|
Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan was added on its
adoption in 1947 and concerns the military of Japan.
Article 9 reads:
"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.
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."
Soon after the adoption of the constitution of Japan in 1947, there was a
desire on the part of the US occupation forces for Japan to take a more
active military role in the struggle against communism.
Some historians attribute the inclusion of Article 9 to Charles Kades, one
of MacArthur's closest associates, who was impressed by the spirit of the
1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war. MacArthur himself claimed that the
idea had been suggested to him by Prime Minister Shidehara. 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 "No War"
clause weakened their arguments in favor of abolishing the throne or trying
the emperor as a war criminal.
Article 9 has had broad implications for foreign policy and has been
reinterpreted by the ruling government as renouncing the use of force in
international affairs, but not renouncing a national right to self-defense.
The institution of judicial review as exercised by the Supreme Court, the
status of the Self-Defense Forces, and the nature and tactics of opposition
politics. This interpretation, which is opposed by many in the left-wing in
Japan, allowed for the creation of the Japan Self-Defense Force. In
practice, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are very well equipped and the
maritime forces are widely considered to be stronger than the navies of
Japan's neighbors.
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 Self-Defense Forces averaged more than 5 percent 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.
Analogues of the article 9 existed in the in the German post-war
Grundgesetz. Both Eastern Germany and Western Germany had similar laws and
the rearmament of these states also happened under pressure of their
corresponding allies the United States and the Soviet Union. The
constitution has changed over the years from "no army" to "army for
self-defense or defense of NATO-allies" to include also participation in
UN-missions.
|
