Should or should not Japan revise Article 9 of its Constitution?

Résumé du document

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was added during the occupation after World War II, after the defeat of the Axis alliance (Germany, Italy and Japan) by the Allies (mainly composed by British Empire, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and United States of America) in 1946. The source of the Article is disputed, with the Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki; Shidehara and Douglas MacArthur being credited with its creation, but we can say that it has been inspired by the model of the American Constitution. The primary aim of the article was to make it impossible for such a war or recur. World War II has been the hugest armed conflict that humanity has known. It involved a hundred million people from sixty one different countries, stretched out of twenty two millions km², killing sixty two million people. Albert Einstein said "I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones". Far from being encouraging, that sentence has the virtue of illustrating state of mind of people who had lived in the times of World War II. They were worried about what people can do when they are fighting, and involved in war. That state of mind, of non-confidence in human beings, can explain why, just after the World War II, Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution was instituted.

Extraits

[...] The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized It first aimed at reinforcing peace, renouncing to invading war (first paragraph) and to military strength and war right (second paragraph) .But the article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Indeed, some Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behaviour. His assent to the "No War" clause weakened their arguments for abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal. But some problems exist concerning its interpretation. After the World War II, Japanese politicians tried to interpret the Article Nine, through a group of bureaucrats, the legal scholars in the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. [...]

[...] Consequently, Japan needs to see its constitution in accordance with its needs (and with its reality as it has already an army). Its situation has to be clarified, and its rights have to be recognized. Even if the idea of a pacifist nation has to remain in Japan constitution (and in all the constitutions all over the world), developed countries have to be confident about Japan, have to trust it about its pacifist willingness. Japanese people need an army but it doesn't mean that they will use it. [...]

[...] In 2007, Japanese government expressed its will to revise the constitution. It wanted to hold a national referendum about the revision. Surveys showed that Japanese people are, by a majority against the giving up of the pacifist article. But they are for a reform of the constitution to clarify the Japan's situation. Consequently, we can say that from an ideological point of view, the Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution should be adopted by each country in the world since that article advocates for valour in favour of peace. [...]

[...] Indeed, Japan was a sovereign nation, and so it has right to self-defence. It can provide an infrastructure for homeland security. Since the purpose of a Japanese Self-Defence Force was homeland security, it could not contradict the potential” explicitly banned by Paragraph Two of Article NINE. This interpretation also specified the conditions under which Japan could exercise self-defence: Japan could respond with “minimum necessary force” when invaded. But it could not send forces abroad, nor could Japan participate in any collective defence arrangements. This enabled the formation of the Self-Defence Force (SDF). [...]

[...] First, it limited force levels to those sufficient to provide self defence narrowly defined, and second, it limited the use of force to self defence. The proscription of aggressive war meant that Japan could not maintain the capability to conduct “modern warfare.” Nor could it assist allied nations under attack. So, the Article Nine goes against the freedom principles in force in nearly each developed country. Those restrictions seem not acceptable for a developed country, and an economic powerful nation such as Japan. Sixty years after the World War II, the Japan military budget is the fourth most important of the world. [...]