As President George W. Bush led a march of troops into Afghanistan, one of his strongest allies was notably missing. The Japanese, refrained by their strict interpretation of their constitution, refused to participate in any use of force in the region. Instead Japan’s powerful Self-Defense Forces (SDF), the fourth highest-funded military in the world , went to nonviolent regions of Iraq to participate in humanitarian relief efforts . Additionally, these Japanese troops required foreign troops, mostly Australian, to protect them during these operations and the Japanese were unable to provide the Australians with any protection . The former interpretation of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution prevented the SDF from engaging in any
…show more content…
One author described this right in the following manner “There is no doubt that, in principle, Article 51 permits any UN member to help another if the latter has fallen prey to an armed attack.” While the extent to which Article 51 grants countries to participate in collective self-defense is debatable, the right of collective self-defense remains clear. This right, however, is limited to armed attacks until the UN Security Council takes action on the issue. The previously mentioned hypothetical North Korean missile situation clearly falls under the scope of a country’s right to self-defense. To understand Japan’s interpretation of its obligation to accept its right to collective self-defense under the charter, two the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the Declaration of the Japanese Government on its UN Membership requires analysis. The Treaty of Peace with Japan signed on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco reads, in part, as follows:
Preamble: Whereas the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and …show more content…
While this statement does not create any obligations for Japan, some scholars have claimed that the Allied Powers inserted this statement to encourage Japan to not only participate in collective self-defense, but to rearm under the UN guidelines . Thus, the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes three indirect statements encouraging Japan to participate in acts of collective self-defense. Some challengers to collective self-defense argue that after Japan’s new policy allowing collective self-defense begins, the United States will have the political power and ability to push Japan into wars throughout the world . In addition to conflicting Japanese domestic law , Japan could use a narrow interpretation of Article 51 to avoid engaging in politically undesirable military operations abroad. The change would, however, allow SDF working in war zones to fight off attackers rather than hiding behind the
One author described this right in the following manner “There is no doubt that, in principle, Article 51 permits any UN member to help another if the latter has fallen prey to an armed attack.” While the extent to which Article 51 grants countries to participate in collective self-defense is debatable, the right of collective self-defense remains clear. This right, however, is limited to armed attacks until the UN Security Council takes action on the issue. The previously mentioned hypothetical North Korean missile situation clearly falls under the scope of a country’s right to self-defense. To understand Japan’s interpretation of its obligation to accept its right to collective self-defense under the charter, two the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the Declaration of the Japanese Government on its UN Membership requires analysis. The Treaty of Peace with Japan signed on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco reads, in part, as follows:
Preamble: Whereas the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and …show more content…
While this statement does not create any obligations for Japan, some scholars have claimed that the Allied Powers inserted this statement to encourage Japan to not only participate in collective self-defense, but to rearm under the UN guidelines . Thus, the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes three indirect statements encouraging Japan to participate in acts of collective self-defense. Some challengers to collective self-defense argue that after Japan’s new policy allowing collective self-defense begins, the United States will have the political power and ability to push Japan into wars throughout the world . In addition to conflicting Japanese domestic law , Japan could use a narrow interpretation of Article 51 to avoid engaging in politically undesirable military operations abroad. The change would, however, allow SDF working in war zones to fight off attackers rather than hiding behind the