Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a clause in the National
Constitution of Japan that prohibits an act of war by the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, immediately following
World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces war as a sovereign right and bans settlement of international disputes through the use of force. The article also states that, to accomplish these aims, armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.
Text of the article
The full text of the article in Japanese:
The official English translation of the article reads:
Historical background
The failure of the collective security of the
League of Nations led to the realization that a universal system of security could only be effective if nations agreed to some limitation of their national sovereignty with regard to their right to belligerence. Like the German Article 24, which was incorporated in the post-war
German Constitution, and which provides for delegating or limiting sovereign powers in favor of collective security, Article 9 was added to the
Constitution of Japan during the
occupation following
World War II.
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander
Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister
Kijūrō Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever." Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan. Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs
Gaikō Gojū-Nen (
Fifty Years Diplomacy), published in 1951, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo; MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara's authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, he denied having done so, and the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of of , especially
Charles Kades, one of
Douglas MacArthur's closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of
Japan on November 3, 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan's use of force "for its own security," believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.
[Edward J. L. Southgate, "," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151, p. 1599.]The article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Some
Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behavior. His assent to the "anti-war" clause weakened their arguments for abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal.
Interpretation
thumb|Sailors of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, one of the de facto military forces ostensibly permitted under Article 9.
Soon after the adoption of the Constitution of Japan in 1947, the
Chinese Civil War ended in victory for the
Communist Party of China in 1949 and the establishment of the
People's Republic of China. As a consequence, the
United States was left without the
Republic of China as a military ally against
communism in the Pacific. There was a desire on the part of the United States occupation forces for Japan to take a more active military role in the struggle against communism during the
Cold War.
In 1950, following the outbreak of the
Korean War, the U.S.
24th Infantry Division was pulled out of Japan and sent to fight on the front lines in Korea, leaving Japan without any armed protection. MacArthur ordered the creation of a 75,000-strong to maintain order in Japan and repel any possible invasion from outside. The NPR was organized by United States Army Col.
Frank Kowalski (later a U.S. congressman) using Army surplus equipment. To avoid possible constitutional violations, military items were given civilian names: tanks, for instance, were named "special vehicles."
[James E. Auer, "Article Nine of Japan's Constitution: From Renunciation of Armed Force 'Forever' to the Third Largest Defense Budget in the World," Law and Contemporary Problems 53 (1990).] Shigesaburo Suzuki, a leader of the
Japan Socialist Party (JSP), brought suit in the
Supreme Court of Japan to have the NPR declared unconstitutional: however, his case was dismissed by the Grand Bench for lack of relevance.
On August 1, 1952, a new was formed to supervise the NPR and its maritime component. The new agency was directly headed by Prime Minister
Shigeru Yoshida. Yoshida supported its constitutionality: although he stated in a 1952 Diet committee session that "to maintain war potential, even for the purpose of self-defense, [would] necessitate revision of the Constitution." He later responded to the JSP's constitutionality claims by stating that the NSF had no true war potential in the modern era.
In 1954, the National Safety Agency became the
Japan Defense Agency, and the National Police Reserve became the
Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF).
In practice, the
JSDF are very well equipped and the maritime forces are considered to be stronger than the navies of some of Japan's neighbors. The
Supreme Court of Japan has reinforced the constitutionality of armed self-defense in several major rulings, most notably the "Sunakawa Case" of 1959, which upheld the legality of the then-current U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.
Debate
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution not only forbids the use of
force as a means to settling international disputes but also forbids Japan from maintaining an
army,
navy or
air force. Therefore, in strictly legal terms, the Self Defense Forces are not land, sea or air forces, but are extensions of the national police force. This has had broad implications for foreign, security and defense policy. The
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) government has interpreted Article 9 as renouncing the use of warfare in international disputes but not the internal use of force for the purpose of maintaining law and order. The
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) tends to concur with the government's interpretation. At the same time, both parties have advocated the revision of Article 9 by adding an extra
clause explicitly authorizing the use of force for the purpose of self-defense against aggression directed against the Japanese nation. The now-defunct
Japan Socialist Party (JSP), on the other hand, had considered the
Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) as unconstitutional and advocated the full implementation of Article 9 through the demilitarization of Japan. When the party joined with the LDP to form a coalition government, it reversed its position and recognized the JSDF as a structure that was constitutional. The
Japanese Communist Party (JCP) considers the
JSDF unconstitutional and has called for reorganization of Japanese defense policy to feature an armed militia.
Since the late-1990s, Article 9 has been the central feature of a dispute over the ability of Japan to undertake multilateral military commitments overseas. During the late 1980s, increases in government appropriations for the JSDF averaged more than 5% per year. By 1990 Japan was ranked third, behind the then-
Soviet Union and the
United States, in total defense expenditures, and the United States urged Japan to assume a larger share of the burden of defense of the western
Pacific. Given these circumstances, some have viewed Article 9 as increasingly irrelevant. It has remained, however, an important brake on the growth of Japan's military capabilities. Despite the fading of bitter wartime memories, the general public, according to opinion polls, continued to show strong support for this constitutional provision.
The majority of Japanese citizens approve the spirit of Article 9 and consider it personally important. But since the 1990s, there has been a shift away from a stance that would tolerate no alteration of the article to allowing a revision that would resolve the discord between the JSDF and Article 9. Additionally, quite a few citizens consider that Japan should allow itself to commit the Self-Defense Forces to
collective defense efforts, like those agreed to on the
UN Security Council in the
Gulf War, for instance.
Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe marked the 60th anniversary of the Japanese Constitution in 2007 by calling for a bold review of the document to allow the country to take a larger role in global security and foster a revival of national pride.
International comparisons
In the
Italian Constitution the Article 11 is similar to the Japanese analogue, but the use of military forces is permitted for self-defence (articles 54 and 78) and also for
peace keeping purposes, if agreed with international organizations:
"L'Italia ripudia la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli e come mezzo di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali; consente, in condizioni di parità con gli altri Stati, alle limitazioni di sovranità necessarie ad un ordinamento che assicuri la pace e la giustizia fra le Nazioni; promuove e favorisce le organizzazioni internazionali rivolte a tale scopo." ("Italy repudiates war as an instrument offending the liberty of the peoples and as a means for settling international disputes; it agrees to limitations of sovereignty where they are necessary to allow for a legal system of peace and justice between nations, provided the principle of reciprocity is guaranteed; it promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.")
See also
