Second Open Hearing

Thursday, November 18, 2004

An open hearing was held on matters concerning the Constitution of Japan. After statements were heard from persons who volunteered to speak at the hearing (hereafter, "speakers"), questions were put to them.

Morning:

Speakers

  • TAKATAKE Kazuaki, Senior Executive Director (2004) and President (2005), Junior Chamber, Inc. Japan
  • TERANAKA Makoto, Secretary General, Amnesty International Japan
  • HINOHARA Shigeaki, Chairman of the Board and Honorary President, St. Luke's International Hospital

Members who put questions


Afternoon:

Speakers

  • EBASHI Takashi, Professor, Faculty of Law, Hosei University
  • PEMA Gyalpo, Professor, Faculty of Law, Toin University of Yokohama; Professor Emeritus, Gifu Women's University; Head Officer, Tibet Culture Centre International
  • MURATA Hisanori, Professor, Kansai University School of Law

Members who put questions

Main points of statements by speakers (morning)

TAKATAKE Kazuaki

>> Of the many and varied problems presented by the Constitution, the greatest is the fact that, psychologically, we, the Japanese people, do not fully acknowledge it as our own. For one thing, it reads like a translation; it is difficult to read and hard to understand.

>> The lack of personal responsibility and the decay of public-spiritedness and morality among the people of this country can be traced back to, among other things, the enactment of the Constitution at the initiative of the United States and the conclusion of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Other causes include a narrow focus on building an industrialized society, and ascribing an absolute value to economic power.

>> We should not reject the existing Constitution on the grounds that it was "imposed" by the GHQ, because its fundamental principles have played a major role in the establishment of democracy and pacifism and in Japan's becoming an economic superpower. But I hardly think that a constitution that was drawn up at the wish of the United States, with no consideration whatsoever of Japan's customs, traditions, and culture, is suitable to be the constitution of this nation.

>> There is a marked disconnect between the people and the Constitution. What we need is an active, wide-ranging constitutional debate on an ideal vision for Japan in the 21st century, taking in such topics as new rights.

>> At a time when many social institutions have become dysfunctional and we have lost sight of Japan's role and even its raison d'être, it is more important than ever to think about an ideal constitution and vision for Japan as an independent nation. That debate should not be forced along by a few people; in order to create a "constitution by popular consensus," the public at large should be kept well informed about discussions in forums like this Commission so that the debate can take place on a national scale.

>> The Junior Chamber is attempting to stimulate discussion from the perspective of the people. In doing so, we hope to help realize the ideals of world peace and the creation of an independent Japan. Involving the public in the constitutional debate will lead to a renewal of public spirit, which has fallen into decay, and will trigger a revival of the traditional ethos of the Japanese.

>> Rather than take the half-baked approach of modifying the American-made Constitution, the time has come for us, as a new generation, to create a new Constitution befitting "Japan the beautiful" as an independent nation—a constitution that embodies the traditional Japanese value system and strikes a proper balance between world peace and the national interest.


TERANAKA Makoto

>> Amnesty International is an international organization for the protection of human rights; its core values are impartiality and nonviolence. It received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977.

>> We should place importance on synergy between international human rights treaties and the human rights provisions in the Japanese Constitution. Japan has signed six of the principal treaties, but we are seriously concerned because, among other issues: (a) Japan has not become a party to the optional protocols, and it has also lodged reservations to the related provisions in the treaties themselves; (b) Japan is not a member of the International Criminal Court; (c) while the various treaty bodies have been amassing interpretations of international human rights law, including prohibition of the death penalty, the Japanese government's interpretations remain more restrictive.

>> Judging whether to restrict speech according to its content is a direct violation of the freedom of expression proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The recent incident in Tachikawa where three people were charged with trespassing merely for distributing flyers in a Self-Defense Force housing complex has been recognized by Amnesty International as Japan's first case involving "prisoners of conscience." The Japanese government must show itself willing to fully guarantee the freedom of speech of persons who oppose decisions of public authority.

>> The human rights of foreigners are not adequately guaranteed in the existing Constitution because the English word "people" is translated as kokumin, which denotes Japanese nationals, and the Constitution therefore has no provisions that deal expressly with the rights of foreign nationals. Lately, the supposed deterioration of public order and security has been falsely blamed on an increase in crimes by foreigners. Actions taken by the authorities based on rumors of this kind are a violation of Article 4(c) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits public authorities from promoting or inciting racial prejudice. There is an urgent need to put legislation in place to ban blatant racial discrimination and to protect related rights.

>> Human rights are a way of aiding the socially disadvantaged, and those in power should therefore have a duty to protect rights. It is a logical sleight of hand to tell the disadvantaged that if they are going to claim rights, they ought to be fulfilling duties as well.

