日本語

Self-Defense Forces and the Discussion/Debate on Constitutional Reform.

Russia unilaterally launched a military attack on the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Before the military attack, some people said that Russia only had a threatening attitude and would never launch a military attack.
However, Russia unilaterally recognized some regions of other countries as independent status and launched a military attack on the pretext of protecting the people there. 
Somebody say it is unbelievable that such a barbaric war could happen in this 21st century, but there is absolutely no such a thing as an elegant/happy armed war. And It is a commonplace risk as long as many sovereign nations exist.

This Russian invasion has triggered momentum for a national defense discussion in Japan than ever. Among the national defense discussion, the Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter called SDF), constitutional reform, and defense spending are the main topics on the agenda. We would like to post defense spending separately, as there is a risk that we may lose sight of the essence if article is made from only the budget amount.

The Constitution of Japan does not clearly state the military forces to defend a sovereign nation. Some political parties in the Diet have advocated the existence of the SDF unconstitutional because of Article 9 of the Constitution.
It is not a big issue now that the Constitution was created by the U.S. GHQ or that the Constitution was crated according to the will of the Japan people. In the first place, it is more surprising that the Constitution has never been reformed in 75 years since its enactment, when national and international circumstances have changed so drastically.

With the momentum of the constitutional reform discussion including the position of the SDF, the emergence of opposition political parties in the Diet that can either agree or discuss constitutional reform may be creating an environment that can discuss about Japan’s Security that one of the most important factors of the nation as a middle-of-the-road policy. As a democracy, there are pros and cons, and it is important to discuss them.

Identify the arguments of two representative political parties in opposing positions.(There are other political parties that oppose.)

(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

[Since a counterpart English site could not be found, we translated it here.]

Regarding the national security bill
Based on the principle of pacifism, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution permits the right of individual self-defense, but does not permit the right of collective self-defense in cases where Japan is not attacked. This interpretation clearly defines the limits of the right of self-defense and is appropriate in terms of content. This interpretation has been accumulated by the government itself through numerous Diet responses, and has become established as a norm (the so-called “47-year view”).
The Cabinet decision and the national security bill to allow the partial the right of collective self-defense are unconstitutional. And the Cabinet as a party restricted by the Constitution is changing the interpretation without logical consistency is contrary to constitutionalism.

Regarding “addition of the SDF” to the Constitution
We oppose the addition of a provision to Article 9 of the current Constitution that clearly stipulates the SDF for the following reasons.

  1. According to the basic principle of legal interpretation that “The posterior law prevails over the anterior law” , paragraphs 1 and 2 in the provisions of Article 9 would be dead lows. In this case, the authority of the SDF will be transferred to law, and Constitution will allow the right of collective self-defense without any limitation. This would overturn the basic principle of the Japanese Constitution which is pacifism based on Exclusively Defense-oriented policy.
  2. If a provision of the SDF will be added to the current Constitution under the current the national security bill, it would accept the national security bill that allows the right of collective self-defense. The requirements of the right of collective self-defense are wide range and ambiguous, and go against the basic principle of the Japanese Constitution which is pacifism based on Exclusively Defense-oriented policy.
  3. Even when state power violates constitutionalism, it becomes a precedent that is justified by ex-post-facto approval, and the constitutionalism of binding state power is become meaningless.

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

[Since a counterpart English site could not be found, we translated it here.]

  1. The Liberal Democratic Party(hereinafter called LDP)  of Japan has been making blatant moves to turn Japan into a nation capable of war. The coalition administration of the LDP  of Japan and New Kōmeitō, Japan Innovation Party and others have propounded an “enemy base attack capability” and the LDP  of Japan proposed to retain of a capability to attack not only “enemy bases” but also “command and control functions,” and military expansion that would increase military spending to more than 2% of GDP within five years under the pretext of “counterattack capability.” Under the national security bill which allows the right of collective self-defense, the SDF will attack the country at war with U.S. forces even when Japan is not under attack, and this will be an all-out war by counterattack from the country that attacked. We are firmly opposed to the reform of Article 9 of the Constitution, which would repeal the “exclusive defense,” transform the SDF, and push the nation toward becoming a “country capable of war.
  2. Even the vehemently vindicators of the position of the SDF do not deny that the SDF is a military force. From this standpoint, it is clear that the current SDF which even overseas dispatch of troops is unconstitutional, and our position that the SDF is unconstitutional has never changed. For half a century, the people of Japan have lived with the SDF. The Japanese government has spreading the idea that Japan’s security cannot be protected without Japan-US Security Treaty and the SDF as if it were a national policy. Resolving the contradiction between the Constitution and the SDF will require a consensus of the people. From this standpoint, we decided on the policy of gradual dissolution of the SDF at the party congress 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


Although we refrain discuss on the right to collective self-defense here, but the position of the CDP of Japan clearly indicates they are ”supporter of the current Constitution” because they claim that the national security bill is unconstitutional. From ”supporter of the current Constitution” standpoint, the CDP of Japan would not accept the SDF as a military force, even from Article 9 of the Constitution. However, the CDP of Japan seems to claim that it opposes the “constitutional addition of the SDF” because the right of collective self-defense is an issue. If the position of the CDP of Japan is to accept the SDF as a military force, shouldn’t the CDP of Japan clearly explain its interpretation of the Constitution?

Although the JCP’s policy is coherent, we consider the earlier statement by JCP Chairman Shii to be problematic. As referred to above, the JCP’s position is that the SDF is unconstitutional. However, he said that “in the event of imminent and unlawful sovereignty infringement, we will take every available step to remove it, and of course the SDF must be participated.” While the position is that the the SDF is unconstitutional, they merely command citizen which is not a military to stand to the front lines of the war if Japan will be attacked by the military.

In our personal opinion, the two parties’ approach to security seems very similar, albeit expressed differently. This article is based on our views, but it is natural that there are many people and many different ways of thinking. And, all political parties, not just these parties, have their supporters.

However, the above-mentioned parties seem like a contradiction is that they often use the key words diversity and democracy. In other words, the above-mentioned parties should naturally understand that there are many different ways of thinking and opinions in Japan. However, the above-mentioned parties have unilaterally told those in agree of constitutional reform including the addition of the SDF that it is “arrogant and exaggerated” and sometimes “do retract (what they have said)”. And the above-mentioned parties are refusing to discuss the issue. Such a response/behavior could be understood as a denial of diversity and democracy.

The issue of constitutional reform including the SDF, is not only a topic between political parties, but also an important one for the people of Japan. We are sure that there are many positions in favor and against, we would like Diet member to debate them properly with expressing opinions and assuming every possible scenario as members of the Diet in a democratic nation.

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