Constitution of Japan: Issues surrounding revision.
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on May 10th, 2007
The Constitution of Japan turned sixty last week on May 3. Shinzo Abe is intent on revising the constitution, in particular article 9, the peace clause.
There have been many news articles in the last couple of weeks, and here I provide a list of some of the more interesting articles that have appeared in English recently. I first summarize the main issues surrounding the constitution of Japan.
I may update this page in the future. Comments or corrections are always welcome. I plan to blog an opinion regarding article 9 in a separate entry soon.
Main Issues:
There are currently three main issues regarding the constitution in Japan, and it’s important to separate them out. They are as follows:
- Revision of the Constitution: Should the constitution be revised, and if so in what ways?
- Should article 9, the peace clause be revised so Japan can engage in collective self-defense and in missions similar to America’s actions in Iraq? (LDP)
- Should the separation between religion and government be slightly weakened?(LDP)
- Should there be greater decentralization? (DPJ)
- Should privacy laws be strengthened?(DPJ)
- Should article 12 be weakened to make it easier to appropriate land for public projects? (LDP)
- et cetera.
- Referendum-procedure bill: What sort of process should be set into law for allowing constitutional change?
- Should the referendum bill also include allowing people to have referendums on important issues? (DPJ)
- Should there be a minimum turn out in order for the vote to take effect? (DPJ)
- Should the mimimum age to vote in the referendum be 18 (DPJ) or 20 (LDP)?
- et cetera.
- Reinterpreting the constitution: Abe has set up a panel (of sycophants) who will attempt find a way to circumnavigate the constitution by using obtuse and dubious legal arguments. There are
fivefour scenarios that will be considered. - If North Korea shoots a missle at America, can Japan shoot it down? Presumably under the current constitution the answer is no.
- If China were to attack America ships in the Pacific, could Japan come to their aid? Presumably under the current constitution the answer is no.
- If while on a rebuilding mission in Iraq (or some palce) Allies were to come under fire, what kind of support would Japan be able to provide? Presumably under the current constitution the answer is none.
If while visiting the United States in an official capacity a Prime Minister of Japan were to be accidently shot by Dick Cheney, would that constitute an act of war, requiring Japan to act in self-defense?Oops. Strike that. Mistake.- What kind of rear line support can Japan provide for Allies who are engaged in combat? Presumably under the current constitution the answer is, none.
Newspaper Links:
- 2007/05/09 Revision risks freedoms, U.S. academic warns, Eric Johnston, The Japan Times. “For [Douglas] Lummis, the great fear is that if the LDP’s proposed Constitution were to actually replace the current one, the freedom of individuals to protest would be greatly curtailed. Under the LDP draft, human rights clauses have been reworded more in the fashion of the prewar Meiji Constitution, he said.”
- 2007/05/08 Not a Throwback to Fascism: Ex Anchor, Sakurai Weighs in on patriotism Hiroko Nakata The Japan Times; Yoshiko Sakurai says: “I wonder why it is such a big problem. No one has given me a satisfactory explanation … It is irrational to say that inclusion of ‘patriotism’ in the preamble of the Constitution would send Japan reeling back into fascism.” Perhaps it’s irrational to disagree with Sakurai in general. The idea that people should be required in the constitution to love their country is clearly frightening. It fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of government, which is to serve the people not vice versa.
- 2007/05/07 Constitution protects all: political expert, Reiji Yoshida, The Japan Times; Second-generation Korean’s perspective. Nice article.
- 2007/05/06 Collective defense right needs more than study, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Suggests reinterpretation is a good idea.
- 2007/05/06 Abe’s panel on defense dominated by hawks, The Japan Times. ” … the composition of the membership suggests that the panel’s findings may be a foregone conclusion in line with Abe’s stance, which favors allowing Japan to come to the aid of an ally — namely the United States — when it is under attack.”
- 2007/05/06 DPRK accuses Japan of retrogressively revising constitution, People’s Daily Online. Reading this is enough to make ME support revision.
