日本語

Self-Defense Forces(SDF) and the Discussion/Debate on Constitutional Revision

Russia unilaterally launched the military attack against the sovereign state of Ukraine. There were opinions stating that Russia was only making intimidation and would absolutely not invade militarily.(Though there was the Russian annexation of Crimea…)
However, Russia unilaterally recognized some regions of Ukraine as independent nations. Then, under the pretext of protecting the people in those regions, it launched the unilateral military attack.
While some people state that it’s unbelievable to witness such a barbaric war in the 21st century, there is no “clean war”. And as long as many sovereign nations with competing claims exist, this is an inevitable risk.

This incident has triggered heightened momentum for national defense discussion/debate in Japan like never before.
Within these defense discussion/debate, the SDF, constitutional revision, and defense budgets are the primary agenda items.
Regarding defense budgets, I believe discussing them only in terms of budget amounts risks missing the essence, so I intend to post this topic on another occasion.

The Constitution of Japan explicitly states the right to self-defense to protect the sovereign nation, but it does not explicitly state anything about its the SDF.
Also, there are political parties in the Diet that position the existence of the SDF as unconstitutional because of Article 9 of the Constitution.
It is no longer a major issue whether the Constitution was created by the U.S. GHQ or whether the will of the Japanese nation was reflected in it from the beginning. What is truly surprising is that the Constitution has remained unchanged for 75 years since its enactment, despite significant changes in the national and global landscape.

With momentum building for constitutional revision including the role of the SDF, opposition parties in the Diet are now emerging that either support or engage in discussion/debate on constitutional revision. This momentum suggests an environment is developing that can discuss/debate national security of one of the nation’s most critical factors as the paramount issue (regardless of right-wing or left-wing perspectives).
While opinions will naturally vary in a democratic nation, the most important step is to engage in the discussion/debate.

Here is a brief overview of the two main political parties opposing the measure (though there are other parties that oppose it as well).

(1) The Constitutional Democratic Party(hereinafter called CDP) of Japan

いわゆる安全保障法制について
日本国憲法9条は、平和主義の理念に基づき、個別的自衛権の行使を容認する一方、日本が攻撃されていない場合の集団的自衛権行使は認めていない。この解釈は、自衛権行使の限界が明確で、内容的にも適切なものである。また、この解釈は、政府みずからが幾多の国会答弁などを通じて積み重ね、規範性を持つまで定着したものである(いわゆる47年見解。巻末参照)。
集団的自衛権の一部の行使を容認した閣議決定及び安全保障法制は、憲法違反であり、憲法によって制約される当事者である内閣が、みずから積み重ねてきた解釈を論理的整合性なく変更するものであり、立憲主義に反する。
いわゆる自衛隊加憲論について
現行の憲法9条を残し、自衛隊を明記する規定を追加することには、以下の理由により反対する。
1　「後法は前法に優越する」という法解釈の基本原則により、9条1項2項の規定が空文化する。この場合、自衛隊の権限は法律に委ねられ、憲法上は、いわゆるフルスペックの集団的自衛権行使が可能となりかねない。これでは、専守防衛を旨とした平和主義という日本国憲法の基本原理が覆る。
2　現在の安全保障法制を前提に自衛隊を明記すれば、少なくとも集団的自衛権の一部行使容認を追認することになる。集団的自衛権の行使要件は、広範かつ曖昧であり、専守防衛を旨とした平和主義という日本国憲法の基本原理に反する。
3　権力が立憲主義に反しても、事後的に追認することで正当化される前例となり、権力を拘束するという立憲主義そのものが空洞化する。

SOURCE: VIEWS ON THE CONSTITUTION(2022/07/15)
https://archive2017.cdp-japan.jp/policy/constitution

[No English site was found, so it was translated here. ]

Regarding the national security legislation
Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is based on the principle of pacifism. While it permits the exercise of the right to individual self-defense, it does not permit the exercise of the right to collective self-defense when Japan is not under attack. This interpretation clearly defines the limits of the right to self-defense and is also substantively appropriate. Additionally, this interpretation has been consistently accumulated by the government through numerous Diet responses and has become established to the point of possessing normativity. (The 1974 Interpretation. See endnotes)
The Cabinet decision and national security legislation permitting the exercise of part of the right to collective self-defense violate the Constitution. The Cabinet is a party bound by the Constitution, but it has changed its own accumulated interpretation without logical consistency. This violates constitutionalism.

Regarding clarifying the status of the SDF in the Constitution
The CDP opposes adding provisions to explicitly mention the SDF while retaining the current Article 9 of the Constitution for the following reasons.

  1. The fundamental legal principle that “Later legislation overrides prior legislation” would render the provisions of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 2, dead letters. In this case, the authority of the SDF would be delegated to legislation, potentially enabling the exercise of collective self-defense rights without constitutional restrictions. This would override the fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution based on pacifism and the principle of exclusively defensive defense.
  2. Explicitly mentioning the SDF based on the current national security legislation effectively approves at least part of the exercise of the right to collective self-defense. The conditions for exercising the right to collective self-defense are extensive and ambiguous, contradicting the fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution which is pacifism based on the principle of exclusively defensive defense.
  3. Even when national power violates constitutionalism, it becomes a precedent that is justified by ex-post-facto approval, and the constitutionalism of binding national power is rendered meaningless.

