The Sustaining Longevity of Article 9: Why does it continue to survive?

By Donna Reynolds

Donna Reynolds is a third year undergraduate in the College of Arts and Sciences majoring in Economics and Foreign Affairs with a minor in History and is also pursuing the Accelerated Master of Public Policy in the fall of 2022. Donna is originally from Seoul, South Korea but has moved around a lot her whole life. She is interested in topics in foreign policy largely centering around East Asia and US-Asia security relations, specifically South Korea and Japan, and topics in legal racial theory centering on mixed race marriages and children. Outside of academics, Donna is involved in Honor, Class Council, Student Council, Seriatim, Music Organizations at UVA, and does research.

I’m happy to introduce Donna Reynolds’ essay examining why Japan’s unusual constitutional provision renouncing the use of force in settling international disputes continues to remain unamended even as the nation faces growing threats from North Korea and China in its back yard. Donna wrote the paper originally for my Fall 2021 class on Japanese Politics, which asked each student to write a research paper on an aspect of politics in the country. The constitutional provisions at issue—Article 9—has been central to the politics of Japan ever since it was incorporated into the constitution at the insistence of U.S. Occupation authorities. While it has the support of many voters, the Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled the country for all but four years since 1955, has run campaigns ever since on platforms calling for revision on the grounds that it was imposed on the country after its defeat and constrains Japan’s ability to defend the country. That is remains unamended despite this continuous effort is indeed a puzzle, and Donna does a great job in this essay identifying the full range of factors that together brought about this outcome.

Jan Vogler Department of Politics

University of Virginia

Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan was established in 1947 post World War Two under the Allied Occupation, essentially renouncing the nation’s right to war, prohibiting a standing army, the use of force, and more. Now, nearly three-quarters of a century later, the Article’s original text has remained untouched and is still in effect in 2021, along with the rest of the constitution which has lasted longer without amendment than any other constitution worldwide. Though Article 9 has not been revised in 74 years, the meaning and extremity of it has shifted over time through various constitutional reinterpretations. With Japan holding a considerable role in the international community having the world's third-largest economy, it is curious that such a powerhouse nation is neither able nor seems to have much desire to have its own standing army to protect its interests. Though there have been attempts to officially revise Article 9 and the related security policy of Japan, these proposals have been resoundingly unpopular and unsuccessful. This paper explores the reasons behind the curious phenomenon of the continued longevity of Article 9: a combination of the US-Japan Security alliance, a longstanding and still prominent post-war memory, domestic politics, foreign affairs, and various other factors.

Introduction

Established under the Allied Occupation in 1947, post World War II, Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan essentially renounced the nation’s right to war, prohibiting a standing army, the use of force, and more. It reads: 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. 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.

Now, nearly three-quarters of a century later, the Article’s original text has remained untouched and is still in effect in 2021, along with the rest of the constitution which “has lasted longer without amendment than any other constitution” worldwide (Isdp et al. 2018, 8). Article 9 has not been revised in 74 years, though the meaning and extremity has shifted over time. With Japan holding a “considerable” role in the international community with the world’s third-largest economy, it is curious that such a powerhouse nation neither is able nor seems to have much desire to have its own standing army to protect its interests (BBC News, 2021). Though there have been attempts to officially revise Article 9 and the related security policy of Japan, these proposals have been resoundingly unpopular and unsuccessful. The reason behind this curious phenomenon of the continued dominance and longevity of Article 9 lies in a combination of the US-Japan security alliance, a longstanding and still prominent post-war memory, domestic politics, foreign affairs, and various other factors.

Following Japan’s defeat in WWII, the Allied Powers formally occupied Japan and replaced the Meiji Era Constitution with one written by American occupants, the most famous provision in it being Article 9. Outside of forming this new, democratic constitution, the US, with incredible, “sweeping powers… institute[d] new political and economic policies,” rebuilt the destroyed economy, and established American banking systems (Johnston 2020). This Allied occupation of Japan formally ended five years later when Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951 despite “restraints” to “return to the fold of the international community as an independent nation” (Takahashi 2021). This autonomy, however, did not extend to defense capabilities, as the US-Japan Security Treaty granted all military responsibilities, power, and a considerable number of bases on “rent-free land” to the US (Johnston 2020).

Though the US-Japan relationship stemming from this era continues to be of great importance in Japan, it is important to note the imperialistic characteristics in its origin. This mainly lies in the fact that, though it was important to the US to reconstruct a war-torn Japan, the ultimate objective was to control its reintegration “in a manner that benefited the United States” (Cha 2009, 158-96). To support this, the US even provided funds to domestic Japanese politicians so that politics “did not move in a direction” contrary to “U.S. interests,” in effect bribing and controlling Japanese domestic and foreign policy to American benefit (Cha 2009, 115).

The issue of revising the constitution is a heavily debated one among politicians since the inception of the Article and continues to be a major point of contention in Japanese politics. For several decades, Japan’s security policy was tied to the Yoshida doctrine, which emphasized peaceful and pacifist foreign policy. Indeed, for much of Japan’s history, the government has “sought to articulate abstention from military power as something that made Japan unique” in a world in which “economic great powers inevitably” become military powers (Hanssen 2019, 82-85). Japan clarified as such in its first White Paper Defense of Japan publication in 1970, where it stated that Japan would remain a “peace state,” not a “military great power,” with only a “necessary minimum of self-defense capabilities” (Hanssen 2019, 93).

Thus, rather than make revisions to the constitution itself, the approach of many Prime Ministers has been to reinterpret and ‘stretch’ the meaning of Article 9 and pass legislation within its bounds. Some key examples and pieces of legislation stemming from this approach include the 1954 establishment of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the 1992 Act of Cooperation signed with the United Nations Peacekeeping forces, the post9/11 Anti-Terrorism Legislation spearheaded by Koizumi with his “top-down style of leadership supported by strong public approval,” and most recently, the 2014 passage of Abe’s ‘collective self-defense’ provision (Shinoda 2003, 19-34; ISDP et al. 2018, 8).

What is key to recognize in all of these constitutional reinterpretations is their core emphasis of Japan’s right to and ability of self-defense while establishing a method by which Japan can interact with its allies as a fellow economically-powerful global leader in times of security crises without reclaiming a right to a standing military. In the original creation of the 1951 Bilateral Military Alliance between the US and Japan, there was a provision that acknowledged the “inherent right” of Japan for “individual and collective self-defense” (Bilateral Treaty n.d.). This established grounds to create the Japan Defense Forces in 1954 and has served as the basis for numerous other pieces of legislation since. All of these actions fall within the bounds of inarguable ‘natural rights’ of a nation to ensure its survival when threatened.