독일의 전후 배상 실행에 관한 최신 연구: 나미비아 등 구 식민지 지역을 중심으로

Abstract

Even as of 2022, nearly 8 decades after the establishment of the United Nations(UN), there have been stark differences and contrasts in Korean historical and political perceptions regarding Germany and Japan, which once had been represented as Axis powers. As a whole, the German practice on the postwar liquidation and compensation has been perceived positively in each field of the Korean society as a model case of genuine reflection in contrast to Japan. This is due to the fact that Japanese colonial rule had damaged the Korean Peninsula seriously in both tangible and intangible way. Added to that, even after the liberation and the establishment of the Republic of Korea, people has so far witnessed the issue of colonial liquidation still pending. At least, Japanese practice and orientation thereof has been quite far from the postwar human rights discourse, which has sparked widespread resentment in Korea, As a reaction, the German model has become evaluated positively. However, it is also necessary to monitor whether the repeatedly recalled German model is truly a model for genuine reflection and adequate postwar liquidation of the past. Additionally, the uni -versality and fairness of the German practice also need to be subject to check. Against the Czech Republic and then Namibia in recent years, Germany has acknowledged its historical atrocities and state responsibility under international law, but tends to strictly demand a kind of ‘bothsidesism’ mistake model also from the victim Germany has also quoted several domestic and international legal norms meticulously in relation to specific compensation issues in pursuit of non-legal reparation model. the recent Namibian off -spring’s lawsuit against Germany based on the FSIA exception within the US court was not successful, but the implication is certainly not in vain. Rather, it stimulated the final solution for the Namibian Herero and Nama massacres committed by the German Empire. Paradoxically, in spite of favorable judgment for Germany, it will serve as an opportunity to show the passiveness and ambivalence regarding the reparation issue of the historical per -petrator. In this context, there is a significant similarity with German revisionist view of the Central and Eastern European precedents. By drawing considerable clues from the Czech and Namibian precedents and recent development mentioned above, Korea will be able to construct the more delicate and ardent legal reasoning. In the future, the comparative view into the foreign practice will be the more evaluated.