>> We should transform the way we view human rights from the present catalogue-like approach, in which disembodied rights are set out in a list, to one that takes up the human rights of people in various categories and thus always keeps sight of whose rights are at stake.


HINOHARA Shigeaki

>> As a doctor, I know that everybody on Earth is put together in the same way, and I have practiced medicine under the Hippocratic oath with its admonition "First, do no harm." However, the scientific and technological advances of recent years have generated a potential to do harm. Surely it behooves us, at this time, to remember how precious life is and to learn to live in harmony with all other living creatures, and thus with other peoples.

>> The actual international situation today is very different from the international society envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution. Furthermore, the dropping of the atomic bombs resulted in a passivity on Japan's part that has left us unable to take the "honored place" in international society which, in the words of the Preamble, we desire to occupy; indeed, one could say that the Preamble has become a kind of fantasy. But even if the society envisioned there has proved to be a fantasy, Japan should exercise leadership in the international community. That is what the Preamble means when it says "we desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace." The Japanese people should be asked to take up the challenge of making the ideals set forth in the Preamble a reality.

>> Since the September 11 incident, the United States and terrorist groups have been caught up in a chain reaction of hatred, and it is up to Japan to provide the international leadership needed to break the cycle of war. We have to understand that "love calls for sacrifices"; accordingly, Japan should stop being passive and, instead of being in a hurry to change its Constitution, should pursue a campaign of nonviolence in the international community, in the awareness that it is the Japanese people who make Japan what it is.

>> I would like to propose that we create a system in this country similar to the social service program offered as an alternative for conscientious objectors in Germany. That is to say, instead of performing compulsory military service, college graduates would serve for a certain length of time in a developing nation before they take up employment. For young people to do work of this kind abroad before taking up their own specialized fields would, I think, help form character.

>> As an ideal form of international cooperation, one hopes that Japan will contribute human resources to the international community, just as many people from other countries worked selflessly to assist Japan in the years after the war. We are now being called on to contribute in this way.


Main points of questions to speakers (morning)

MATSUNO Hirokazu (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. TAKATAKE)

>> Given that the Junior Chamber is a group of young businesspeople whose programs are rooted in the community, what problems do you identify in the Constitution from the perspectives of the younger generation and the community?

>> What do you see as the best aspects of Japan's history, tradition, and culture?

>> What, specifically, did you mean when you spoke of a disconnect between the Constitution and reality?

>> I am told that many members of the Junior Chamber favor introducing popular election of the Prime Minister. What is your opinion on this point?

>> You spoke of your resolve to see a new Constitution enacted. What is the attitude of the younger generation in this regard?

>> In the political arena, we have been hearing a great deal recently about "free competition," "personal responsibility," and "small government." I would like to hear your thoughts about the value system that these concepts represent.

>> Do you think that the Junior Chamber can be a strong force for the enactment of a new Constitution?

(To Mr. TERANAKA)

>> You said that those in power have a "duty to protect rights," but would it be correct to say that there are others besides the state who have power? Also, how do you think the question of the entities that protect human rights should be addressed in the Constitution?

>> Am I right in thinking that the concept "freedom of expression" extends not only to expressions of political opinion but to all other fields, including the arts? Also, I believe that, for the sake of children, it is necessary to regulate extreme forms of expression. Do you agree?

>> In my view, it is problematic to allow the names of criminal suspects to be published in the media before formal charges are brought, as this leads to the imposition of social punishment before the courts can reach a verdict. Do you agree?

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> You said that the challenge of making the ideals in the Preamble a reality should be put to the Japanese people, but do you think that they are at present prepared to undertake that task?

>> Based on your long experience as a medical practitioner, what do you think about how life has come to be viewed today with the progress of medical technology?


TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> In the debate on constitutional revision, there has recently been a growing emphasis on Japan's history, traditions, and culture. But to write these into the Constitution would not be consistent with modern constitutionalism. What do you think is the proper way to treat history, traditions, and culture in the constitutional debate?

(To Mr. TAKATAKE)

>> The argument that the Constitution was "imposed" is one possible element of the constitutional debate, but it seems to me that it is pointless to dwell on the past in a debate that looks to the future of the Constitution. What are your views in this regard?

>> I think that the moves to revise Article 9 are an obstacle to Japan's gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, particularly in view of the attitudes of China and South Korea to Japan's bid. Do you agree?

>> Many people perceive Japan's history, traditions, and culture as being in decline, but I do not think that incorporating them into the Constitution would prevent this. What is your view?

(To Mr. TERANAKA)

>> How do you view the disparity between international norms of criminal justice and present conditions in Japan, as seen, for example, in the way suspects are treated?

>> Why are we suddenly starting to see incidents like the trial for trespassing of people who distributed flyers at the Tachikawa Self-Defense Forces housing complex, in spite of the fact that civil and political rights are the most important freedoms in a democracy?

