, 2007


This whole incident is one of the main reasons that Japan can barely bear to even speak to North Korea.

Or maybe it was the years and years of (still unapologetic) brutal destruction and requisition of Korean culture and people at the hands of the Japanese.

Not that the kidnap of people is justified in any way, but the tensions between Korea and Japan have much deeper roots than 1977.
posted by dozo at 9:55 AM on January 23, 2007


dozo : "Or maybe it was the years and years of (still unapologetic) brutal destruction and requisition of Korean culture and people at the hands of the Japanese. "

No. That may be a reason why North Korea can barely bear to speak to Japan, but it certainly isn't a reason why Japan can barely bear to speak to North Korea.

Sangermaine : "Are you seriously proposing that what the DPRK did was motivated by or even related to a a lack of a formal apology on Japan's part?"

Quite clearly, no, he isn't. While I certainly don't think any of that "saving face" stuff washes (I'd say the failure to apologize formally is more an effort to avoid backlash by the ultra-right-wing in Japan, and to avoid opening the gates for massive financial indemnities), what on earth makes you think that magullo's statement "Japan hasn't apologized for comfort women for reasons A and B" includes the corollary "and that's why North Korea kidnaps folks"?
posted by Bugbread at 3:02 PM on January 23, 2007


Isn't the successful managing of internal and external affairs in economic, political and other key realms called "saving face"? The point here is the extreme de-humanization driven by pure politics. My point is that portraying this in any light that paints it as an evilness that only deranged dictators can cook up is either cynical or ignorant. By continuing to ignore the sex slaves issue, the free people of the free Japan very freely choose to ride it out. At one point, the victims will all be dead and the opportunity for any truly meaningful apology will be gone. That is the very definition of dehumanization. Driven by politics, apparently.
posted by magullo at 3:33 PM on January 23, 2007


...and what japan is doing about it.

From your first link:
"on August 15, angry Koreans continued to stage anti-Japan protests ignited by the new Japanese "textbooks that allegedly gloss over atrocities by Japanese soldiers during World War II."(11)

Under the Japanese system, local school authorities determine whether the new textbook is to be used in district classrooms. On August 15—the deadline for school districts to make their selections—Associated Press writer Mari Yamaguchi reported in The Japan Times that the new textbook had been shunned, that nearly all of Japan's school districts had rejected it. She quoted a spokesman for the civic group Children and Textbooks Japan Network 21 as saying, "We have gained nationwide support to say 'no' to the textbook. . . . it's the conscience of the Japanese public."(12) According to a Kyodo News Service survey released August 16, not a single municipal government run or state run junior high school in the country adopted The New History Textbook."

Oh, yes, those awful Japanese and their awful rigged textbooks. Which they didn't even use.

As for not apologizing, how many times does the Prime Minister need to say it before it counts? The deal here very much depends on the difference between official and unofficial apology in Japanese culture -- it is not a simple thing for Japan as a nation to take official responsibility for this, especially when there are still a lot of old right-wingers in positions of power who aren't willing to budge on the issue. The difficulty of official action on the matter is the reason why members of the government keep making unofficial apologies, and why Japan established the Asian Women's Fund to get the former sex slaves some compensation, rather than make official reparations.

In short, if Japan really wanted to ignore the comfort women issue, they'd be ignoring it, not downplaying it. The downplaying on this issue is no different from a million examples of official downplaying throughout Japan. Culturally, you don't go around bringing up unpleasant things, especially where they concern the dead, and especially where there's an entire political movement that freaks out every time it's brought up.

And when we talk about the right-wing in Japan, let's not forget that South Korea has one, too, and I doubt any apology would suffice for them. There are older wounds here than just the issue at hand, and the treatment of the issue on BOTH sides has a lot more to do with internal politics than anything else. We can't even talk about Korea and Japan without this issue coming up almost instantly -- if that isn't a hint that it's being used to make political hay, I don't know what is.
posted by vorfeed at 4:46 PM on January 23, 2007


The point is that it's no secret that many Asian nations don't like Japan, but it's not like the kidnappings are the first and only bizarre, horrible thing North Korea has done, so it seems simplistic and silly to bring up bitterness towards Japan as a reason.

