Skip to main content

The Mechanisms behind Litigation’s “Radiating Effects”: Historical Grievances against Japan

Celeste L. Arrington 
The George Washington University

Look beyond rulings to see the social changes radiating out from post-WWII compensation lawsuits in East Asia

Since the 1990s, Koreans have filed dozens of lawsuits in Japanese, U.S., and Korean courts seeking compensation for their suffering during Japan’s colonial rule over the Korean peninsula from 1910-1945. If one only considers the rulings in these cases, a bleak picture emerges. Plaintiffs lost most cases. However, stopping there overlooks how these lawsuits have helped produce a myriad of other outcomes. They have indirectly helped build collective identities, reframe debates over shared memories, provide political leverage to push for new statutes that give financial assistance to World War II-era victims, and sometimes even serve as venues for transnational interpersonal reconciliation. But how do litigants attain such indirect effects of litigation? By what mechanisms does litigation help litigants achieve such outcomes?
Drawing on original interviews with lawyers, plaintiffs, journalists, and citizen activists, the article, “The Mechanisms behind Litigation’s ‘Radiating Effects’: Historical Grievances against Japan,” unpacks how these lawsuits have contributed to social change. I identify twenty often interacting mechanisms that can be activated by litigation processes, from a lawsuit’s filing to the ultimate ruling and beyond. Certainly, litigation can spur backlash or have other negative consequences, but I focus on the indirect effects that are productive for plaintiffs. Often, social movements strategically leverage features of the process of filing claims and fighting them in court to their advantage. They might organize supporter groups to fill the seats in the courtroom to signal the case’s importance to judges. The adversarial nature of litigation also dramatizes the issue, which makes for interesting stories that appeal to news outlets. And the fact that courts are hearing a case may provide enough political cover for a lawmaker to raise the issue in parliament.[1] In addition, lawsuits by foreign plaintiffs can bring them into contact with citizens of the former perpetrator country, and sometimes facilitate the types of intergroup discussions that researchers find reduces prejudice. Identifying such mechanisms behind what Marc Galanter once called litigation’s “radiating effects” helps us understand how litigants capitalize on potential synergies between the courts and other venues of activism.[2]
The research, which includes analysis of media and scholarly accounts and court and movement documents from Japan and Korea, also sheds light on some of the distinctive features of the litigation process in these countries. For example, discontinuous trials, with court hearings held only once every few months, can make it difficult to sustain momentum in activism, but the court hearings also become opportunities for public events, press conferences, and gatherings that build solidarity and a shared identity among plaintiffs, their lawyers, and citizens who support them.[3] In some cases, elderly Korean plaintiffs in wheelchairs were covered with sheets of handwritten notes from individual Japanese and Korean supporters as they proceeded into Japanese courts past banks of news cameras. Not only does this article raise awareness of the broader impact postwar compensation lawsuits in East Asia, it also contributes non-Western and transnational cases to scholarship on litigation’s indirect effects. These lawsuits are about contested historical legacies that continue to complicate inter-state relations in Northeast Asia, between the United States’ two key allies: Japan and South Korea. If you peel back the layers, however, they are also spurring fascinating social changes.

[1] Thomas M. Keck, “Beyond Backlash: Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights,” Law & Society Review 43, no. 1 (March 1, 2009): 151–86.
[2] Marc Galanter, “The Radiating Effects of Courts,” in Empirical Theories about Courts, ed. Keith O. Boyum and Lynn Mather (New York: Longman, 1983), 117–42.
[3] See also Robert L. Kidder and Setsuo Miyazawa, “Long-Term Strategies in Japanese Environmental Litigation,” Law & Social Inquiry 18 (1993): 605–28.

Popular posts from this blog

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University

“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

What Courts do with Executive Privilege Claims

By Gbemende Johnson, Hamilton College

“Because Congress requires this material in order to perform our constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, I will issue a subpoena for the full report and the underlying materials.” This was the response of House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) after receiving the redacted 448-page Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.The battle over the Mueller Report is just one example of conflicts between Congress and the executive branch over executive privilege, where agency officials claim they can withhold documents. Many disputes land in federal court. The Obama Administration Department of Justice spent years in court defending its claim of executive privilege over documents related to the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation. Federal courts have proven less likely to let cabinet level agencies like the Department of Justice withhold documents than they are with independent agencies li…