This is a good read, but I have to take issue with some of the analysis and pre-occupation with the UN.  Still though go read it and tell me what you think.

Collective self-defense and collective security: what the differences mean for Japan.

 

     Collective self-defense is authorized, along with individual self-defense, by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Put simply, if a country in the international system has suffered an armed attack, then any other country has the right, but not the duty, to use armed force against the aggressor in reliance upon the principle of collective self-defense.

     The only preconditions, in addition to the determination that an armed attack has occurred or is irrevocably in motion, are that the use of force is deemed necessary, that the force is proportionate to that used in the attack or the threat posed, and that it is immediate.

     What is crucial to recognize here, however, is that there is no requirement that the U.N. Security Council make any prior determinations, much less authorize the use of force. Thus, if Canada were to launch an armed attack against the United States, to take a far-fetched hypothetical example, and Japan was permitted under its constitution to exercise the right of collective self-defense, then it could use force against Canada under international law (regardless of whether Japan had a mutual security treaty with the U.S.).

     So long as the Japanese government itself came to the conclusion that the U.S. had indeed been the victim of an armed attack, Japan would be free to use force against Canada in reliance on collective self-defense (though the Security Council or the International Court of Justice could subsequently find that the use of force was unjustified, as happened to the U.S. in the case Nicaragua v. The United States of America).

     In contrast, collective security involves the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security, as authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII, and specifically Article 42, of the U.N. Charter. There need be no "armed attack" as a conditional precedent, but merely a determination by the Security Council that there is a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, such that the use of force or other measures are required to maintain or restore international peace and security.

     So the scope of collective security operations is much broader and the threshold for its use much lower, than for collective self-defense; but states may not act unilaterally, singly or together, under the guise of collective security. Authorization by the U.N. Security Council is necessary.

    The continuing debate both within and outside of Japan as to her future role militarily in the world is slowly but surely beginning to gather momentum.  While many of her neighbors and more than a few of her own citizens would like to continue Japan's reliance upon others for her security it becomes ever more obvious that this can no longer be the case.   The author of this piece misses what is really one of they key facts in the modern world, that institutions like the UN aren't worth the price of the paper their charters are written on.  After all what exactly an amended article nine does or doesn't allow for is entirely dependant upon the interpritation of the then current Japanese government.  That is the key issue here, not what the constitution says but what the government believes it says.  Words are open to differing interpritations, and those interpritations often play a large part in crafting what actions the Japanese government does and does not take.  The author is confusing the words of document of no worth, the UN charter with that of tremendous worth and importance, the costitution of a sovereign nation.  Even the oldest and most straight forward of political documents must be interpritated to apply them to the modern world.  One of the primary duties of the US Supreme court is to provide guidance and interpritation of the US Constitution when the meaning of an article or amendment is at controversy.  The real world has a nasty way of making the utopian ideals of the past and present reveal themsleves for the terrible and misguided things that they are.  How you interpret the words of a constitution can allow you to do things that are completely contridictory to the clear meaning of the words contained there in.

    If I maybe be a bit unrealistic here for a moment but the Japanese could in theory take action against the taliban and al qaeda since Japanese nationals were killed in the attack on the twin towers.  This could be justified by simply taking the position that an attack upon a nation's citizens by a foriegn power is an ipso facto attack upon the nation as a whole.  Article nine as it now exsists forbids the use of war and the right of beligerency, but this can be avoided by using a term other than war to descibe  what is in effect war.  After all according to the Truman administration there wasn't a war in Korea but rather a Police Action.

For the record her is the exact wording of article nine as it is now, quoted from Wikipedia: (quoted sections in blue)

ARTICLE 9. 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.

And to effect this it is furthered by section 2 which forbids the posession of a military.

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.

     From a strictly legal point of view the Japanese goverment has been in violation of section 2 of the article since 1949, but have avoided that issue by deft symantic footwork.  If symantics can allow for the poseesion of a military without removing article nine then I see no reason to see why it can't allow for their use as it stands now.  Still the need to amend or remove article nine is needed if simply to remove any calls of hypocracy when Japan makes use of her military power.  It needs to be said that should it come down to it the Japanese would make use of their military regardless of what article nine does or doesn't say if the survival of the nation depended upon it.  The most likely case for this is in the event of a North Korean invasion of South Korea, which would include strikes at US forces in Japan and as a result attacks upon Japanese forces the share facilities with and given the poor quality if the NK's weaponry the Japanese populace at large.  No nation can afford to ignore such a provocation if it wishes to remain a credible power in the eyes of her own citizens and the world.  The final analysis is that Japan should simply accept that article nine and other vestiges of high minded world peace idealism were a bad idea when they were included in the postwar conctitution and are even more dangerous and damaging in the unsettled world that she now finds herself residing in.

Posted by: raging tachikoma at 06:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1243 words, total size 8 kb.