- 2007/05/05 Nakasone proposes new top law preamble, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Yuck!
- 2007/05/05 Modify Constitution for modern world, scholar urges Akemi Nakamura, The Japan Times; Setsu Kobayashi, an constitutional scholar says we need more privacy in the constitution and agrees article 9 should be modified because of North Korea and terrorism. [Does he want Japan to make war on the terrorists?]
- 2007/05/05 Beware loss of peace clause: philosopher, Politicians seen sowing seeds of militarism under naive public’s nose, Setsuko Kamiya, The Japan Times. This article details Tetsuya Takahashi arguments against changing article 9 and 20. Some nice analysis from the left. Tetsuya Takahashi’s views on Yasukuni Shrine are here.
- 2007/05/04 Abe facing battle over constitutional change, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Ozawa plays politics and for now opposes revising article 9. Yomiuri says its a bad idea, I don’t think so.
- 2007/05/04 Japan’s new strategies, Asahi Shimbun; Preserve the constitution but create a law that spells out how Japan can use the Self-Defense force?
- 2007/05/04 Abe’s Constitutional Amendment Misses the Mark, Chosun Ilbo. Only six percent of Japaense support changing article 9.
- 2007/05/04 Nakasone: Constitution defective, preamble needs ‘love of nation’ clause, Masami Ito, The Japan Times; Nakasone wants to coerce Japanese to love their country by putting it in the constitution.
- 2007/05/04 Opposition Panel Head Speaks, LDP wants to cut freedoms: DPJ, Reiji Yoshida, The Japan Times; Article spells out what DPJ wants out of constitutional revision. Decentralize power, more checks in place to control the bureaucrats, and stand by the peace clause. Sounds good!
- 2007/05/04 Proponents of Article 9 like it just the way it is, Akemi Nakamura, The Japan Times. “Thousands of people gathered Thursday in Tokyo’s Hibiya Park to mark the 60th anniversary of the Constitution and to oppose moves by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party to amend it and its war-renouncing Article 9.”
- 2007/05/04 Constitution turns 60; Abe wants change: Polls find public split, protective of Article 9 The Japan Times; “Public support for constitutional change is mixed. In separate poll results published Thursday, the Mainichi Shimbun and Nikkei newspapers said 51 percent of those surveyed supported changing the Constitution. It was the first time those supporting a change topped 50 percent, the Mainichi said.”
- 2007/05/03 Abe rallies forces on constitutional revisions, Asahi Shimbun; Abe appeals to his base, while Nakasone says they’ll need the DPJ to make things happen.
- 2007/05/03 78% say Article 9 has helped keep Japan peace, Asahi Shimbun; “Only 18 percent of the respondents said the Self-Defense Forces should be turned into a “self-defense military,” showing a wide gap between public opinion and the direction of the revisions being pushed by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.” Good.
- 2007/05/03 Editorial/The Constitution at 60, Asahi Shimbun; Is Abe two faced in regards to the constitution? What does he really envision for Japan’s future?
- 2007/05/03 Honoring the Constitution The Japan Times. What are Abe’s plans. He needs to spell them out.
- 2007/05/03 Katsuyuki Kumano: Appeal to U.N. on problems of referendum bill, Asahi Shimbun; Explains why Taro-san would not be able to vote under the current system.
- 2007/05/03 2007–historic year in top law’s history, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Revise article 9 because Japan is under threat? Let Japanese blood be spilt in Iraq? Use the SDF to keep North Korea nuke free?
- 2007/05/03 Japan must change Constitution to change nation: Abe, The Japan Times. Abe wants to change the nation. In otherwords he cares about Japan, but not the individual people in Japan.
