Hello! Thank you for seeing the page. It is R.S. I wrote about the page of constitutional amendment.
|About the Constitution of Japan||The way to the Constitutional Amendment|
|Proposal for Revision||Pros and Cons|
I explained these four pages separately, could you understand?
From here I will tell you my thoughts as individuals.
Of course, this is neither a correct answer nor a wrong answer.
What is important is how you felt when reading the page!
I am in favor of amending the Constitution.
There are three reasons for that.
Constitution and law are not all-purpose. It is because the times are different and the Constitution and the law are thought to need to evolve according to that era. In fact, the countries in the table are revising the number of times, even though the revision method and contents are different. I think that this tells the necessity of amendment.
In the current Constitution, there are a certain number of constitutional scholars who think that the existence of JSDF is unconstitutional. I also think JSDF is unconstitutional if you read Article 9 of the Constitution "as is". So, is it okay if we should abolish JSDF? JSDF will protect us from threats in case of disasters such as earthquakes as well as in case of emergencies. Behind the behavior of North Korea and China stands out, it is absolutely impossible to abolish and have something good. In order to eliminate contradiction with the Constitution, I think that the existence of JSDF (or military) should be specified.
Also, there is concern that the gap that JSDF is an army under international law, not an army under Japanese law is confusing from other countries, so it may lead to misunderstanding.
What I heard frequently during the establishment of the Security Law last year is the opinion that "Japan has been kept under Article 9 of the Constitution." "Absolutely nothing is done from ourselves." It goes without saying that this is necessary to preserve peace. But I do not think that alone is enough. Because not every country understands it.
I think that there is also Article 9 of the Constitution that protected Japan in the time of 70 years after the war, but I think that the reason for bigger than that is "the existence of Japan - US security, the US military in Japan, JSDF in existence". "If A attack Japan, JSDF and the US military will come back in opposition, so A cannot do anything here." I think that these ideas were one of the reasons why these guys have protected Japan. It would be even better if a good diplomatic relationship and economic power are added to this.
Most important thing is not "fighting and protecting", that is, "do not let us attack".
How to lead the world, not America as a policeman in the world, to protect America's safety?
This remark and the fact that Mr. Trump, who is the next president of the United States (planned to take office on January 20, 2017), suggested withdrawing the US forces in Japan during the election period, has led to fewer expectations for Japan - US security, It is important to strengthen the alliance, but I think that you should be independent from the United States little by little. For example, civilian control (politicians) regulating the "preemptive self-defense authority" that allows attacks on the launch base of ballistic missiles launched to Japan from the attitude of "self defense" of JSDF in accordance with law To rule JSDF's activities smoothly after dignity of the dignity of the military) (for example: negative list method (other than being forbidden by the law for strategy You can do anything)). To that end, I think that it is necessary to clearly state JSDF (or the Defense Forces) under the Constitution.
It is the ability to discourage activities.
A says "I do not like C, let's mean to C"
B says "But, because C is a regular in the rugby club, it's better to quit."
A says "(Oh ... okay, I'm scared of retaliation ...) Yeah! Let's stop it!"
the U.S.‐Japan Security Treaty
The Japan-US Security Treaty refers to "mutual cooperation and security treaty between Japan and the United States" made on January 19, 1960. It is mainly about stationing US forces in Japan and cooperation of security of Japan and the United States.
Basic policy in defense of Japan according to the principle of constitution. It defends only when it receives an armed attack from the other country, its defense is set to the minimum necessary for self-defense, and the defense power to hold is also limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense.
Right of anticipatory self-defense
The preemptive right of anticipatory self-defense is the right that self-protection measures can be taken when danger is approaching at the stage where no armed attack from other countries is occurring. Unless there is an obvious danger to your country, it is different from prevention war that you cannot use force. This is being discussed from the viewpoint of Article 51 of the UN Charter as to whether it is accepted or not approved.