| Article 9 Of The Constitution Of Japan |
Article Index for Article |
Website Links For Article |
Information AboutArticle 9 Of The Constitution Of Japan |
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. 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. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Some historians attribute the inclusion of Article 9 to Charles Kades , one of MacArthur 's closest associates, who was impressed by the spirit of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war. MacArthur claimed that the idea had been suggested to him by Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara , although Shidehara claimed that the article was not his idea. 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. INTERPRETATION Soon after the adoption of the constitution of Japan in 1947, 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 . Article 9 has had broad implications for foreign policy and has been reinterpreted by the ruling government as renouncing the use of force in international affairs, but not renouncing the internal use of force for the purpose of maintaining law and order. This interpretation, which is opposed by many in the Left-wing in Japan, allowed for the creation of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). In practice, the Japan Self-Defense Forces are very well equipped and the maritime forces are widely considered to be stronger than the navies of some of Japan's neighbors. The Supreme Court Of Japan 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 US-Japan Security Treaty. DEBATE 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. 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. 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. Despite this move, the majority as of 2005 are still against revision. 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 United States and the Soviet Union. 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. REFERENCES
|
|
|