Sangermaine, as I pointed out earlier, Japan is unconcerned by abductions when they take place on their own shores, by their own citizens.

Japan condone abduction on a much, much larger scale in their own country - to the extent of completely ignoring Interpol and arrest warrants made in other countries by authorities such as the FBI, for abductions conducted by Japanese citizens. And these are just the reported abductions.

While it's the case that Japan's neighbours have a low opinion of Japan - it seems westerners just can't find fault with Japan - to the extent of highlighting a handful of abductions made by North Korea while ignoring literally thousands of abductions made by the Japanese.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 4:53 PM on January 23, 2007


Equating one parent "abducting" their child from another parent and getting away with it, with these cases of one country's government abducting innocent civilians from another country is nearly the most stupid thing I have seen written on mefi.
posted by nightchrome at 5:33 PM on January 23, 2007


To expand on what I said above, in case the point was missed: by whataboutery I meant the infantile disorder of not being able to consider some event or view independent of prejudices about the actors. By all means consider historical context. Don't let your moral compass swing about because you've picked sides.
For myself, I've lived and worked in China for a decade, and speak and read Chinese. I am fully aware of the historical crimes committed by the Imperial Army and Japanese state, and also the failure of the present political class there (and much of the citizenry) to confront them honestly. That knowledge would not lead me to read about the kidnapping of a young girl by agents of a Stalinist regime and think, "here's an opportunity to remind the world of the crimes of Japan."
As to loquax's point, it may come as a surprise that some of us from elsewhere do not spend our every waking moment thinking about things in the context of the US.
posted by Abiezer at 5:45 PM on January 23, 2007


While it's the case that Japan's neighbours have a low opinion of Japan - it seems westerners just can't find fault with Japan - to the extent of highlighting a handful of abductions made by North Korea while ignoring literally thousands of abductions made by the Japanese.

As a Westerner who can find PLENTY to fault with Japan, this statement is still completely ludicrous.
posted by eparchos at 8:52 PM on January 23, 2007


Equating one parent "abducting" their child from another parent and getting away with it, with these cases of one country's government abducting innocent civilians from another country is nearly the most stupid thing I have seen written on mefi.

Yeah, right - equating abduction with......abduction....is stupid? And pointing out that Japan, who make a great deal out of these N Korean abductions, failed to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, making itself a haven for child abduction is....stupid? I think it's fairly relevant to point this hypocrisy out.

Nightchrome, even more stupid (or ignorant, or evil depending on your bias), is to think the Japanese government are totally innocent regarding abductions to Japan. The Japanese government endorse child abduction by not signing the Hague Convention treaty. They actively ignore orders from Interpol and other outside authorities to extradite the abducted from Japan. If you can't see the glaring, neon-lit hypocrisy here, then you want to be very careful who you call stupid.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:19 PM on January 23, 2007


As a Westerner who can find PLENTY to fault with Japan, this statement is still completely ludicrous.

Is it completely ludicrous to point out the little known fact of Japan's child-abduction friendly policies (which has encouraged many abductions to Japan over several decades) and contrast it with the incredible amount of media coverage and condemnation they've given the North Korean abductions? OK, then so be it. The facts still remain.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:29 PM on January 23, 2007


I want to preface this by saying that I think the kidnapping of Megumi Yokota and other Japanese nationals by North Korea is horrible. The stories linked in the comments about sex slaves and the Japanese Imperial Army make me feel sick and ashamed. I am a second-generation Japanese Canadian, and though my links to Japan are tenuous, they are strong enough to amplify my disgust at what happened then and after.

paulinsanjuan:

I think that your links might have been better and more effective posted some place else and in a different manner. I'm interested in why you felt the need to post them here in the way you did. You seem to feel the need to defend North Korea when a story that villianizes them shows up. This feeling probably derives from the same place as my shame. But this is a guess, and I want to hear more from you.