- 2007/05/03 Proponent of rewriting Article 9 still wants limits, Reiji Yoshida, The Japan Times. “… [Hajime] Funada … argued that the right of collective defense should be exercised only in emergencies in areas surrounding Japan, and that revising the Constitution should explicitly detail such limitations to avoid any future government from stretching its interpretation.“
- 2007/05/03 Abe urges charter for ‘new Japan’ Aljazeera.net; “However, the limits of the article have already been stretched with the government interpreting its pacifist clauses to mean the country can have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong Self-Defence Forces. According to figures from globalsecurity.org, Japan has the world’s sixth biggest defence expenditure, with a military budget of $41.75 bn in 2007.”
- 2007/04/14 Top law revision has taken big step, Shozo Nakayama, The Daily Yomiuri; Overview.
- 2007/04/29 Experts say time for top law revision, Kiyomi Arai, Daily Yomiuri; Taro Nakayama says: “When I visited Saudi Arabia, the country’s foreign minister greeted me at the airport, and the first thing he said was they wanted Japan to send Self-Defense Forces.” Nakayama wants to be able to say yes in the future.
- 2007/04/28 Collective self-defense panel to study 4 scenarios Asahi Shimbun; When can Japan argue self-defense, when it isn’t really the case and get away with it. Experts try to decide.
- 2007/04/28 Collective self-defense, Asahi Shimbun; Abe says, “A military alliance is an ‘alliance of blood,’ … If Japan is attacked by a foreign enemy, young Americans will shed their blood. However, under the present constitutional interpretation, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are not asked to be prepared to shed blood when the United States comes under attack.” How do Americans feel about this? At least some don’t like it.
- 2007/04/27 Constitutional Conundrums, New panel to debate collective defense, Hiroka Nakata, The Japan Times. The government will set up a panel in May to find a way to work around article 9 by redefining various terms. They should use linguists instead of hand-picked “experts”.
- 2007/04/26 Abe marks Constitution’s 60th year by calling it datedThe Japan Times; Abe says: “Under the current circumstances, I strongly hope that debate on a Constitution that describes how the country should be and establishes a new nation is actively carried out with the people …” The constitution should not be about forming a nation, as much as delineating a the rights of the people that live within the nation. This is the difference between traditional liberalism and nationalism.
- 2007/04/23 Referendum bill likely to be passed in May, The Yomiuri Shimbun.
- 2007/04/17 Response to Abe’s Drive, Support falls for amending Constitution The Japan Times. 57% of the people favor changing the constitution.
- 2007/04/17 Constitution referendum bill clears Lower House, Ruling bloc forces plenary vote; opposition foiled Masami Ito, The Japan Times; Good Overview of referendum bill.
- 2007/04/15 Ozawa killed dialogue on referendum, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Fascinating article discussing the politics behind the vote on the referendum. I don’t agree with the verdict of the Yomiuri Shimbun. As Naoto Kan stated, “”It won’t be all right unless the ruling parties wholly accept [the demands] formally.” Any thing less would have been unacceptable.
- 2007/04/14 House passes referendum bill, Asahi Shimbun.
- 2007/04/14 Charter referendum bill not a political tool, The Yomiuri Shimbun; Are referendums a good idea. The Yomiuri says no, but I would say yes. Give the people more power.
- 2007/04/14 Constitution bill lacks consensus The Japan Times; Editors of the Japan Times miss the point. Leadership is not consensus. That’s Abe’s one good quality; he wants to lead.
- 2007/04/13 Referendum bill OK’d, Masami Ito, The Japan Times. “A key House of Representatives panel approved a bill Thursday to set procedures for a national referendum to revise the Constitution, despite the opposition parties’ attempts to stop the vote by swarming the chairman.”
- 2007/04/09 Who will defend Japan’s Constitution?, Craig Martin, The Japan Times; Fantastic editorial. Reinterpreting the constitution is the judiciary’s job, not the legislature’s. Abe is seriously misguided. Save the constitution!
- 2006/11/01 Abe says he will tackle Constitution, including Article 9, Hiroko Nakata, The Japan Times. ” …Tokyo should shoot down any ballistic missiles that fly over Japanese territory toward the United States. Such action would require a major shift in the government’s interpretation of the Constitution, which, according to current thinking, bars collective defense.”
- 2006/05/04 Constitution survey shows 77% oppose changing Article 9, The Japan Times.
- 2005/03/01 Clampdown on freedom eyed in LDP’s Constitution, The Japan Times. Old story, but harrowing in its implications.
- 2004/04/21 LDP panel eyes changes to Constitution preamble, The Japan Times Dated, but interesting.
Blog Links:
- 2007/05/07 Article 9 and Constitutional Revision, Spider-Man, and Population Decline: TPR News for Monday, May 7, 2007 Trans-Pacific Radio; “His [Shinzo Abe’s] panel examining the right to collective defense, one of the central issues in current interpretations of and future revisions to Article 9, consists of 13 members. Of those 13, 12 have made public statements, on the record, criticizing the current interpretation and calling for reinterpretation.”
- 2007/05/07 Japanese Constituion and Militarizing the country, Fox Devil“Japan’s long time adversaries North Korea and of course China are both heavily armed and outwardly aggressive nations that I am sure would just love to level Japan flat and claim it as there own … Those Japanese who would like to consider militarizing the country should definately take into account exactly what that would mean for them. Competing in today’s military landscape means maintaining a nuclear capability, period, if you don’t got em then you’re not in the running.”
- 2007/05/07 Where do we go from here? Celebrating Protest; “Apart from a few radical voices that somehow manage to get airtime in the media, I am unsure whether we can label those who favor revising Article 9 as blood-thirsty warmongers who will use Japan’s officially recognized military force as an excuse to repeat past transgressions (of course, Ms. Nakajima herself said nothing along these lines, but such people have been portrayed in this way).”
- 2007/05/06 The constitution revision blitz, Observing Japan; “In any case, Amaki concludes that the DPJ is probably, for the most part, full of advocates of revising Article 9 anyway, implying that the whole debate about revision is a farce, driven more by the DPJ’s electoral interests than by genuine disagreement with the LDP.”
- 2007/05/05 Seijigiri #23: Abe, Aso and Kyuma to the US, and the state of constitutional reform in Japan Trans-Pacific Radio; “We look at opposition to constitutional reform - which is usually taken to be the re-writing of Article 9 - and especially opposition from New Komeito, who is the Liberal Democratic Party’s coalition partner in the Diet. Could there be a split in the ruling coalition over the coming years? What of consensus within the LDP itself?”
- 2007/05/05 Article 9 第九条, Sponge bear“Being under the nuclear umbrella of the United States has allowed Japan to focus its energies in areas other than national security. Those times, however, are changing. North-East Asia is a dangerous place, and the constitution might need to be amended to reflect the changing realities of the new era.”
- 2007/05/05 Toward a Japanese Constitution, Asian Cable“What has emerged is the fruit of a bunch of old pols working behind closed doors to change a document that was written by a bunch of foreigners working behind closed doors. Why couldn’t Japan convene a constitutional convention to write a new charter? Then it might have a genuine “Japanese” constitution.” [Incremental change works best in my book.]
- 2007/05/04 Abe urges charter for ‘new Japan‘, Online Writing and Research File; Check out this blog, they ask many pertinant questions such as, “Why are the amendments necessary for the next generation of Japanese to feel pride and confidence in Japan?”
- 2007/05/03 Japan’s constitution turns sixty Observing Japan; “Again, as with the transformation of the US-Japan alliance, what matters is the process: if constitution revision results from a genuine debate, engaging all parts of Japanese society, as opposed to being imposed from above, then indeed constitution revision can play an important part in rejuvenating Japanese society in the twenty-first century. But if it just perpetuates heavy-handed, top-down rule from above by authorities in Nagata-cho and Kasumigaseki, then constitution revision is the wrong policy at the wrong time for the Japanese people.” Nicely stated.
- 2007/05/03 Constitution Day Peace March, Brian’s Meandering Mind; “You could be forgiven for thinking you had stumbled into a strange sort of festival if you happened to be in central Tokyo’s Hibiya Park today … No, today a more serious undernote ran through the crowds and at three o’clock sharp, sent them streaming into Ginza chanting slogans and waving placards bearing cartoons of men in fatigues programming school children to become killing machines.”
- 2007/05/02 Japan Constitution - Article 9 JapanNewbie. “However, if the constitution is revised, it better be done after heavy discussions with China, Korea, and other neighboring Asian countries and not unilaterally, or there is sure to be heavy political backlash.” Is Harvey serious?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I was hoping that the constitution would not need to be amended, but it looks unavoidable now. The East Asian security situation pretty much demands it, what with North Korea having in the past threatened to turn Tokyo into a “sea of fire” now in possession of nuclear weapons. Imagine, threatening the worlds only constitutionally pacifist country like that. There are other things of course, such as national self-defense turning out to be illegal, ect. There are other reasons, like Japan not being fit for the security council because of its unusual constitution, and the idea that neighboring countries are aggressive towards Japan because of its pacifist stance.
One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the way many media outside Japan will report this is in a context of supposed “rising nationalism” or a “return to militarism”, and other such canards.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Currently there is almost no public support for altering article 9 of the constitution. Moreover, despite the number of politicians on the right in both parties, I don’t think they have enough people to get near 2/3’s majority. It’d be political suicide for most. Therefore, I would say it looks pretty unlikely for now as opposed to unavoidable.
North Korea would appear to be a basket case. There’s little to gain from them actually attacking someone. I think the greater threat is they try to sell one of their nukes to a terrorist organization. Are you suggesting a remilitarized Japan would find it advisable to initiate first strike on North Korea to get their nukes or something? I wonder how many Japanese would support that.
Just for clarity’s sake. Japan is quite capable of self-defense. What they are not capable of is using force for collective self-defense or as a means of diplomacy. Is that really so bad?
Right. Americans, at least, should look in their own backyard. It’s the neocons and other nationalists there who are pushing Japan to arm up and join the struggle for a new world order. I can’t imagine their hubris once Japan joins in on the fun. Double fire power. Watch out, Iran, here we come!
May 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
[…] week on May 3, the Japanese Constitution turned sixty. Matt at Japan in amber compiled a comprehensive list of articles on the topic and a general outline of the main issues involved in d…. Share […]
May 10th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
At the moment it is unlikely, but the Prime Minister is trying to build a consensus. I think that eventually it will happen.
No. I think it is best to ignore North Korea. It should be made clear (by the US) that any North Korean nuclear attack on another country, or any nuclear attack by nukes sourced from North Korea would result in immediate nuclear retaliation.
What I mean is the uncertainty of the legal position of national defense. In a way this uncertainty increases the risk of conflict. I do not think that force should ever be used in diplomacy, not for any reason, and I hope that when the constitution is changed, it prohibits international adventures.
Yes, that could be a terrible side effect of the constitutional change. With the current administration fighting an illegal war (and threatening more to come), they could bring Japan into it on their side.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:09 am
It seems very odd to me that any democratic state should choose to limit its own ability to use military force… Even if military action would serve to protect its own interests and/or help an ally.
It’s much better to talk than to shoot, but in my opinion Japan should give itself the power to decide whether or not it wants to use military action, when dealing with a particular situation.
Besides, if Japan’s Constitution was indeed modified to allow it the freedom to use its military, for the reasons mentioned above. It’s silly to simply assume that they would immediately turn into “Imperial Japan” or go around the globe imposing their will on others.
Matt Dioguardi wrote… “Japan is quite capable of self-defense. What they are not capable of is using force for collective self-defense or as a means of diplomacy. Is that really so bad?”
I would like to ask the following…
Is a Japan with the capability to use “force for collective self-defense or as a means of diplomacy, really so bad?
Many democratic countries are able to use force in order to resolve disputes and/or deal with whatever situation they come across on the world stage, if they choose to do so. The majority prefer to talk it out instead.
