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: 07 May 2025
In addition to defining specific rights for women, the post-WWII Constitution of Japan (enacted 1947) also articulated a commitment to preserving peace. Article 9 of the Constitution reads in part, “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 a mean of settling international disputes.” The “Peace” Constitution includes a statement that Japan will “never” maintain military forces. With the start of the Korean War in 1950, U.S. occupiers re-interpreted the Japanese constitution to create the “National Police Reserve,” which became Japan's Self Defense Forces (SDF) in 1954. SDF troops have since been deployed beyond national borders for “relief operations” beginning in 1992. Under international pressure following 9/11, Prime Minister Jun'ichiro Koizumi supported an anti-terrorism law in October 2001. This legislation allowed the SDF to provide “logistical support” for U.S. combat troops in the Indian Ocean. Based on the constitutional protection of peace, a group of 15 women led by feminist lawyer Nakajima Michiko (1935-2007) sued the Japanese state for deploying local troops to Iraq in 2004. Nakajima and the other plaintiffs argued that the continued presence of Ground SDF in Iraq violated the “right to live in peace.”
3 From the English translation provided on the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Japan website, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html
4 For more information on specific legislation and political initiatives for gender equality in Japan, see the Gender Equality Bureau of Japan, http://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/index.html
[1] The “text of the judgment” here refers to “shubun,” and the contrasting “reasoning” to “riyu”; these might have been translated as “holding” and “obiter dicta” or “ratio decidendi,” but given the amount of discussion, particularly on the latter two terms in the English-language literature, it has seemed wiser not to be overly ambitious in aiming for precision in translating terms of art.
[2] For a Korean report on the 2004 verdict, see here.
For a discussion of the constitutionality of Koizumi's visits, see here.
[3] The Sunagawa Incident refers to large-scale protests in of plans to enlarge the U.S. base at Tachikawa, west of Tokyo, in 1957. The Tokyo District Court, as part of its March 1959 decision, declared the presence of U.S. bases in Japan to be in violation of Article 9 (see below [4]), a finding reversed by the Supreme Court in December of that same year.
[4] “1) 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. 2) 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.” [from the official translation; the entire text may be found here.
[5] “Excepting those instances where the Constitution has made specific provision, the courts are vested with the authority to judge all legal disputes and to make determinations with respect to all other laws.” [Judiciary Law, Article 3, paragraph 1]
[6] “No person shall be denied the right of access to the courts.” [Article 32]
[7] “We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National the Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith. We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations. We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources.” [from the official translation]
[8] “All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.” [Article 13]
[9] On February 27, 2005, Obora Toshiyuki, Onishi Nobuhiro and Takada Sachimi (all men in their late 40s) were taken into police custody for distributing pamplets in the SDF dormitories, asking SDF members to think more deeply about their involvement and support for an illegal and expensive war. The men were held for seventy-five days before being charged with criminal trespass and released on bail. Prosecutors asked the Hachioji branch of the Tokyo District Court to give the men a six-month prison sentence, but the case was thrown out of court. The prosecutors appealed to the Tokyo High Court, where on 9 December 2005, the three men were convicted of criminal trespass for the danger they posed to the SDF. The men are currently appealing this conviction and the ¥100,000 fine levied against them (although this was reduced from ¥200,000). For further information in English, see here and here.
[10] The Yokohama Incident is a term used in the postwar period to describe the arrests of more than fifty journalists and lower-ranking government officials, beginning in Yokohama on 14 December 1942 and continuing into 1945. Trumped-up charges implicated the accused of Communist activities. The incident is seen as a prime example of the deployment of the Peace Preservation Law for the wartime suppression of ideas deemed dangerous by the government as well as brutal interrogation techniques that led to the death of four men in custody and two others shortly after release on bail.
The arrests had especially serious consequences for two of the most influential liberal journals of the prewar era, Kaizo and Chuo Koron. Senior staff at both magazines were forced to leave after publishing articles the government deemed Communist in 1942, and both magazines ceased publication in 1944 under this pressure. They were restarted in 1946.
The victims of these arrests and their families have engaged in a lengthy court battle with the Japanese state, asking for an apology and restitution of their good name. The Tokyo High Court recently dismissed appeals brought by family members of five of the men (all now deceased) who sought to clear their names. For more information in English, see here and here.
[11] The article describes how Japan contracted out the water-supplying mission to a French NGO, which then had the actual work done by Iraqi workers. The project as executed by the NGO is said to be far more effective, both in cost and numbers served, than what the SDF itself was targeted (and budgeted) to achieve. According to sources cited in the article, this is true for water purification, the construction and reconstruction of schools and roads as well. Since Japanese taxpayer money would have been far better served supporting NGOs,”humanitarian support activities” in fact obscures the political purpose for SDF presence.
[12] “The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.” [from the official translation]
[13] Japanese citizens organized an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI; Iraku kokusai minshu hotei) to run in conjunction with the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an international people's tribunal modeled on the Bertrand Russell World Peace Foundation tribunal of the late 1960s on crimes committed in Vietnam. The Russell Tribunal was also the model for the Women's Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery in 2000, and those involved in the latter contributed the lessons learned from that experience to the WTI. The ICTI, like the Women's Tribunal, had an international panel of judges; defendants were George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Koizumi Jun'ichiro, and Gloria Arroyo (President of the Philippines). Information may be found here. The WTI held hearings “on crimes against humanity and against the planet” in twenty sites around the world, beginning in 2003, and delivered its judgment in a final session in Istanbul that was attended by representatives from over 100 countries in 2005. For an observer's report here. Arundhati Roy delivered the opening keynote, “On Behalf of the Jury of Conscience of the World” on 24 June 2005, to be found here. A number of sources refer to a WTI website here that could not, however, be accessed as of8 October 2007. The findings of the Jury of Conscience may be read here.
[14] From a provisional translation of the Special Measures Law for Iraq by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs available here. The term “combat” is marked with an asterisk in the original, but there are no footnotes.
[15] The Hyakuri Base suit concerned the efforts of citizens to prevent state purchase of land for the purpose of air base construction. The Supreme Court in its 1989 decision confirmed lower court rulings that the state was acting in a capacity equivalent to that of a private citizen and that the case therefore did not involve the Constitution. For insight into the continued Japanese distinction between “private law” and “public law” as applied to this case, see here; a good brief discussion of the case in Japanese may be found here.
[16] For a contemporary report in English see here; unfortunately, an English translation of the Supreme Court ruling that was available on this website but a few months ago has disappeared.
[17] For an update on Minamata contextualizing the Supreme Court ruling see here.
You have
Access
Open access