Re: Article



I'm almost finished editing my article. The job noew is really deciding which editorial suggestions to follow and which to toss. The editor who first got my submission is a newl minted second year student who managed to iss the entire point of the article.



You see, it's about 'comfort women." These are mostly Korean women who were forced into brothels to serve at the pleasure of the Japanese Imperial Army. The Tokyo Tribunal never addressed forced sexual slavery as a war crime, even though thousands of women had been enslaved and brutalized. Japan has considered the matter closed as of the peace treaty signing. My article examines the international law principles existant at the time and the humanitarian treaties Japan was a party to in order to establish it's liability regardless. That part was successful.



But my article further details how a number of former "comfort women" have filed suit in the United States under the Alien Torts Claims Liability Act. That was a useless move, as Japan refused to forgo its soveriegn immunity, as any logical person could foresee. I took the opportunity to subtley criticize the ATCA. It's bad in a number of ways, such as how it would effect international relations, how it would entangle our courts in foreign matters, and how our beliefs and values may not gel with other countries. This was a rabbit trail for the "comfort women" and I tried to make it appear so.



The editor wants me to alter that, and make an argument in favor of ATCA. No can do. The point of the article is that Japan has violated internation law and internation pressure should force them to answer for it. The U'S. courts shouldn't be a venue for foreign claims anymore than Belgium could indict members of the Bush Administration for perceived "war crimes," as they tried to do months ago.



I may have to make a case, but I'm not changing the position on ATCA.