Japan would most likely choose to talk, as well.
Regards,
May 11th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Matt@occidental,
Consensus is the bottom-up approach. Abe, at least here, would seem to be taking a top-down approach. In other words, he’s leading. Like Abe’s hero, Margaret Thatcher, once said:
“Consensus is the absence of leadership.”
Not sure if that will work in Japan, but good for Abe. However, take a look at these survey numbers from the Asahi:
I do hope Abe manages to create more partisanship in Japan. This would create political competition over the issues. That would be good, so while I don’t want to commit myself to his hawkish stance, attempts at strong leadership are welcome.
This would seem to undermine one of the main arguments being put forth that Japan needs to revise article 9, or at least that Japan needs to engage in collective self-defense and diplomacy by force.
Well, how about engaging in collective self-defense with a country actively engaged in policing the world? America, for better or worse, is a world cop. Now if that causes America to be attacked should Japan then be willing to commit troops to fight the attacker?
Matt@O, my guess is that this is exactly what the Hawks want to do in Japan. They want to be world cop just like America. Their jealous and it hurts their national pride not be part of the world cop team. (Now they just pay money and are protected.) Abe expresses strong sympathies with the conservatives in America and a dislike for the liberals. He’s a Japanese version of the neocons, and it’s people like them who want to revise the constitution.
May 11th, 2007 at 5:31 am
David,
It doesn’t seem odd to me. I’m glad you say “choose to limit its own ability” because a main argument has been that Japan needs to be a “normal” nation, as if nations have an inherent right to use force. This is, of course, not true. So I’m glad you don’t phrase the issue this way. As you clearly state here, the government’s rights as representatives of the people are only those specifically prescribed to it in the constitution.
Now having said that, if people fear that their representatives might abuse their authority, then it would be wise to constitutionally forbid them to engage in certain actions, such as diplomacy via force.
Let’s face it, we’re talking about giving the government the ability to use gun boat diplomacy here. Or at least engaging in collective self-defense with those who do.
Why do Japanese representatives in the government need to be able to carry out gun boat diplomacy?
Regards,
May 11th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Matt,
You wrote “I’m glad you say “choose to limit its own ability” because a main argument has been that Japan needs to be a “normal” nation, as if nations have an inherent right to use force.”
That’s a good point!
Personally, I don’t think there is such a thing as a normal nation. Who and/or what determines what constitutes a “normal” nation?
However, I think a nation does have an “inherent right to use force” (mostly as a last resort) in order to protect itself, its interests, and if it chooses to do so, to assist its allies.
For example, Canada has in the past, chosen to use force and fight alongside its allies during wars (WWI, WWII, Korea), but chose not to join the US in Vietnam, and again during the latest, or should I say on-going, Iraq war.
Now, would it be fair to say Canada has a history of using “gun boat diplomacy”? No.
But it would be fair to say Canada has the ability to engage in collective self-defense with those who do use gun boat diplomacy, if it chooses to do so.
Obviously, there are other democratic states that would fit in the same category, but I am Canadian, and so I chose my own country as an example.
Being a typical Canuck, and as I previously wrote , I do strongly believe that it is better to talk than to shoot. Still, I believe a democratic state should have the ability to choose to use force, if and when it is deemed necessary.
I agree with both you and Matt@O that the possibility of joining (in actual combat) the US in another Iraq-like war would be “a terrible side effect of the constitutional change”, and I truly hope that sort of thing never happens.
Nevertheless, I’m fairly confident that given Japan’s strong anti-war sentiments, Japan would never go along with a US/Iraq-style war.
Regards,
May 11th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I don’t know the who answered for Asahi, though
according to Mainichi, 51% agreed on changing the constitution.
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/seiji/gyousei/news/20070503k0000m010106000c.html
(in Japanese, sorry)
As we are still the number 2 in economy, we don’t need a
gun boat diplomacy for friends. We have the economy power.
And to those who can talk, we do. We do.