If my guess is close to the mark, then your links are unproductive. Nobody gains anything by painting a country and its people with a broad brush, which the OP's video also did. Without giving useful context or commentary, they only prove that people and governments are capable of terrible things.

So why did you post those links? I am genuinely interested in your answer.
posted by mariokrat at 9:44 PM on January 23, 2007


Oh, yes, those awful Japanese and their awful rigged textbooks. Which they didn't even use.

The point of referencing the textbooks is that there are still people in Japan who would like to cover up history -- people with enough power to write, publish and submit for vote a national textbook of altered information in the hope that future generations would forget/never know anything that happened.

If someone in the US decided to write and use in our schools a history book omitting slavery or the civil rights movement, I would be outraged.

I'm not anti-Japanese or trying to generalize Japan as a whole. But these are some issues I think that need to be brought to attention. Apologies, I'll try to keep my intentions a bit clearer. Again... there is no justification for evil acts. And I never meant to make an excuse for N. Korea's abductions of Japanese citizens. I admit, I posted here to highlight a story which I've followed for some time. And I do believe Japan has not resolved some of their past wrongdoings despite vorfeed's list of formal apologies.

Some in Japan have tried to downplay the Nanjing Massacre with great protest from China and resistance from within their own country, most notably by Prof. Saburo Ienaga. And a step towards reconciliation?

Regarding the earlier post about China's views, I meant to bring up in particular the story about the actress Vicky Zhao Wei who was smeared with feces by a construction worker after a concert in reaction to a modeling photo of her wearing a WWII Japanese flag outfit. This was national news in China at the time, and reported throughout Asia. It shows a fierce, nationalistic population who are not over Japan's past aggressions and atrocities.
posted by paulinsanjuan at 9:58 PM on January 23, 2007


You're right, mariokrat, this probably should've been a front page post.
posted by paulinsanjuan at 10:10 PM on January 23, 2007



Is it completely ludicrous to point out the little known fact of Japan's child-abduction friendly policies (which has encouraged many abductions to Japan over several decades) and contrast it with the incredible amount of media coverage and condemnation they've given the North Korean abductions? OK, then so be it. The facts still remain.


Yes, the fact that abduction and child custody suits are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT does remain. Contrasting, say, the abductions by North Korea with the Thai government's laissez faire attitude about Cambodian children being abducted to serve as prostitutes in the Thai sex industry... well, THAT would be appropriate.
posted by eparchos at 11:25 PM on January 23, 2007


Yes, the fact that abduction and child custody suits are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT does remain. Contrasting, say, the abductions by North Korea with the Thai government's laissez faire attitude about Cambodian children being abducted to serve as prostitutes in the Thai sex industry... well, THAT would be appropriate.

Hey eparchos, that is one ignorant comment. Please read the Hague Convention and then find out what child abduction entails.

They're not "child custody suits" (which is the legal route your take to determine custody) - I think you mean child custody disputes - no, these are legally recognised international abductions - at least to the signatories of the Hague Convention. Only Japanese law doesn't see them as such.

Ah well, clearly you are arguing for arguments sake - I'm not sure why you take umbrage to anyone pointing out that it's strange that Japan won't sign the Hague Convention given their problems they've had with abductions themselves - wow, what a controversial opinion.

And your comment on Thailand - gee, what is this? International It's a Knockout? I live in Thailand, so you have to knock the place where I live? Whatever floats your boat. By your profile, I see you live in the big glasshouse...
posted by FieldingGoodney at 12:10 AM on January 24, 2007


And your comment on Thailand - gee, what is this?

Basically pointing out your glass house when you made the following comment:

While it's the case that Japan's neighbours have a low opinion of Japan...

If you want to bring Japan's neighbors into this, why not mention all of Asia? Then we can REALLY derail this thread when talking about "child abductions", which you seem to claim equate to custody battles. The reason I mentioned Thailand is because it has by far the most current and important problems with abductions in all of Asia.

...these are legally recognised international abductions - at least to the signatories of the Hague Convention.

As far as I can tell from this list of Hague Convention signatories, neither you nor I live in countries which have signed that convention. In fact, as far as I can tell, MOST countries haven't signed it, including countries with REAL abductions going on, like Thailand and North Korea. So no, I don't think it's "strange" that Japan won't sign a silly piece of paper that MOST countries haven't signed, including the US.

Let me explain this to you simply. If a man and his wife have a kid in country X, and one of the parents leave the country, MOST countries will favor the person who stays in that country. These are the "abductions" you're talking about in Japan.
On the other hand, North Korea's abductions were "submarine pops up, picks up some coastal Japanese people minding their own business, and yanks them off to a foreign country." To you, these two things are equivalent. That means you're an idiot, "legal definitions" aside.
If you want to know the real punch line here, Thailand has the same custody laws as Japan, Hague Convention or not. So why don't you start a crusade about all the "terrible abductions" going on there?
Here's a little quote from that link, regarding Thai law:

"ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ORDERS: Foreign orders (including U.S. custody orders) are not enforced/enforceable in Thailand. American citizens who travel to Thailand place themselves under the jurisdiction of Thai courts. If a taking parent chooses to remain in Thailand with a child or leave a child behind in Thailand, the U.S. Embassy cannot force either the taking parent or the Thai Government to return the child to the United States. American citizens planning a trip to Thailand with dual national children should bear this in mind."
posted by eparchos at 12:47 AM on January 24, 2007


It's all a smoke screen to distract from the true injustices inflicted by the Mongols under Genghis Khan, which has never been formally apologized for.
posted by Bugbread at 4:21 AM on January 24, 2007


If someone in the US decided to write and use in our schools a history book omitting slavery or the civil rights movement, I would be outraged.

There are plenty of awful, horrible things America has done as a country recently that don't always get put into school textbooks. Installing South American dictators, for example. And if you think American reporting of the civil rights movement (which, if you will open your schoolbook to page 108, apparently consists of something like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King having a peaceful little tea party on the White House lawn) is anything close to accurate, you're crazy. Heck, even most adults here can't tell you that Dr. King was a socialist! Every country does this with its history, to some extent, and the fact that the Japanese were just as outraged by this text as anyone else seems to deflate your point a bit.

Some in Japan have tried to downplay the Nanjing Massacre

And some in the US and Europe have tried to downplay the Holocaust. Whether we like what people say or not, freedom of academic speech must include the freedom to be a right-wing asshole. Plenty of people inside and outside Japan have challenged Ienaga and others like him; that's all anyone can really expect.

Besides, what can Ienaga do now? He's dead. Most of the old-guard right-wing policy makers in Japan are elderly now; if you want to see more progress on this issue, maybe even including an official apology, just wait ten to fifteen years or so. There's a HUGE difference between the politics of older Japanese and younger people. Even people as "young" and conservative as PM Abe have a much warmer outlook on Korea and China than the previous generation had.

It shows a fierce, nationalistic population who are not over Japan's past aggressions and atrocities.

Well, yes. Partly because the Chinese government is constantly stirring it up, in order to distract people from domestic problems.

What annoys me most about these discussions is that they ignore the last 50 years, years in which Japan has made real, tangible progress toward never again being an aggressor or the cause of atrocity. Yet we're all supposed to believe that, because they're "not apologizing" and have debates over textbooks, we ought to bring up the comfort women and Nanjing every time someone says "Japan"? Bah. If you ask me, things like a "fierce, nationalistic population who are not over Japan's past aggressions and atrocities" make future aggression and atrocity much MORE likely, not less. And blaming Japan for the political atmosphere in Korea and China, fifty years after the fact, is a bit much. Like I said earlier, every member of the Japanese Diet could wear hair shirts and flagellate themselves as an apology, and it still wouldn't be good enough for the right-wing in Korea. The animosity between Japan and the mainland countries is a much older and deeper issue than the atrocities committed in this century, and pretending otherwise doesn't help.
posted by vorfeed at 1:49 PM on January 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Oh, also, FieldingGoodney, from the Hague Convention:

"The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –

a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and"

Emphasis mine.
posted by eparchos at 2:08 PM on January 24, 2007


eparchos : "The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –

"a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention"


I'm not following.

Say, for example, you're American, your husband is Japanese, you have a kid, you live in America. Your husband is a gambling, alcoholic, abusive, just-generally-unfit-to-be-a-parent person. You divorce, and the courts give you custody of the kid.

Then, when you're at work one day, your husband goes to daycare, grabs your kid, hoofs it to the airport, and absconds back to Japan with the kid.

According to the Hague Convention, that would be a wrongful removal or retention of the kid, because it is a breach of rights of custody attributed to me under the law of the State (the USA) where the kid was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention.

What was the purpose of the "emphasis mine" bit?
posted by Bugbread at 2:51 PM on January 25, 2007


What is much, much more common in these cases is the following. Me and my Japanese bride go back to visit the family with our kid, who was born in the US. Bride decides she wants to stay, with the kid. Even the Hague convention allows that.
These are the sorts of "abductions" which are occurring in Japan.
posted by eparchos at 5:24 PM on January 25, 2007


eparchos : "Me and my Japanese bride go back to visit the family with our kid, who was born in the US. Bride decides she wants to stay, with the kid. Even the Hague convention allows that."

I don't know about this topic as much as I should, really (I actually am an American, my wife is Japanese, and I have an 11 month old son), but the section you quoted earlier seems to indicate the opposite. The part you quoted says it is wrong when the kid is retained in breach of custody of the person under the law where the child was habitually resident before the retention.

So if the kid is habitually resident in the US, and you go back to visit the family in Japan, and your bride retains the kid, and you file for custody in the US and are granted it, then:
1) You have rights of custody
2) under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident before retention
3) but your child is being retained outside your custody, which is thus
4) wrong, and not allowed by the Hague Convention

Is there some other part/clause/consideration I'm missing?
posted by Bugbread at 12:31 AM on January 26, 2007


I don't think you're missing anything, I just think that the "habitually resident" term is the sticky wicket here. To me, "habitually resident" could easily mean "most recently resident". I certainly know that the Japanese tend to just default to Japan as residency, especially in the case of ethnically Japanese children.
I read that statement as "If you're screwed under the laws of the country you're in, you're screwed under the Hague convention", but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.
posted by eparchos at 1:13 AM on January 26, 2007


Ah, it was the "habitually resident immediately before removal", that's why I'm thinking that. Immediately before removal or retention, that seems up to a whole lot of interpretation. Habitually/immediately... odd sentence.
posted by eparchos at 1:15 AM on January 26, 2007


I think the "immediately" in there is to prevent cases like this:

Mom and Dad live with Junior in Japan for 10 years.
Then they move to the US, and live there for 5 years.
Then they go on vacation to Japan, and Mom decides to keep Junior there, serves divorce papers.
Dad goes back to the US (he's got a job, Japanese tourist visa expires, can't get a spouse visa because they're no longer married, etc.), goes to court, gets custody.

If you didn't have "immediately" in there, then there would be arguments about whether he was habitually a resident of America, or of Japan. After all, the American residency would be more recent, but the Japanese residency would be longer. By putting the word "immediately" (or "most recently", or the like), that particular question is avoided, and all that remains is the definition of "habitually resident" (like, if the family takes a one month vacation to Japan, does that count as "habitual residency", in which case the "habitually resident immediately before retention" would indicate he was habitually resident in Japan, which prevents it from being a Hague contravention). I assume there are certain standards for habitual residency that take care of that particular question (things like where the kid is enrolled in school, etc.). So by adding that word, you cut the number of problems ("What is habitual residency?" "Which habitual residency should be the one used to determine Hague applicability?") in half.
posted by Bugbread at 4:48 AM on January 26, 2007


Sounds pretty convincing, bugbread. Looks like I read it wrong, thanks for the clarification!
posted by eparchos at 11:00 AM on January 26, 2007


No problem.
posted by Bugbread at 11:48 AM on January 26, 2007




« Older Girlus velocitus   |   Human Horses Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments