Fukushima Wastewater Damage Compensation Lawsuit (Japan-Korea)

In August 2023, Japan began releasing treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean. In 2025, South Korean fisheries representative Kim Mi-young and the Korea Fisheries Association filed a damage compensation lawsuit (Case No. Reiwa 5 (Wa) 2929) at the Tokyo District Court against the Japanese government and TEPCO. The plaintiffs argued that the discharge caused severe reputational harm, loss of market value for Korean seafood, and psychological distress among fishing communities, constituting a violation of international law and tort. The lawsuit sought an injunction to halt the release and approximately 10 billion yen in damages. The case drew extensive attention as a transnational environmental tort, pitting Korean victims against Japanese state and corporate entities in a Japanese court.

In April 2025, the Tokyo District Court dismissed the case. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the Japanese state and that the plaintiffs failed to prove concrete, individualized damages directly caused by the scientifically managed discharge. The plaintiffs appealed to the Tokyo High Court; the appeal remains pending.

1. Whether a Japanese court has jurisdiction over claims arising from a sovereign act of the Japanese state; 2. Whether the treated water discharge is lawful under international maritime and environmental law; 3. Whether there is a direct causal link between the discharge and the specific economic and psychological damages claimed by Korean plaintiffs; 4. Application of state immunity principles to the Japanese government.

The lawsuit intensified anti-Japan sentiment in South Korea and deepened bilateral diplomatic friction over the wastewater release. It galvanized environmental activism and legal campaigns across Asia, encouraging similar litigation before international tribunals such as ITLOS. Domestically, the ruling reinforced the Japanese government's position on the safety of the discharge, while abroad it was cited as a denial of justice for cross-border environmental victims. The case became a symbol of the legal and diplomatic challenges arising from transboundary pollution disputes.