No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2025
On December 27, 2013, then-governor of Okinawa Nakaima Hirokazu approved a permit to reclaim land off the coast of Henoko in Nago City, Okinawa in order to build a U.S. Marine Corps airfield. Current Okinawa governor Onaga Takeshi won a landslide victory against Nakaima in November 2014 on a platform opposing the construction of a U.S. military facility on land reclaimed off the coast of Henoko. Shortly after his inauguration, Governor Onaga established a “Third Party (Experts) Commission,” consisting of six legal and scientific experts, for the purpose of reviewing the procedural grounds for former governor Nakaima's approval of the land reclamation. On July 16, 2015, the Commission published a more than 100-page report, concluding that Nakaima's approval of the land reclamation was legally flawed. (A summary of the report can be read here.) On October 13, 2015, Governor Onaga nullified the land reclamation permit based on the Commission's findings. Just a day later, the Okinawa Defense Bureau (the local branch of the Japanese Ministry of Defense) filed a complaint asking the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLITT) to overrule Onaga's nullification. The MLITT swiftly complied. Shortly after, the Japanese government sued Governor Onaga, seeking a verdict that would allow them to override his authority as governor and approve the land reclamation. As the central government is essentially appealing to itself, observers predict it will win an easy victory. Igarashi Takayoshi notes that legal precedents are also on the government's side, and that to prevent such an outcome, the platform for debate must be broadened beyond the confines of Japan's government offices and courtrooms to the stage of national and global public opinion. SA
1 Turning a body of water into reclaimed land signifies nationalization of that land, but the Japanese government intends to relinquish that national property to an extraterritorial state (the U.S. military) which is beyond the reach of the Japanese state.
2 There are numerous methods by which this battle could be brought into the legal arena. The Japanese government could claim that the Okinawa governor's approval of the land reclamation constitutes a legally prescribed transaction entrusted to a local government entity as defined by the Local Autonomy Law. The government could then issue an order to the Okinawa governor commanding him to allow the Henoko construction to continue; if he refused to comply, the government could then order the high court to execute the approval. On the other hand, the Okinawa prefectural government could bring a protest suit against the Japanese government arguing that the government lacks the necessary qualifications to make a formal objection or request a suspension of execution in the first place. As an alternative to bringing the issue to the courts, a review of the issue could be conducted by the Central and Local Government Dispute Management Council. Translator's note: On November 2, 2015, the Okinawa prefectural government filed for a review of the government's action with the Committee for Settling National-Local Disputes. However, after meeting on December 24-25, the Committee determined that under the Local Autonomy Law, the matter was not subject to its review. On December 18, 2015, a majority in the Okinawa Prefectural Assembly voted to file a protest suit seeking withdrawal of the MLITT's decision to suspend execution of Governor Onaga's nullification of the land reclamation permit on the grounds that the MLITT's decision was illegal. The Prefectural Assembly simultaneously passed a budget of around 13 million yen for expenses related to the suit, which will be brought to the Naha District Court in late 2015. On December 24, 2015, a group of 21 residents living near Henoko filed suit in the Naha District Court, seeking for the MLITT's suspension of execution to be voided temporarily. As suggested by Igarashi, the residents argued that the Okinawa Defense Bureau is not a “private entity” and therefore lacks the qualifications needed to request a suspension of execution from the MLITT under the Administrative Appeal Law.
3 The reasons provided by the Okinawa prefectural government when it announced its nullification of the land reclamation permit on October 13 differ slightly from the perspective contained in the experts' commission's report.
4 After the Abe administration came to power, this move toward policy reforms affecting public works projects was overturned via a “National Resilience Policy” focused on disaster prevention.
5 The standard view among scholars, supported by judicial precedents, is that the Okinawa prefectural Department of Civil Engineering and Construction's failure to respond properly to the concerns posed by the governor and the prefectural Department of Environmental and Community Affairs constitutes a violation of procedure required to reclaim a public body of water, and thus does not constitute an act of discretion and is subject to judiciary review.