뉴스레터

In an editorial dated March 3, 2014, the Asahi Simbun of Japan criticized the government's interpretation of the Constitution concerning the right of collective self-defense, saying that it is "based on a sort of agreement between the government and the public reached through many years of discussions at the Diet," and that "if a prime minister is allowed to change the interpretation at will, the foundation of constitutionalism on which a democratic nation is built would collapse." In other words, allowing Japan to exercise its right of collective self-defense would mean a change in the pacifist principle enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution that postwar Japan has been strictly maintaining, and it would require amending the Constitution by following procedures set by Article 96. Controversial here is the right of collective self-defense, which refers to the nation's right to allow its self-defense forces to join a counterattack launched by an ally that has come under enemy attack, even if the nation itself is not under direct attack. The right of individual or collective self-defense is recognized under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

A Move to Amend the Constitution by Changing the Interpretation of the Right of Collective Self-Defense

But the Japanese government is trying to amend the Constitution by changing the traditional interpretation of the right of collective self-defense. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe initially intended to exercise the right of collective self-defense by following procedures for amending the Constitution set by Article 96. But facing strong opposition, he switched to 'changing constitutional interpretations through Cabinet council decisions.' The principle enshrined in war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is that Japan can exercise its defense power when under attack from another country. And the traditional interpretation is that exercising the right of self-defense is not allowed because it exceeds the minimum required for self-defense. And Abe's intention is to change such an interpretation through a Cabinet council decision alone.

Growing Criticism within Japan

At the House of Representatives Budget Committee held on February 12, 2014, Abe expressed his determination to change consitutional interpretations by saying, "I will take responsibility as supreme leader of the government, and will be judged by the people through election." According to NHK News, this prompted a deluge of criticism within the country, not only from the opposition party, the academia, the legal community, and civil-society organizations, but also even from within the ruling party, specifically at a meeting held in the afternoon of March 17. Banri Kaieda (海江田万里), the President of the DPJ, urged that "a special committee be set up in the Diet to fully discuss the matter of allowing Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense." Yoshio Urushibara (漆原良夫), a Diet member from the New Komeito, a coalition partner of the LDP, pointed out that "listening to the voice of the people matters most, but (the prime minister) says nothing about it." Masahito Sakata (阪田雅裕), a former Director-General of Japan's Cabinet Legislation Bureau, denounced Abe's attempt to change constitutional interpretations as an act of denial of constitutionalism itself. Katsutoshi Takami (高見勝利), a professor of constitutional studies at Sophia University, said, "This means placing politics out of the control of the Constitution. Then this will make Japan a country governed by a person, i.e. Abe, rather than by law." And the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has recently decided to let the citizens know, through the Center for Dealing with Matters Regarding the Constitution, the problems with the Abe administration's move to change its constitutional interpretation. It is also noted that 'Support Article 9,' a civil-society organization committed to protecting the Constitution, is becoming increasingly critical of Abe's denial of constitutionalism. Therefore, before Japan revises its security policies, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would have to ask the neighboring countries for their understanding. And he would also have to listen to the Asahi Shimbun and intellectuals of Japan arguing that it is the Japanese government's obvious obligation to assure the victim countries of the Japanese military's attack that the Self-Defense Forces of Japan, when dispatched abroad, would never go wild as the Japanese military had done in the past.