(2) The Japanese Communist Party (hereinafter called JCP)

[No English site was found, so it was translated here. ]

  1. Current debates reveal a pronounced movement to transform Japan into a “war-making nation.”  The LDP-Komeito coalition government and parties like the Japan Innovation Party advocate for “enemy base attack capabilities”. The LDP has advocated for capabilities under the name of “counterstrike capabilities,” not limited to “enemy bases” but extending to attacking “command and control functions, etc.” They have also proposed a major military expansion, targeting military spending of over 2% of GDP within five years. “Enemy base attack” refers to the SDF launching attacks against the central command functions of a country opposing the US, even if Japan is not attacked, under the national security legislation that permits the exercise of collective self-defense. This becomes a path to full-scale war by inviting fierce counterattacks from the opposing country. The JCP firmly oppose the constitutional amendment to Article 9 that would abandon “exclusively defensive defense” and fundamentally transform the Self-Defense Forces, openly turning Japan into a nation capable of wars.
  2. Considering Article 9 of the Constitution, even the strongest defenders of the SDF no longer deny that it is a military force. From this perspective, it is clear that the current role of the SDF and its deployment overseas violate the Constitution. The JCP position that the SDF is unconstitutional remains unchanged.
    For half a century now, the people have lived with the SDF. 
    They have been made to believe, through a nationwide effort that “Japan’s security cannot be safeguarded without both the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and the SDF.” For resolving the contradiction between the Constitution and the SDF, the consensus of the people is indeed paramount. It is from this standpoint that we established the policy of phased dissolution of the SDF at our party convention three years ago.

一、このときとばかりに、日本を「戦争する国」につくりかえる動きが露骨になっている。自公政権や維新の会などは、「敵基地攻撃能力」などと叫び、自民党は「反撃能力」の名で、「敵基地」にとどまらず、「指揮統制機能等」まで攻撃する能力の保有と、５年以内に軍事費をGDP２％以上にする大軍拡を提言した。「敵基地攻撃」は、集団的自衛権を容認した安保法制のもとで、日本が攻撃されていなくても自衛隊が米軍の相手国中枢に攻め込むもので、相手国からの猛反撃を呼び込む全面戦争への道となる。「専守防衛」を投げ捨て、自衛隊を変質させ、大手を振って「戦争する国」に変える、この道を推進するための９条改憲に断固として反対する

SOURCE: ON THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONSTITUTION(2022/07/15)
HTTPS://WWW.JCP.OR.JP/WEB_POLICY/2022/05/POST-913.HTML

この条項に照らしていえば、自衛隊をもっとも強く擁護する人でも、いまでは自衛隊が戦力であることを否定する人はいません。その点からいっても、いまの自衛隊のあり方、ついに海外派兵までやるようになった現状が憲法違反であることは明らかであって、自衛隊を違憲の存在だとするわれわれの立場は少しも変わりません。
すでに半世紀、国民は自衛隊とともに生活してきました。“安保条約と自衛隊なしに日本の安全は守れない”ということが、それこそ、国をあげてという形で広められてきました。憲法と自衛隊との矛盾を解決するには、やはり、国民の合意というものが何よりも大事になります。私たちはこういう立場で、三年前の党大会で自衛隊の段階的解消という方針を定めました。

SOURCE: WHAT TO DO WITH THE SELF-DEFENSE FORCE(2022/07/15)
HTTPS://WWW.JCP.OR.JP/JCP/22TH-7CHUSO/WORD/KEY/01_40ZIEI.HTML


I will avoid writing about the right to collective self-defense here.
The CDP clearly states that it opposes the national security legislation as unconstitutional, maintaining a pro-constitution stance. This means the CDP does not officially accept the SDF as a military force. However, the CDP’s position on constitutional addition regarding the SDF seems to oppose it based on the issue of “collective self-defense”. If the CDP accepts the SDF as a military force, they must clearly explain their interpretation of the Constitution.
Considering the current situation, the Self-Defense Forces would be sent to the front lines in times of emergency, despite being civilian organizations. This means using the citizens as their own shield.

The JCP’s policies are consistent. However, the recent remarks by Shii who is the party’s chairman, are highly problematic.
As mentioned above, the JCP maintains the position that the SDF is unconstitutional. However, he stated that “in the event of an imminent and unjust infringement of sovereignty, we will naturally use all available measures including the SDF to eliminate it.”
While declaring the SDF unconstitutional, he seems to be saying that in the event of war, the SDF that cannot be accepted would be placed on the front lines of attack.

In our personal perspective, we feel the national security approaches of these two parties are remarkably similar, despite differences in their phrasing.
Don’t both parties’ stances suggest that in times of emergency, they would send the non-military civilian citizens to the front lines ?
We believe both parties would eliminate contradictions in their statements by repositioning the SDF as a “Defense Force”.

This site is based only on our own perspectives.
It’s natural for people to have different ways of thinking. Of course, supporters exist for all political parties, not just these ones.

What feels contradictory about the these two parties is that both frequently use keywords like diversity and democracy.

In other words, as democratic nations, they understand that various ways of thinking and opinions exist.However, these two parties unilaterally dismiss parties advocating for constitutional revision including adding the SDF to the Constitution, labeling them as “arrogant” or “exaggerated,” and sometimes even demanding retractions of statements. They refuse to engage in constructive debate.
It seems they are denying diversity and democracy. Also, as Diet members, I believe they should engage in discussions considering all possibilities regarding national security, rather than imposing their own opinions.

The discussion/debate on constitutional revision including adding the SDF to the Constitution is not only a topic among political parties but also one raised by the national public.
We understand there are naturally opposing and supporting positions.
However, as a Diet member in a democratic nation, We believe discussions on national security should not impose one’s own opinion as the only correct one, but should instead consider all possible scenarios.When security-related incidents occur, “unforeseen circumstances” cannot be justified for any reason.

Reference: Basic Policies(2022/07/14)
https://cdp-japan.jp/english/basic-policies

Reference: JCP English site(2022/07/14)
https://www.jcp.or.jp/english/

Thanks,
2022/07/16