Inao Horimoto v State
| Jurisdiction | Japón |
| Date | 21 April 1959 |
| Court | District Court (Japan) |
Treaties — Operation and enforcement of — Necessity for municipal legislation — The law of Japan.
State responsibility — Claims — State control over private claims — Waiver of claims in treaty — Relationship with diplomatic protection — Waiver of international claims and claims under municipal law — Article 19 (a) of Treaty of Peace with Japan, 1951 — The law of Japan.
The Facts.—In 1946, the plaintiff was seriously wounded by shots from burglars who were soldiers belonging to the United States Armed Forces then in occupation of Japan under the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. He brought this action for damages against the defendant, the State, on the ground that he would have been entitled to a claim against the soldiers for damages for his physical and mental suffering but for the fact that in 1951 Japan signed a Treaty of Peace in which it waived such claims as the plaintiff's. Article 19 (a) of the Peace Treaty provides:
“Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of any of the Allied Powers in Japanese territory prior to the coming into force of the present Treaty.”
It was asserted on behalf of the plaintiff that the provisions of this article had the effect of extinguishing his claim and that therefore the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of the State Redress Law, must pay damages for the loss that the plaintiff suffered in consequence.
On behalf of the defendant, it was contended that the claims waived in Article 19 (a) of the Treaty were those claims of Japan which had arisen from injuries to its nationals as against the State to which the persons who had caused the injuries belonged. In other words, what was waived was the right of the State to give diplomatic protection to the victims of such injuries on the international plane. Alternatively, it was contended that the claim of the nature at issue in the present case were destined to be waived in any case whenever a treaty of peace was made, and that therefore the waiver of the claim in question by the defendant in the Treaty of Peace would not amount to “the unlawful exercise of public power” in the meaning of Article 1 of the State Redress Law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial