Comments on: Should Japan put boots on the ground in Afghanistan? http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/ japan.shadowofiris.com Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:51:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Matt Dioguardi http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5835 Matt Dioguardi Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:18:32 +0000 http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5835 Ponta, Thanks, this is all very useful information. I plan to read what you have written carefully and to research this some more. Ponta,

Thanks, this is all very useful information. I plan to read what you have written carefully and to research this some more.

]]> By: ponta http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5823 ponta Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:29:07 +0000 http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5823 The followings are roughly they a standard →roughly the way a standard.... against the attempt to international peace and order →against the attempt to disrupt the international peace and order. The followings are roughly they a standard
→roughly the way a standard….

against the
attempt to international peace and order
→against the attempt to disrupt the international peace and order.

]]> By: ponta http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5821 ponta Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:14:00 +0000 http://japan.shadowofiris.com/politics/should-japan-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan/#comment-5821 The followings are roughly they a standard textbook explain various interpretations on the article 9 Theory 1 Japan renounces all the war. Theory 1(1) Because "the war" in the section 1 means all the war including self-defensive war Theory 1 (2) "The war" in the section 1 means the war that is invasive in nature;hence, Japan holds the right to engage in self-defensive war, (the self-defence is inherent right that can not be deprived of) but in the section 2 we renounce the right to hold the war potential and the right of belligerency of the state.(We have the right to self-defence, but we abandon the right to execute it.) Theory 2 Japan renounces the war that is invasive in nature. Theory 2(1) "The war" in the section 1 means the war that is invasive in nature. In order to accomplish the aim of avoiding engaging in the invasive war, Japan renounces the right to hold the war potential to the extent that we may not engage in the invasive war. (Japan hold the right to engage in self-defensive war, we have the right to hold the war potentical as long as it is necessary for self-defense. And we hold the right to engage in the international activity by the army against the attempt to international peace and order. Theory 2 (2) Japan renounces the war as sovereign right of the nation,　but she does not renounces the the threat or use of force if it is not used as means of settling international disputes. (We have the right to self-defence) The Japanese government holds the theory 2(1), while it is said many scholars on consitution holds the theory 1 (2). The supreme court avoids the judgement, saying it is highly political. These interpretations seems play on words, so some politicians want to revise it. Anyway I think the majority of politicians now hold theory 2(1) So practically in view of the constitution the point is whether Japan is engaging in the activity in IO based on UN agreement. That will justify the engagement, and I think that is basically Ozawa's argument, The followings are roughly they a standard textbook explain various interpretations on the article 9

Theory 1
Japan renounces all the war.
Theory 1(1)

Because “the war” in the section 1 means all the war including self-defensive war

Theory 1 (2)

“The war” in the section 1 means the war that is invasive in nature;hence, Japan holds the right to engage in self-defensive war, (the self-defence is inherent right that can not be deprived of) but in the section 2 we renounce the right to hold the war potential and the right of belligerency of the state.(We have the right to self-defence, but we abandon the right to execute it.)

Theory 2

Japan renounces the war that is invasive in nature.

Theory 2(1)

“The war” in the section 1 means the war that is invasive in nature.
In order to accomplish the aim of avoiding engaging in the invasive war, Japan renounces the right to hold the war
potential to the extent that we may not engage in the invasive war.
(Japan hold the right to engage in self-defensive war, we have the right to hold the war potentical as long as it is necessary for self-defense. And we hold the right to engage in the international activity by the army against the
attempt to international peace and order.

Theory 2 (2)
Japan renounces the war as sovereign right of the nation,　but she does not renounces the the threat or use of force if it is not used as means of settling international disputes.
(We have the right to self-defence)

The Japanese government holds the theory 2(1), while it is said many scholars on consitution holds the theory 1 (2).
The supreme court avoids the judgement, saying it is highly political.
These interpretations seems play on words, so some politicians want to revise it.

Anyway I think the majority of politicians now hold theory 2(1)
So practically in view of the constitution the point is whether Japan is engaging in the activity in IO based on UN agreement. That will justify the engagement, and I think that is basically Ozawa’s argument,

]]>