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> In your comments on the Preamble, I understood you to mean that it sets forth universal principles, and that the important thing is how to actively put those principles into practice. Is this correct?

>> Do your views lead you to the conclusion that the Self-Defense Forces' deployment in Iraq should not be extended, and that they should be withdrawn?

>> Please tell us what form you think Japanese leadership for world peace should take.


SATO Shigeki (New Komeito)

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> In a constitutional debate that looks to the future, how should we view the life sciences and bioethics? Do you think that we should establish relevant provisions in the Constitution, or at the legislative level, or do you not see any need for such provisions?

(To Mr. TERANAKA)

>> In the ongoing debate on the human rights of foreign nationals, which issues in particular should be emphasized and given a place in the Constitution?

(To Mr. TAKATAKE)

>> When you speak of "true peace among the citizens of the world" and "the realization of world peace," what does the word "peace" mean to you? Also, what place should international cooperation and international contributions have in the Constitution?

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> When you said that young people should go out into the world and do volunteer work for a certain length of time after graduating from university, did you mean that this should be made a duty of the people?

>> I think it is important that volunteers who go out into the world have some professional training, because amateurs with no skills will only get in the way. Would you like to comment?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. TAKATAKE)

>> In your statement, speaking of the Japanese people after the war, you used the phrases "they stopped thinking" and "public spirit, which has fallen into decay." Is this the view of all Junior Chamber members?

>> According to modern constitutionalism, the people set strict limits on state power in order to protect their human rights, their freedoms, and democracy. You predicted that the constitutional debate will trigger a revival of the traditional ethos of the Japanese, but how do you see this fitting in with modern constitutionalism?

(To Mr. TERANAKA)

>> In addition to laying down rules for peace, the UN Charter states that to ensure lasting peace it is essential to guarantee fundamental human rights and better standards of life, and a series of international human rights treaties have been created on that basis. In what way do you think improving the international human rights situation is related to establishing lasting world peace?

>> Has Amnesty International publicly stated a position on the Iraq war or the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq?

>> Why is Japan so slow to fully implement international human rights treaties? Also, why is it that, even though Japan is a signatory to these treaties, it has made so little progress on domestic reforms?

>> You mentioned "prisoners of conscience," and I would like to ask you about the background to this issue. Did it just appear out of nowhere, or did it occur in a context of developments related to human rights in Japan?

>> As I see it, the key to ensuring that such incidents do not occur is to abide by the pacifist principles and human rights set forth in the Constitution. Do you agree?

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> You said that we should design a framework for achieving peace within the bounds of the existing Constitution. Do you think that the Japanese people today have the ability to do this?


DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)

(To Dr. HINOHARA)

>> Recently, I have been hearing ideas that are disturbingly reminiscent of the nationalist ideology of the past—specifically, the proposal to review Article 24 and emphasize the status of the home and the family in its provisions. How do you view individual dignity within family relationships?

>> The recent American attack on Fallujah, in Iraq, is a violation of international humanitarian law. It is my belief that, faced with such a situation, Japan should exercise leadership as a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council. Would you like to comment?

(To Mr. TAKATAKE and Mr. TERANAKA)

>> I would like to ask your views on what kind of nation Japan should ideally be in the 21st century.


Main points of statements by speakers (afternoon)

EBASHI Takashi

>> The public is not particularly interested in revisions to the Constitution's text; what interests them deeply is a basic vision for the nation, in other words, substantive issues involving the Constitution.

>> For some time after the pacifist principles of Article 9 were enacted, they were discussed in terms of Japan having reflected upon its actions in going to war against modern nations; once diplomatic relations with China were restored in 1972, however, there was an added element of reflection on the fact that Japan had invaded other Asian nations and committed crimes there. Underlying this change were the efforts not only of the governing party, but of people in every walk of life. One could say that Japanese society and the citizens of Japan breathed new life into the Constitution given to them by the Occupation forces. If you are going to set forth pacifist ideals for the 21st century in the Constitution, I hope you will incorporate, as national principles, reflection on the war that Japan waged in Asia, and reconciliation, friendship, and cooperation in East Asia.

>> Human rights materialized in Japan in a two-tiered process that could be called "the granting of human rights from on high": the Occupation forces presented "restored human rights" to the Japanese bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy in turn presented them to the citizens. Eventually, however, beginning in 1957 with the Asahi lawsuit (in which Asahi Shigeru claimed a level of public assistance sufficient to maintain a minimum standard of living), citizens went to court to pursue the state's responsibility to put human rights into effect, and at that point the human rights that had been provided for in the Constitution became truly "restored human rights." In the decades since then, against a background of civic activism, citizens have campaigned for the actualization of human rights in government policies, and progress has been made in tandem with international guarantees of human rights. In discussing revision of the Constitution, a more pressing issue than providing for new human rights is the need to make clear that the government is responsible for putting human rights into effect, and to clarify that the responsibility for guaranteeing human rights lies with government and the courts.

