Subcommittee on Japan's Role in International Society (First Meeting)

Thursday, February 28, 2002

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning Japan's role in international society

After a statement was heard from Prof. MATSUI Yoshiro concerning the above matters, questions were put to him; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informant

  • MATSUI Yoshiro, Professor, Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University

Members who put questions to Prof. MATSUI

Main points of Prof. MATSUI's statement

Introduction

>> I will present my views on the status of peacekeeping operations in international law and the approach that Japan should take to such operations. Peacekeeping operations during the Cold War ("first-generation" peacekeeping operations) were defined as follows: when a regional conflict or situation threatens international peace and security, the United Nations, at the request of the states concerned or with their consent, deploys a military or similar organization symbolizing its authority in the region and, through this organization, plays a neutral, third-party role in order to peacefully bring the conflict or situation under control. Since the end of the Cold War, "second-generation" peacekeeping operations have evolved, with changes in their contents and role.


1. The origin and establishment of peacekeeping operations

>> Peacekeeping operations originated as measures to (a) bring about a cease-fire while remaining impartial, and (b) prevent a conflict from expanding internationally due to U.S. or Soviet intervention. These measures, with the status of customary practices, were worked out by the United Nations as a last resort to offset the shortcomings of collective security against the backdrop of the Cold War. Accordingly, there is no explicit authorizing provision in the text of the United Nations Charter.

>> The principles established in the course of conducting such operations as customary practices fall under three headings: (a) non-coerciveness (the consent of the parties; the use of weapons solely for self-defense; non-intervention in internal affairs); (b) neutrality (exclusion of major powers, etc.; neutrality toward the parties); and (c) internationality (UN control and jurisdiction; geographical balance in the composition of forces; UN funding). First-generation peacekeeping missions had some success as long as their scope was limited, e.g., supervising cease-fires and securing troop withdrawals; but when peacekeepers were dispatched to civil wars, I think there were unsolved problems.


2. Second-generation peacekeeping operations: Background and problems

>> After the Cold War ended, peacekeeping operations expanded both quantitatively and qualitatively in the context of frequent regional conflicts as nation-states broke apart, together with greater ease in obtaining a Security Council consensus to send peacekeepers. In terms of quantity, peacekeeping forces were dispatched more often and on a larger scale, while on the qualitative side, "multifunctional" or "multisector" operations involving more diverse and complex duties were launched, and there was also a growing need for civilian specialists.

>> Problems that have arisen in second-generation operations include: (a) coercive measures being mixed with peacekeeping; (b) relaxation of the consent principle; (c) forces consisting largely of personnel from major powers; (d) increased involvement in internal issues; (e) crisis over the neutrality principle.


3. The UN peacekeeping debate in recent years: From An Agenda for Peace to the Brahimi Report

>> To solve the problems of second-generation peacekeeping operations, An Agenda for Peace (1992), issued by former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, proposed a unified concept combining preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peace-building (the elements of what the Brahimi report would later call "UN peace operations"), together with active utilization of military force.

>> In the light of subsequent experience, Supplement to An Agenda for Peace (1995) adjusted the approach to the use of force and stressed respect for the principles of peacekeeping. The Brahimi Report (Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, 2000) set out a number of proposals including rapid and effective deployment on the basis of an integrated understanding of UN peace operations. Even these proposals, however, show an undeniable tendency toward an emphasis on military force.


4. The approach that Japan should take to international cooperation, centered on peacekeeping operations

>> (a) Japan should not define its international cooperation in a narrow way that limits it to the field of peacekeeping operations. (b) Japan should take the initiative and call on the United Nations for measures related to international cooperation. (c) Japan should see the principles of its Constitution as providing a point of departure for these initiatives.

>> In cooperating in UN peace operations, we should pay particular attention to the following points: (a) We should make every effort in the fields of preventive diplomacy and peaceful resolution. (b) We should call on the United Nations to observe the peacekeeping principles, and we should encourage active utilization of civilian personnel in peacekeeping operations. (c) Support for social and economic development in regions of conflict is an area where Japan's active cooperation is both possible and necessary.


Main points of questions and comments to Prof. MATSUI

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The original concept of conflict resolution by the United Nations was predicated on conflicts between states. I would like to hear your comments on the UN response to last year's terrorist attacks on the United States, which were initiated by a nonstate, private organization.

>> I would like to hear your ideas as to what cooperation Japan and other countries can provide in Afghanistan after the cessation of hostilities.

>> I agree that, as you have said, Japan should strengthen its cooperation in post-conflict peace-building. In what fields do you think Japan can make a contribution that clearly conveys its vision of international cooperation?