However, we shouldn’t forget that China has quite a few
missles targeted to Tokyo, North Korea is working on its own
and kidnapping our citizens, South Korea is illegally
occupating
Takeshima now working on Tsushima. These citizens are educated
to hate Japan, why should/could we be friends?
And almost no-one wants to be a world cop in Japan, there
are no advantages being one. Our country is rotten safe,
at least in the surface. Who would like to go for war?
People who wants to change the constitution like me don’t
want to carry guns going to our hoods.
We just want a safe key, and if one is to tamper it he
will get hurt.
Sorry for my poor English skills.
Thank you.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
[…] ha contribuido a la paz en Japón. Los puntos que más acogen los japoneses son las propuestas de reconocer mayores derechos (especialmente el de una mayor intimidad), relajar las leyes sobre la […]
May 13th, 2007 at 6:31 am
David,
Thanks as always for your comments.
I think you said it better the first time around. When working out international agreements, perhaps it makes sense in a loose sort of way to talk about the rights of nations. However, I think we need to emphasized again and again, that nations have no rights whatsoever except those given to them by the people. People on the other hand face no restrictions on their rights except those specified in their constitutions.
It is specified in the American constitution that people have the right to free speech. (As an amendment.) Note, people had the right to free speech before this was specified in the constitution. There were some people who thought it would give the wrong idea to even specify this in the constitution. (i.e. People would think the constitution *gives* them that right.) However, it was decided that if rights weren’t clearly spelled out in the constitution, it might be too easy for the government to transgress them in order to fulfill the functions given to it. So rights were added after all (the bill of rights were established as amendments, so initially they weren’t even in the constitution).
So one more time because I like to say it:
Governments or nations have no rights except those specifically given to them by the people. People have a right to do anything unless that right has specifically been taken from them by the constitution.
So whether a nation has a right to make war or not is not up to whether nations have this inherent right or not, but entirely up to the people in that country and whether they want to grant their nation that right or not.
I disagree. I think it depends on the democratic state. I think situations vary. In general, I think people should be very cautious about granting this right to their government.
I honestly believe it has nearly nothing to do with sentiment nor with culture. Most people, when given the time to think it over, do not want foreign adventures. What is needed are institutional structures that slow down the debate when things get overheated, and allow for a minority to make their case to the people to slow down things before they get out of control.
What I am saying here, unless the proper institutional structures are in place to stop it, any country will at times be caught up in the heat of the moment and act unwisely. Currently, America might be a case in point here. However, if there are institutions in place, then a minority will have time to make their arguments and calm down the rest, such that their view, being more reasonable will prevail. (Perhaps this is happening in America now.)
Everything depends on the institutions in place in the country.
What kinds of institutions does Japan have in place that would work against getting caught up in a zeitgeist?
Here are points that do not act in Japan’s favor.
These are just some examples. Before Japan is ready to use war as an extension of diplomacy, first it needs to work on its own institutional structures to improve democracy in Japan. Otherwise, the ability to make war in other than self-defense will be one that is too easily abused.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Haggy,
Here is the English version of the article you cite:
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070503p2a00m0na012000c.html
Asahi reports that:
Mainichi reports 51% want to change the constitution.
Asahi reports 58% want to change the constitution.
What useless surveys if they can’t even get with in 7 percent of each other. Anyway, the main problem here is article nine. Who wants to revise it and how?
Most people don’t want to revise it. Many of those who do, only want it revised to acknowledge the reality that Japan does, in fact, have a military. Some want Japan to be able to take part in U.N. sponsored actions ONLY.
So I think one needs to be more careful when looking at these surveys. Most people don’t want the constitution changed in such a way that Japan can make war as a preemptive action. However, given how politicians are likely to give any revision a loose interpretation, it’d be best to take a very cautious approach here.
Then let’s be careful about how the constitution is modified.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
[…] last week on May 3rd, amid widespread debate and discussion on the topic, Japan celebrated the 60th anniversary of its constitution. The anniversary comes at a […]