Probably you don't know The Constitution of Japan Article 9,[RENUNCIATION OF WAR]. In the historical fact, the Constitution of Japan was enacted by U.S.A army in 1946 year because U.S.A army had controlled Japanese Government as a result of Second world war when the Constitution of Japan was established. In the formal side, U.S.A army presented to Japanese Government the rough draft about the Constitution of Japan at first. Then Constitution of Japan was established with the amendment by Japanese Government .



the amended points of [RENUNCIATION OF WAR] is as follows.

1.The rough draft by U.S.A army

[CHAPTER II. RENUNCIATION OF WAR] Article 9.

1. 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.

2. 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.

2.Established the Constitution of Japan

[CHAPTER II. RENUNCIATION OF WAR] Article 9.

1. 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.

2. 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.

Assuming that you read the above [RENUNCIATION OF WAR], you will take it for granted that The Japanese Government never maintain war potential. However, The Japanese Government are holding the army, navy and air force. Do you guess what? War expenditure of Japan is 45 billion dollars, and it is the third-ranking in the world in 2002. (first-ranking is U.S.A, second-ranking is Russia.). With regard to this, there are three opinions by the Constitution scholar in Japan. (The following content is a summary of various interpretation about Article 9 by Osamu Satou, [Overview of The Constitution of Japan] , This book was never translated into English and he was a authority of The Constitution of Japan.)

1.Interpretation 1

Japanese people don't renounce war including war in self-defense. [as means of settling international disputes], this part is the limitation phrase for that purpose. In other words, war in self-defense is allowed. And, [In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph,] this part is the restriction wording, which is for connection of the preceding paragraph. Therefore, war potential for self-defense can be maintained. Moreover [The right of belligerency of the state], The rights of belligerency should not be renounced because that isn't object of renouncement on international law.

2.Interpretation 2

Japanese people renounce all war including war in self-defense. [In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph,] this part isn't the limitation phrase. Therefore, it is a matter of course that war potential including self-defense can not be maintained

3.Interpretation 3

Japanese people don't renounce war including war in self-defense. In other words, The rights of self-defense can not be renounced because that is the natural rights of the nation, and, it is the fundamental principles on international law. That is, The Japanese can make only a self-defense war. On the other hand , war potential including self-defence can not be maintained because that is the most natural in the interpretation of wording i.e. war potential will never be maintained. ( According to this interpretation, though Japan has rights of self-defence war , Japan has no method making a war. As a result, Japanese people can not make a war including self-defense war.)

Most of Japanese people except for legal specialists don't know English text of The Constitution of Japan. As a result, The Japanese can't recognize that Article 9 is a strong negative expression. Article 9 in Japanese text is mere ordinary negative sentence. The Constitution of Japan in Japanese text has been described in the way that Japanese people can not recognize the real thing. (Needless to say, I am a Japanese, and my impression to the above interpretation is as follows.)

[Interpretation 1] very logical, but strange !. No one can distinguish war potential in self-defence from others. (Official opinion by the Japanese Government is Interpretation 1. )

[Interpretation 2] That is out of the question !

[Interpretation 3] logical ! Not only that, but consistency, which is relation with the war potential and the rights of belligerency, are enoughly satisfied. However, I think that the rights of belligerency of the nation are not the objects of renouncement. Needless to say, there are several opinions about The rights of belligerency of the nation on international law.

Probably actual author who was a subordinate of Douglas Macarthur wanted to make the defenseless country because Japanese Government was controlled by U.S.A army at those days. Therefore, historically speaking, It may be the correct interpretation of Article 9 that Japanese Government can never maintain war potential including self-defence. And so, The Japanese is just like defenseless children, like Douglas Macarthur said. On the other hand, It is very important to remember that Japan attacked USA, China and other countries. Interestingly enough, The Constitution of Japan never was amended once in the past.

So, It is very strange phenomenon that interpretation of the Constitution, which is basic law of the nation, extremely differs in essence.

Probably The Constitution of Japan Article 9 would be the most suitable theme for discussion in Highschool.

And so, I wish many foreign teachers and students know The Constitution of Japan Article 9.