>> A United Nations Police Force could be set up to deal with international terrorist organizations and similar groups. How do you evaluate this idea in terms of international law?


SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> You mentioned post-conflict peace-building as the area in which Japan can cooperate most actively, but I think we are lagging behind in this respect; in fact, it is the area where it is most difficult for us to contribute. What is your view of this?

>> The Brahimi Report proposes robust rules of engagement (ROE) to ensure that peacekeepers possess the capacity for effective response. What should be the ROE for peacekeepers facing civilian rioting or similar situations?

>> When we in Japan study the ROE of peacekeeping missions, I think we should seek legal advice and input. Are legal scholars actually taking part in such studies, and is research being carried out in this area?

>> Would you care to comment from the perspective of international law on the control of crimes or illegal acts committed by peacekeeping personnel?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> What is your assessment of the five principles contained in the International Peace Cooperation Law, and how do you view the argument that we should revise these principles in light of the recent incidence of a wide variety of conflicts?

>> You stated that the debate in Japan has focused too much on whether peacekeeping forces can be deployed cooperatively or not, but, underlying this tendency, I think there is a sense of guilt over the fact that Japan has not contributed military personnel, in particular. I would like to hear your views on this.

>> In a published paper, you state that the measure whereby the United Nations authorizes member states to use armed force is a violation of the UN Charter, and that both the Japanese Constitution and the UN Charter rule out the possibility of Japan cooperating in any form with such actions. I believe that rear-echelon support based on the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law is the maximum "cooperation in any form" that Japan can provide under the Constitution, but what is your evaluation of this?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> In light of the recent international situation, I believe that when taking part in peacekeeping missions in future, Japan should not necessarily be too concerned with the five principles provided for in the International Peace Cooperation Law. What is your view in this regard?

>> Is it not true that, according to the government's interpretation of the Constitution which holds that Japan cannot exercise the right of collective self-defense, we cannot take part in actions by the United Nations that are coercive in nature, such as expanded peacekeeping operations, a peace enforcement force, a multinational force, or a United Nations army?

>> In my view, there should be more conflict resolution centered on the United Nations, since it is becoming increasingly feasible for the Security Council to pass resolutions without any member exercising its veto. What are your views in this regard?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> In the second generation a relaxation of peacekeeping principles can be seen, but have traditional peacekeeping operations metamorphosed into something different, or are there two separate types?

>> Was the failure of peacekeeping operations in Somalia due to a departure from peacekeeping principles or to the nature of that particular conflict?

>> I believe that there are constitutional barriers to Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) taking part in a peacekeeping force; I would like to hear your opinion on this.


OSHIMA Reiko (Social Democratic Party)

>> The Social Democratic Party believes in the importance of peace-building based on both the Constitution and the UN Charter, and holds that Japan's international cooperation should be primarily carried out by civilians. What are your views in this regard?

>> How do you view the fact that, in conjunction with the enactment of the International Peace Cooperation Law and other legislation, the duties of the SDF were expanded by adding miscellaneous provisions that stipulated duties other than those listed in Article 3 of the Self-Defense Forces Law?

>> In my view, since the September 11 terrorist attacks, Japan's international cooperation measures have been leaning toward military support. Further, I believe that active use should be made of the SDF in the civilian sector, and I would like to hear your views as to the proper relationship between peacekeeping operations and the SDF.


NISHIKAWA Taiichiro (New Conservative Party)

>> I think that the reason why the U.S. Defense Department omitted Japan from the list of twenty-six nations that have contributed to the "war on terrorism" which it issued on February 26 was because Japan did not invoke the right of collective self-defense. What is your view of this? >> With regard to the Japanese contingent in East Timor carrying weapons, the UN commander and East Timorese authorities have indicated that they see it as only right and proper. How do you view this?

HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> What are the criteria for judging the success or failure of a peacekeeping mission?

>> Given that Japanese peacekeepers may be exposed to danger, how do you think Japanese participation in UN-led operations should be situated in terms of the national interest?


YAMADA Toshimasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> If self-defense is a right recognized in international law, it seems to me that there is a contradiction between the use of armed force by the SDF based on that right and the provisions of Article 9. How do you think the Constitution should be revised to make the SDF constitutional?

>> I personally envision a "world federation," and I think that, in the future, instead of nations being allowed to have their own military forces, the United Nations should have an army. I see peacekeeping operations in which military organizations are deployed under UN jurisdiction as a first step toward the creation of a "world federation." What is your view of this?


TSUCHIYA Shinako (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In view of the trend in public opinion and other factors, I believe that we should revise Article 9 and give constitutional recognition to the SDF. In this connection, I would like to confirm how you regard Article 9.

