Third Meeting

Thursday, February 24, 2000

Meeting Agenda

1. Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (Details of how the Constitution was proceeded)

After the two expert informants, Professor NISHI Osamu and Professor AOYAMA Takenori, expressed their views concerning the above matters, they were asked questions.

Informants:

  • NISHI Osamu, Ph.D. (in political science), Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, Komazawa University; and Dean of the Division of Law, Graduate School, Komazawa University
  • AOYAMA Takenori, Professor of Law at the College Law, Nihon University

Members who put questions to Professor Nishi:

Members who put questions to Professor Aoyama:

2. Report on the Establishment of the "Public Forum (for opinions on the Constitution)" as a public opinion channel

Chairman Nakayama gave a report on the opening of the "Public Forum" as a channel through which the general public can express their opinions on the Constitution.

Main points of Professor Nishi's Statement

>> Study and evaluation of the process of how the Constitution came into being

>> Attitude of the Japanese Communist Party and Socialist Party of Japan toward the drafts of the Constitution

>> Policy-making at the Far Eastern Commission (FEC)

>> Censorship by the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP)

>> Review of interviews with former members of the GHQ Government Section

>> The process of formulating Article 9 and its relationship with the civilian control provision in the Constitution

Main points of questions put to Professor Nishi

YASUOKA Okiharu, Liberal Democratic Party

>> Was there a common recognition among the signatory countries to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris) that the treaty did not deny states the right of self-defense?

>> Did those involved in the drafting of Article 9 recognize that it does not deny the right of self-defense?

>> Was the present Constitution influenced by GHQ's occupation policy?


AICHI Kazuo, Liberal Democratic Party

>> Did the general election of 1946 deserve to be called an election of representatives of the people in the true sense of the word?

>> To what extent was the constitutional revision raised as an issue in the election campaigns?


EDANO Yukio, Democratic Party of Japan

>> What is the legal viewpoint in giving an explanation of the transfer of sovereignty (from the Emperor to the people) effected by the revision of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan?

>> Did the Imperial Diet have the power to enact a constitution at the time when the present Constitution came into being?

>> I suspect that the new Constitution might have been "imposed" only on Japan's leadership by GHQ, but not on the people to whom it gave sovereign power.


ISHIDA Katsuyuki, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> What is your assessment of the fact that the present Constitution is supported by the majority of the people?

>> Might the ideological trends characterizing the modern democratic system adopted when the present Constitution was established have certain historical limitations? Is there not a gap between these chracteristics and the contemporary situation?


ABE Motoo, Liberal Party

>> Comparison of the processes of establishing constitutions in Japan and Germany after World War II.

>> Why did GHQ hasten the Constitution-making process?

>> Why has the Constitution not been revised up to now?


HIGASHINAKA Mitsuo, Japanese Communist Party

>> Was the (old) Constitution revised to fulfill the obligations attached to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which Japan accepted when it surrendered?


FUKADA Hajime, Social Democratic Party

>> Putting aside the question of whether the present Constitution was actually "imposed" or not, do you think that this should be used as a reason for revising the Constitution?

>> From an international viewpoint, do you think that the Constitution of Japan is viewed as being "very poor in quality"? The Social Democratic Party has been not only advocating the "protection of the Constitution" but also has positively made good use of it. What are your views on this?


Main points of Professor Aoyama's statement

>> Trends and changes in opinions in favor or against the revision of the Constitution

>> The origins of groups advocating the protection of the Constitution and the circumstances surrounding the Constitution of Japan when it was laid down

>> GHQ's control of expression in the constitution-making process

>> Constitutional controversy over the process of drafting the Constitution of Japan

>> The significance of Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration

>> The relationship between the Potsdam Declaration and the Constitution of the Empire of Japan

>> GHQ's pressure on the Japanese government to revise the Constitution

>> Developments after Japan's acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration

>> The illegality of the enactment of the Constitution of Japan

Main points of questions put to Professor Aoyama

AICHI Kazuo, Liberal Democratic Party

>> I think that a constitution reflects the people's own image of the country, and this tends to change with the times. What is your view on this?

>> The amendment procedures stipulated in Article 96 make it difficult to revise the Constitution. Has this not given rise to problems such as de facto constitutional amendments by changes in its interpretation?

>> Was the general election of 1946 held fairly? What do you think of those election results and the character of the elected Diet?


YASUOKA Okiharu, Liberal Democratic Party

>> You state that the Constitution of Japan has infringed the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and others in its enactment process; if so, can the present Constitution be called valid?

>> What is the view among foreign countries on the Constitution of Japan if it was enacted in a way which, according to you, infringed international law?

>> What is your view of the statement of the Socialist Party of Japan at that time that permanent neutrality was a nineteenth century concept and that Japan should adopt policies aimed at taking an active part in the peace mechanism?

>> In their daily lives, the Japanese people have few chances to learn about the irregularity of the constitution-making process. Accounts in school textbooks also give a misleading impression about the facts. The general public should be better informed of this situation.


SENGOKU Yoshito, Democratic Party of Japan

>> With regard to your argument that the Constitution was "imposed", what is your explanation of the fact that the United States still had administrative authority over Okinawa even after the end of the Occupation?

>> In drafting the Constitution, did not both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party mainly aim at retaining kokutai (national polity), and did not break away from the orthodox views of the old system?

>> If you say that the Constitution was "imposed", why do you think that it was "imposed"? If you attribute it to Japan's loss in the war, should we not raise the question as to why Japan came to lose the war and who started the war?


OTA Akihiro, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> In the process of drafting the Constitution, was there any opportunity to discuss ideological and philosophical concepts, including fundamental human rights?

>> Being immediately after the end of World War II, wasn't it natural that the people had a strong feeling that they could not believe in such a thing as a just war? How were the voices of the people reflected in the Constitution?


ABE Motoo, Liberal Party

>> Comparison of the processes of establishing constitutions in Japan and Germany after World War II.

>> Should not a constituent assembly have been set up when the Constitution was being drafted or when Japan became independent again?

>> What is your advice on how to discuss matters relevant to the revision of the Constitution and its procedures?


SASAKI Rikukai, Japanese Communist Party

>> I find it impossible to agree with your view that the Potsdam Declaration was compatible with the Constitution of the Empire of Japan.

>> My understanding is that it was rather the Liberal Party that interpreted Article 9 at the time as an abandonment of the right of self-defense. What is your view on this?


FUKADA Hajime, Social Democratic Party

>> You state that the Constitution of Japan was "imposed", but did not the people at that time feel sympathy toward the principles of popular sovereignty, the system based on the Emperor as the symbol of the state, and the renunciation of war?

>> What do you mean when you say that the provisions of Article 96 on revision of the Constitution are too rigid?