My Response to Ramseyer's Effort to Deny the History of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery

The main objective of this paper is to critically evaluate as many of Ramseyer's arguments as possible included in his 2022 paper. It consists of three sections in addition to the introduction and concluding remarks. The first section summarizes the expanded literature that interpreted the "comfort women" system as sexual slavery, judgments, and recommendations to the Japanese government given by scholars, international human rights organizations and the legislative branches of four Western countries. Since Ramseyer published his article denying the "comfort women" system as sexual slavery without introducing this literature, we cannot consider his article as an academic work. The second section critically evaluates Ramseyer's unacceptable and untenable arguments that Japanese and Korean "comfort women" were commercial sex workers with labor contracts rather than sexual slaves. The third section critically evaluates Ramseyer's severe criticisms of the Korean council and its redress activities.