>> The SDF are highly skilled, especially in clearing mines; further, although in other parts of the world there are increasing opportunities for NGOs to play an active role, Japanese NGOs are not very active as yet. I therefore think that, for the time being, in cooperating with peacekeeping operations Japan should make full use of the SDF. What is your view in this regard?

>> If Japan becomes a permanent member of the UN Security Council, I expect that we will be called upon to make military contributions. What is your view of this? Also, in that case, do you think it would be better to create a separate organization, such as a UN Stand-By Force?


Main points of comments made by members of the Subcommittee (in order of presentation)

NAKANO Kansei, Deputy Chairman of the Research Commission (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> If the Constitution were to be amended in just one place, it would probably come down to a section that deals with international cooperation. With regard to Article 9, I think there is a certain "latitude" for interpretation, in part because of the Ashida amendments made at the time of its enactment, but if we are to carry out international cooperation in situations that were not foreseen when the UN Charter and the Constitution were enacted, such as peacekeeping operations, we should not take a "supralegal" approach but should, for example, amend the Constitution by adding a clause on international cooperation as Paragraph 3 of Article 9.


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Listening to Professor MATSUI's statements, I reaffirmed that there is no need to revise the Constitution in order to carry out international cooperation, and that we should strive to keep alive the ideals of both the Constitution and the UN Charter.

>> I believe that for Japan to become a permanent member of the Security Council would mean participating in the United Nations' military operations, which is impossible under the Constitution.


HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> We should give clear constitutional recognition to the existence of the SDF, which is, in reality, engaged in various activities. That is to say, we should firmly maintain Paragraph 1 of Article 9, but Paragraph 2 of Article 9 is no longer in keeping with reality and, after obtaining the understanding of the public, we should revise it.


OSHIMA Reiko (Social Democratic Party)

>> Postwar Japan prospered under its pacifist constitution. I am opposed to the idea that, because we have become an economic power, we must revise the Constitution, make the SDF a regular army, and implement military international cooperation. We do not need to revise the Constitution in order to carry out international cooperation; instead, we should think about providing cooperation in the civilian sector while actively utilizing NGOs.


NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Research Commission (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Some critics claim that the existence of the SDF is unconstitutional, but Prime Minister Murayama, who was head of the Social Democratic Party at the time, made an official statement that it is constitutional; this should be seen as carrying considerable weight. Furthermore, no statement reversing this position has been made since then. Is it not true, therefore, that the existence of the SDF is officially considered constitutional, and that a popular consensus to that effect has been formed? Bearing these circumstances in mind, at the same time, the idea of creating a separate "international cooperation force" also seems to me worthy of respect, and I hope to see a debate develop on how we should change Article 9, including the latter idea.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Professor MATSUI and others have pointed out that Japan has not engaged in international cooperation consistent with the ideals of the Constitution, but we also need to evaluate Japan's international cooperation from another viewpoint, that of the ideals embraced under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaties.

>> In the event that a UN member state were authorized to use force by a Security Council resolution, an important question is what position Japan would take within the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty structure. In Professor MATSUI's opinion, it is out of the question for Japan to cooperate in any form with a member state that has received such authorization, but I believe that in such a case Japan should provide cooperation that is possible under the Constitution, such as rear-echelon support.


OSHIMA Reiko (Social Democratic Party)

>> The fact that Prime Minister Murayama stated that the existence of the SDF is constitutional does not necessarily mean that the Social Democratic Party today also considers it constitutional. The position of the Social Democrats today is that we will pursue disarmament and reduce the size of the SDF while recognizing its existence.


YAMADA Toshimasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> It is a pity that Professor MATSUI discussed international cooperation on the premise that the Constitution cannot be changed. The proper premise to adopt is that it can be changed.

>> As I see it, our international cooperation will never be recognized as such overseas if we take the position that we cannot use armed force because of constitutional restrictions.


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I understood Professor MATSUI's position on Article 9 to be that the Constitution must not be "revised by interpretation," and I agree completely. The existence of the SDF violates Article 9, and we must correct this situation.


HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> When Prime Minister Murayama stated that the existence of the SDF is constitutional, there was no opposition within the Social Democratic Party, was there? Is it not inconsistent of the Social Democratic Party to claim now, as a party, that the existence of the SDF is unconstitutional, after Prime Minister Murayama stated that it is constitutional?


OSHIMA Reiko (Social Democratic Party)

>> To repeat what I said earlier, the fact that Prime Minister Murayama stated that the existence of the SDF is constitutional does not necessarily mean that the Social Democratic Party today also understands it to be constitutional. The position of the Social Democrats today is that we will pursue disarmament and reduce the size of the SDF while recognizing its existence.