Japan and the Republic of Korea have been confronted with a series of disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the 1965 Claims Settlement Agreement – a pivotal treaty underpinning their post-war relationship. Their disputes have become further compounded by complex treaty practices on the part of both parties ever since. Two States, including their respective executive and judicial branches, have not only adopted diverging interpretations, but have also slightly modified their own interpretations over the ensuing years. Even at the domestic level, several organs adopt diverging interpretations. Against the backdrop of such a confusing situation, a number of discussions, including those on the part of scholars and the judiciary, tend to rely on a variety of subsequent conducts in relation to the 1965 Agreement. Faced with the need to explore the role of subsequent conduct on the part of States parties in relation to treaty interpretation, this article attempts to identify whatever may be pertinent subsequent agreement and subsequent practice on the part of Japan and Korea concerning the 1965 Claims Agreement within the meaning of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in the light of the ILC’s 2018 draft conclusions on subsequent agreement and practice. Conversely, the 1965 Claims Agreement is expected to function as a litmus test as to whether the ILC’s draft conclusions can provide any meaningful guidance as to how to approach such a complex situation.

日本和大韩民国面临着一系列因1965年《理赔和解协议》的解释和适用而引起的争端，这是两国战后关系的关键条约。自此以后，由于双方之间复杂的条约惯例，他们的争端变得更加复杂。两国，包括其各自的行政和司法部门，不仅采用了不同的解释，而且在随后的几年中对自己的解释进行了稍许修改。即使在国内，也有一些机构采用不同的解释。在这种令人困惑的情况下，许多讨论，包括学者和司法部门的讨论，都倾向于依赖与《 1965年协定》有关的各种随后的行为。ILC关于后续协议和惯例的2018年结论草案。相反，预计1965年的《索赔协议》将成为关于国际劳工大会的结论草案是否可以为如何处理这种复杂局势提供任何有意义的指导的试金石。