Review and responses to Japan's export regulation measures 

Jin Chang Soo

(jincs@sejong.org)

Director of the Center for Japanese Studies,

The Sejong Institute

English Abstract​

Japan’s export regulation measures have not had a big impact on the Korean semiconductor and display industries for the last two years. Among the three items that were granted specific clearance, hydrogen fluoride was imported from other countries; the number of hydrogen fluoride imports from Japan decreased. The trade retaliation effect was not significant as hydrogen fluoride had a relatively high localization rate. Nonetheless, it is true that South Korea's dependence on Japan for imports cannot be resolved over a short period. 

Needless to say, diplomatic negotiations on the history between South Korea and Japan should be prioritized in order to find a solution to export regulation measures. Japan will not respond to the Moon administration’s insistence to lift export regulation measures and resolve the GSOMIA issue at the same time. In order for the two countries to negotiate, Japan must not solely demand a solution to South Korea while avoiding a dialogue, and South Korea must break an illusion that the postponement of GSOMIA can be used as a card in response to Japan's export regulation measures. If the Moon administration actively communicates with victims of past issues, there may arise a solution to Japan’s export regulation measures.