You probably do not know the Constitution of Japan Article 9 [renunciation of war]. In historical fact, the Constitution of Japan was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1946, because the U.S. military were controlled by the Japanese government because of World War II when the Constitution of Japan was established. In the formal part, the U.S. military has presented the Japanese government the draft of the Constitution of Japan at first. Then the Constitution of Japan was established by amendment of the Japanese government.
points to the amended waiver [of War] is the following.
1.The 'draft by the U.S. Army
CHAPTER II [. Renunciation of war] Article 9.
1. the Japanese people forever renounce war as sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
2. land, sea and air forces, as well as war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
2.Established the Constitution of Japan
CHAPTER II [. Renunciation of war] Article 9.
1. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
2. In order to achieve the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces and the military potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Assuming that you have read the above waiver [of War], it will never take for granted that the Japanese government to maintain the potential for war. However, the Japanese government in the hands of the army, navy and air force. You guess what? costs of war in Japan is 45 billion dollars and is third in the world in 2002. (First rank is the U.S., ranking second is Russia.). Regarding this, there are three opinions by the Constitution scholar in Japan. (The content below is a summary of the different interpretations of Article 9, by Osamu Satou, [Overview of the Constitution of Japan], this book was never translated into English and he was an authority of the Constitution of Japan).
1.Interpretation 1
The Japanese do not renounce war, including war of self defense. [As a means of settling international disputes], this part of the sentence is limited to that purpose. In other words, the war in self-defense is permitted. E [In order to achieve the aim of the preceding paragraph,], this part is the wording of the restriction, which is to connect the previous point. Therefore, the potential for war in self-defense can be maintained. Moreover [The right of belligerency of the state], the belligerent rights should not be abandoned because it is waived for international law.
2.Interpretation 2
The Japanese give up any war including the war in self defense. [In order to achieve the aim of the preceding paragraph,] this part is not the words of limitation. Therefore, it is only natural that the potential for war, including self-defense can not be maintained
3.Interpretation 3
The Japanese do not renounce war, including war of self defense. In other words, the right of self-defense can not because it is the inalienable natural rights of the nation, and is the fundamental Principles on International Law. That is, the Japanese can do only a war of self defense. On the other hand, the potential for war, including self-defense can not be maintained because this is the most natural interpretation of military potential formulation that will never be maintained. (According to this interpretation, even though Japan has the right to self-defense of the war, Japan has no way to wage war. As a result, the Japanese can not make a war between self-defense war.)
Most of the Japanese, except for specialists in the law, do not know the English text of the Constitution of Japan. As a result, the Japanese can not recognize that Article 9 is a strong negative expression. Article 9 in Japanese text is simple phrase ordinary negative. The Constitution of Japan in Japanese text has been described in the way the Japanese can not recognize reality. (Needless to say I am a Japanese, and my impression for the above interpretation is the following.)
[Translation 1] very logical, but strange!. No one can distinguish potential war in self-defense by others. (Opinion Journal from the Japanese government's interpretation 1.)
[Translation 2] This is not an issue!
[Translation 3] logical! Not only that, but consistency, which is related to the potential for war and the rights of belligerency, enoughly are satisfied. However, I believe that the rights of belligerency of the nation are not the objects of renunciation. Needless to say there are different opinions about the rights of belligerency of the nation, on international law.
Probably true author who was a subordinate of Douglas MacArthur wanted to make the country helpless because the Japanese government was controlled by the U.S. military in recent days. So, historically speaking, may be the correct interpretation of Article 9 that the Japanese government will never hold the potential for war, including self-defense. And so, the Japanese is just as vulnerable children, such as Douglas MacArthur said. On the other hand, is very important to remember that Japan attacked the United States, China and other countries. Interestingly ever The Constitution of Japan was amended once in the past.
Thus, it is very strange phenomenon that the interpretation of the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the nation, is very different in substance.
Probably the Japanese Constitution Article 9 would be the most suitable topic for discussion in high school.
And so, I would like many teachers and students, knowing the Japanese Constitution Article 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment