Abstract
The comfort women case in South Korea has been a polemic issue in the context of inherited
responsibility. The Japanese government who emphasizes on state as an agent for taking the
responsibility tends either to deny collective responsibility of historic wrongdoings or to
limit the scope of its roles to superficial ways such as reparation. Meanwhile South Korea
demands not only reparation but official apology, emotional compassion, and material
compensation on the ground that nation, not state, should be accountable for historic
injustice, but this claim still encounters a difficulty of application to cases originated in
multinational countries. Based on these observations, I will develop two arguments: (1) that
reciprocal nondomination conceptualized with civic responsibility will better the comfort
women case in the context of inherited responsibility because this contains full ground of
deliberation in which those who come from regardless of state or nation can participate; (2)
that reciprocal nondomination embodied with civic responsibility can be operated as a
regulative principle which prompts both victims and wrongdoers to have their deliberative
stances and to reach an agreement conducive to transitional justice.