Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a "No War" clause. It dates from 1947 at the end of World War II.
- ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
第九条 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する。
- In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
二 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。
Contents |
[edit] Historical background
Article 9 was added to the Constitution of Japan during the occupation following World War II.
The source of the article is disputed. According to Allied supreme commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."[1] Shidehara's point of view was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for Japan in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would not enjoy the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.[2] Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs 'Gaikō gojunen' (Fifty years diplomacy, published 1951), where he described how the idea came to him. However, according to some sources, he denied having done so,[3] and some historians attribute the inclusion of Article 9 to Charles Kades, one of Douglas MacArthur's closest associates, who was impressed by the spirit of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war[citation needed]; however, Kades rejected language that would have prohibited Japan's use of force "for its own security," believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.[4]
The article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Some Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behavior. His assent to the "No War" clause weakened their arguments for abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal.
[edit] Interpretation
Soon after the adoption of the constitution of Japan in 1947, the Chinese Civil War ended in victory for the Communist Party of China in 1949 and the establishment of the People's Republic of China. As a consequence, the U.S. was left without its expected military ally - the Republic of China - against communism in the Pacific, and there was a desire on the part of the United States occupation forces for Japan to take a more active military role in the struggle against communism during the Cold War.
In 1950, following the outbreak of the Korean War, the U.S. 24th Infantry Division was pulled out of Japan and sent to fight on the front lines in Korea, leaving Japan without any armed protection. MacArthur ordered the creation of a 75,000-strong National Police Reserve (警察予備隊 Keisatsu yobitai?) to maintain order in Japan and repel any possible invasion from outside. The NPR was organized by United States Army Col. Frank Kowalski (later a U.S. congressman) using Army surplus equipment. To avoid possible constitutional violations, military items were given civilian names: tanks, for instance, were named "special vehicles."[5] Shigesaburo Suzuki, a leader of the Japan Socialist Party, brought suit in the Supreme Court of Japan to have the NPR declared unconstitutional: however, his case was dismissed by the Grand Bench for lack of relevence.[6]
On August 1, 1952, a new National Safety Agency (保安庁 Hoancho?) was formed to supervise the NSA and its maritime component. The new agency was directly headed by Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida. Yoshida supported its constitutionality: although he stated in a 1952 Diet committee session that "to maintain war potential, even for the purpose of self-defense, [would] necessitate revision of the Constitution," he later responded to the JSP's constitutionality claims by stating that the NSF had no true war potential in the modern era.[5] In 1954, the National Safety Agency became the Japan Defense Agency, and the National Police Reserve became the Japan Self-Defense Forces.
In practice, the Japan Self-Defense Forces are very well equipped and the maritime forces are considered to be stronger than the navies of some of Japan's neighbors. The Supreme Court of Japan has reinforced the constitutionality of armed self-defense in several major rulings, most notably the "Sunakawa Case" of 1959, which upheld the legality of the then-current U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.
[edit] Debate
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution not only forbids the use of force as a means to settling international disputes but also forbids Japan from maintaining an army, navy or air force. Therefore, in strictly legal terms, the Self Defence Forces are not an army, navy and air force, but are extensions of the national police force. This has had broad implications for foreign, security and defense policy. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party government has interpreted Article 9 as renouncing the use of warfare in international disputes but not the internal use of force for the purpose of maintaining law and order. The main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan tends to concur with the government's interpretation. At the same time, both parties have advocated the revision of Article 9 by adding an extra clause explicitly authorizing the use of force for the purpose of self-defense against aggression directed against the Japanese nation. The now-defunct Japan Socialist Party, on the other hand, had considered the JSDF as unconstitutional and advocated the full implementation of Article 9 through the demilitarization of Japan. When the party joined with the LDP to form a coalition government, it reversed its position and recognized the JSDF as a structure that was constitutional. The Japanese Communist Party considers the JSDF unconstitutional and has called for reorganisation of Japanese defence policy to feature an armed militia.
Since the late-1990s, Article 9 has been the central feature of a dispute over the ability of Japan to undertake multilateral military commitments overseas. During the late 1980s, increases in government appropriations for the JSDF averaged more than 5 percent per year. By 1990 Japan was ranked third, behind the then-Soviet Union and the United States, in total defense expenditures, and the United States urged Japan to assume a larger share of the burden of defense of the western Pacific. Given these circumstances, some have viewed Article 9 as increasingly irrelevant. It has remained, however, an important brake on the growth of Japan's military capabilities. Despite the fading of bitter wartime memories, the general public, according to opinion polls, continued to show strong support for this constitutional provision.
The majority of Japanese citizens approve the spirit of Article 9 and consider it personally important.[citation needed] But since the 1980s, there has been a shift away from a stance that would tolerate no alteration of the article to allowing a revision that would resolve the discord between the JSDF and Article 9.[citation needed] Additionally, a smaller group of citizens consider that Japan should allow itself to commit the Self-Defense Forces to 'collective defense' efforts, like those agreed to by the UN Security Council—the Gulf War, for instance.
[edit] International comparisons
Analogues of Article 9 existed in the German post-war Grundgesetz. Both East Germany and West Germany had similar laws, and the rearmament of these states also happened under pressure of their corresponding allies, the Soviet Union and the United States. The constitution has changed over the years from "no army" to "army for self-defence or defence of NATO allies" to include participation in UN missions.
[edit] References
- This article contains material from the Library of Congress Country Studies, which are United States government publications in the public domain. - Japan
- ^ Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (1964), p. 302.
- ^ Kijuro Shidehara, 外交の五十年 (1951), pp. 213-14.
- ^ See, e.g., Robert A. Fisher, "Note: The Erosion of Japanese Pacifism: The Constitutionality of the U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines," Cornell International Law Journal 32 (1999), p. 397.
- ^ Edward J. L. Southgate, "From Japan to Afghanistan: The U.S.-Japan Joint Security Relationship, The War on Terror and the Ignominious End of the Pacifist State?," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151, p. 1599.
- ^ a b James E. Auer, "Article Nine of Japan's Constitution: From Renunciation of Armed Force 'Forever' to the Third Largest Defense Budget in the World," Law and Contemporary Problems 53 (1990).
- ^ 6 Minshu 783 (October 8, 1950).
