Sixth Meeting

Thursday, April 6, 2000

Meeting Agenda

1. Matters Relating to the Constitution of Japan (Details of the formulation and enactment of the Constitution)

After hearing the opinions of Professor KITAOKA Shinichi and Professor SHINDO Eiichi concerning the above matters, Commission members put questions to the two informants.

Informants:

  • KITAOKA Shinichi, Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Tokyo
  • SHINDO Eiichi, Professor, College of Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba

Members who put questions to Professor Kitaoka:

Members who put questions to Professor Shindo:


2. Invitation for general public to submit essays on "My Expectations of the Research Commission on the Constitution"

Chairman Nakayama reported that the general public had been invited to submit essays to mark the first Constitution Day (May 3) since the establishment of the Research Commission on the Constitution.


Main points of Professor Kitaoka's statement

>> The imposed constitution argument and the revisionist argument

>> A "good constitution" and a "rooted constitution"

>> The Potsdam Declaration and the initial policy towards Japan (harsh peace terms)

>> General MacArthur's aims: an efficient Occupation and epoch-making reforms

>> The political and economic situation at that time

>> The MacArthur Draft and the role of Colonel Kades

>> The falsehoods in General MacArthur's memoirs

>> Implications carried by revision drafts (of the old Constitution) worked out by the Japanese government (drafting process similar to treaty negotiations)

>> The relationships between the Constitution and the natural law, and between treaties and laws

>> The Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Meiji Constitution) and alterations of interpretation (constitutional theories of MINOBE Tatsukichi, who advocated the "Emperor-as-organ-of-the-state" theory, and of UESUGI Shinkichi, who opposed Minobe and contended that the sovereign was absolute)

>> The relationship of Article 9 of the Constitution with the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris) and with the UN Charter


Main questions put to Professor Kitaoka

FUNADA Hajime, Liberal Democratic Party

>> What is your assessment of the present Constitution?

>> The Far Eastern Commission and GHQ suggested that the Constitution be reexamined after its enactment, but this was not done. What was the reason for this?

>> Shouldn't the present Constitution have been reexamined or reauthorized after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty,?

>> Since the UN Charter had already been established when the Constitution was drafted, was Article 9 drawn up on the basis of a national security system which would rely mainly on the United Nations?

>> It is necessary to discuss the relationship between the UN Charter and the Constitution of Japan.

>> Even under Article 9, can Japan be considered to have the right of collective self-defense? If it does have this right, can it actually exercise it?

>> Isn't it necessary to include provisions for emergency situations in the Constitution?


SHIMA Satoshi, Democratic Party of Japan

>> You say there are problems with Article 9. What specific aspects of it are problematic?

>> In terms of Japan's diplomacy seeking spiritual ideals, Article 9 has great political value. Isn't there a risk that the amendment of Article 9 would reduce that value?

>> What agency has the power to interpret the Constitution? Wouldn't repeated alterations in interpretation undermine the authority of the Constitution?

>> How did the provisions for constitutional amendments in Article 96 come to be formulated?

>> What do you think of the parliamentary cabinet system and the public election of Prime Minister?


KURATA Eiki, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> Why do you say that the present Constitution should be viewed "within a historical context"?

>> What sort of debate took place in the political process relating to the transfer of sovereignty from the Emperor under the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Meiji Constitution) to the people under the Constitution of Japan?

>> Don't you think it is necessary for us to marshal arguments to define whether it should be called a constitutional monarchy or a republic? Do you think that an Emperor-as-symbol system can coexist with a presidential system?


ABE Motoo, New Conservative Party

>> Don't you think that the fact that the Constitution was not revised after the restoration of Japan's independence is a sort of ratification?

>> The conditions for amending the Constitution are very strict. Moreover, the revision of the Japan-US Security Treaty went smoothly. Does this not delay the revision of the Constitution?

>> How does a country like the United Kingdom, that does not possess a written constitution, function as a state smoothly without any particular impediments?

>> Natural rights are not something that have always existed--they exist because society has come to recognize them as human rights, which means that their contents change over time. How do you view the relationship between the public good and fundamental human rights?


SASAKI Rikukai, Japanese Communist Party

>> Don't you think the establishment of the Emperor-as-symbol system and Article 9 reflected not only the will of GHQ and the Japanese government but also domestic public opinion and the wishes of foreign countries?

>> I understand that the Self-Defense Forces were set up as a result of a demand for rearmament of Japan by the United States, which had initially urged Japan to renounce war. What is your view of this change in the policy of the US government?

>> Do you think that the existence of the Self-Defense Forces infringes Article 9, paragraph 2 of the Constitution?

>> I believe that the Japan-US Security Treaty and the Constitution of Japan are mutually contradictory. Rather than revising the Constitution, isn't it necessary to eliminate this contradiction by revoking the Japan-US military alliance?

>> I do not think that peace has been preserved by the Japan-US Security Treaty. Japan changed its interpretations of the Constitution to meet the Cold War era, but now that the Cold War is over I think we should return to the original interpretation.


ITO Shigeru, Social Democratic Party

>> Don't you think that it is essential to clearly fix coordinates for our discussion of the Constitution?

>> Before discussing the Constitution on a provision-by-provision basis, shouldn't we first have a grand vision about other countries, particularly in Asia?

>> After World War II, it was the peace Constitution, not the Japan-US Security Treaty, that maintained peace in Japan. Since the relationship between the Constitution and our soul-searching concerning Japan's acts of aggression in World War II is indispensable, we must place great importance on the thinking prevailing at the time of formulating the Constitution.


Main points of Professor Shindo's statement

1. The historical significance and the international status of the Constitution of Japan

>> The three principles of the formulation of the Constitution (3 Ds):

(1) Democratization

(2) Demilitarization

(3) Decolonization

>> Scenarios of the 3 Ds conceived by the "new socioeconomists" (reformists) in the United States:

(1) The demilitarization scenario (the principle of civilian control on the assumption that the minimum self-defense capacity will be maintained)

(2) The democratization scenario (promotion of democratic organizations such as labor unions, strengthening of local autonomy)

2. Process of the formulation of the Constitution, and perspectives for understanding the process

>> Problem of discussing the Constitution-making process focusing only on the short period of time taken to formulate the revision draft

>> Two angles of view:

(1) "Localization (or Japanization)" (examples: incorporation of ideas proposed by private groups and individuals in their drafts of a constitution, and addition of social rights, etc. through amendments in the Imperial Diet)

(2) "Internationalization" (example: the influence of the Far Eastern Commission)

3. Significance of the present Constitution

as seen from the 21st century

>> Foresight shown in ASHIDA Hitoshi's demilitarization-oriented amendment to the Article 9 draft

>> Foresight shown by drafters in incorporating the socioeconomic provisions (Article 25, etc.)

>> Mutual links between the Constitution and various postwar reforms (agricultural reforms, educational reforms, etc.)

4. Conclusion

To merely tamper with systems is meaningless, and to implement policies aimed at realizing the ideals of the Constitution is quite important

Main questions put to Professor Shindo

YOKOUCHI Shomei, Liberal Democratic Party

>> Don't you think that the Constitution should be revised in accordance with the social developments over the 50 years or so since its enactment?

>> Can the Ashida amendment be interpreted as the recognition that Japan has the right to have the capacity of self defense? If so, can the Self-Defense Forces be viewed as constitutional? Don't you think that Article 9 should be revised in order to clarify the intention of the Ashida amendment?

>> Wasn't the aim of America's occupation policy to hold back the reemergence of Japan?

>> What are the "Constitution's lost propositions" (ideals of the Constitution that have not yet been realized) that you refer to?


YOKOMICHI Takahiro, Democratic Party of Japan

>> I suppose that there were conflicts between GHQ and the Japanese side during the process of producing the present Constitution, but didn't both sides have a common view of the basic direction that should be taken by postwar Japanese society?

>> I think the important tasks for us now are to reform the bureaucratic framework and to decentralize government power. What are your views on this?

>> What do you think of the view that the decentralization of power should be promoted by revising the Constitution?

>> What were the main points discussed by the House of Representatives subcommittee on constitutional revision?

>> You state that the three principles (3 Ds) are necessary in discussions focusing on the future of Japan. What other principles do you think will be necessary in the future?


OTA Akihiro, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> I understand that the "localization" you speak of and the "Japanization" mentioned by Professor Koseki refer to the process of struggle through which how the Western "civilization" should be accepted into Japanese "culture" was disputed. But wasn't the discussion still immature when it was accepted?

>> Was the Emperor-as-symbol system a compromise point between the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the Emperor, or was it rather a thoughtful attempt to make Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Constitution more "localized" or "Japanized"?


ABE Motoo, New Conservative Party

>> You have stated that sophisticated discussions were conducted by the House of Representatives subcommittee on constitutional revision, but was it possible to have an entirely free discussion in a situation where the preservation of the Emperor system was uncertain? Did the subcommittee's discussions cover the whole area?

>> Does any other country in the world have a constitution containing a provision like Article 9 that does not permit the maintenance of any war-fighting capacity?

>> Isn't it important that a constitution should embody and realize ideals according to the social environment at a given time?

>> Shouldn't the Constitution be changed according to the stage of a society's development and the evolution of its environment?


HARUNA Naoaki, Japanese Communist Party

>> Surely the "imposition" of the Constitution-making process should not be viewed as being directed against the people, who were granted sovereignty under the new Constitution. What do you think of the rehashing of the old constitutional invalidity theory based on its infringement of the Hague Convention clauses on laws and customs of war on land?

>> How were the views of the people, popular movements and proposals from private groups and individuals at that time reflected in the Constitution?

>> Do the Japan-US Security Treaty arrangements contradict the Constitution?

>> I view Article 9 as a pioneering provision. What is your thinking on the current debate on Article 9?


ITO Shigeru, Social Democratic Party

>> Before debating the Constitution, we need to eradicate the uneasiness felt by the people about their future. How do you view the current status of the constitutional debate?

>> Do you have any comment on how we should view our state and the world in the perspective of the 21st century?