>> Faced with the financial failure of its system of national administration led by the central bureaucracy, Japan has entered "the age of the regions," looking for solution through decentralizing. This is another area where citizens' movements have breathed new life into the Constitution's provisions, as we have seen increasing local autonomy under heads of local government who advocate sustainable development of their regions and citizen participation in government. Meanwhile, I am sorry to say, constitutional scholars have had little advice to give on local autonomy. I hope that this Commission will discuss the importance of local autonomy in depth, drawing on the body of research that has been produced by citizens. I hope that you will also establish a responsibility to take the quality of citizens' lives into consideration, proceeding in a series of steps: first at the municipal government level, then at the central government level, and, finally, through cooperative relationships in the international community.

>> Citizens have argued, campaigned and voted for many causes that are part of a vision for the nation, from the guarantee of human rights in daily life to national security as a whole. The 21st century will be characterized by a sharing of the public sphere among the government, the market, and civil society, with the central and local governments cooperating as equals. The Constitution should be a set of fundamental principles, including a statement of values which can be held in common by all three of these sectors—the government, the market, and civil society.


PEMA Gyalpo

>> Japan is a democratic nation under the rule of law, and I regard its Constitution with esteem and gratitude; I believe that I have the Constitution to thank for the comfort, convenience, and freedom that I have enjoyed while living in this society. Some people see the present Constitution as having been given to or imposed on Japan, but I see it as the fruit of a struggle for human rights and democracy that was carried on by the Japanese from the Meiji period onwards.

>> In some ways, Article 9 is unrealistic as a basis for Japan's existence in the international community of the future. That is to say, Article 9 is a unilateral renunciation of war, and in the absence of an international community prepared to respect it and a body of international law to guarantee it, it amounts to a mere declaration. Tibet, too, once put its faith in peace, taking the Buddhist precept of respect for life as the basis of its national laws, but it suffered invasion and mass murder nonetheless, and even the United Nations was unable to do anything. Sadly, the international community today is founded on power and on faits accomplis.

>> Viewed in the light of the Constitution's text, the existence of the Self-Defense Forces can only be called unconstitutional. As one who has experienced war and starvation, I know the value of peace and I understand the ideals of Article 9, but the reality is a different matter. Peace must be protected if we are to enjoy its blessings, and that will necessitate changes in the Constitution.

>> Freedom entails morals and standards of behavior, but there is a lack of moral standards among the younger generation which may perhaps be explained by the absence of uniquely Japanese traditions and culture in the Constitution. The approach to constitutional revision needs to take into account Japanese traditions and culture, the present global situation, and the future of the Earth and humankind.

>> In my view, the status of the Emperor should probably be made a little clearer in the Constitution.

>> For many years, Japan succeeded in remaining at peace not only because of its Constitution, but also because of the Cold War structure. Now that that structure has collapsed, if Japan wishes to keep its existing Constitution, it must help to create the appropriate international environment.

>> It is the prerogative of the Japanese people, with whom sovereignty resides, to create their Constitution, and their representatives in the Diet should take the long view, approaching their task as a contribution to the future of Japan, Asia, and all humanity, and bearing in mind that it is their descendants who will enjoy its benefits and be subject to its constraints.


MURATA Hisanori

>> Constitutional democracy is the highest form of government known to humankind.

>> A constitution can be seen as a set of authorizing norms, a set of restrictive norms, and the supreme law of the nation. As a set of authorizing norms, it legitimates government authority; as a set of restrictive norms, it sets clear limits to that authority. When we say that the Constitution is the supreme law, we mean, in terms of form, that any norms that violate it are invalid; and, in terms of substance, that it contains the highest values of the nation and the society, and that it cannot be easily overridden whenever a proposed change gains the support of a simple majority.

>> Determining the will of the people is a prerequisite for the democratic interpretation and application of the Constitution, but there is now some question as to whether the popular will is faithfully reflected in the Diet. Article 43 and related provisions stipulate that the election system is to be fixed by law. But it should be fixed on the basis of certain principles—among them, that the right to vote is an inherent right of the people, and that discrimination is forbidden—and the Supreme Court has recognized this intent in its decisions. There are, however, a number of problems: in particular, the single-seat constituency system is not designed to reflect public opinion when it is diverse; the system for casting ballots at home is very limited; and the failure of politicians to keep their campaign promises has resulted in public distrust of the political process, leading to low voter turnouts.

>> In constitutional interpretation, the text should be respected, meaning that there should be respect for the Constitution's normative nature, that is, its nature as a set of authorizing norms and a set of restrictive norms. However, in a number of areas, such as Article 9, or the separation of religion and the state, the Constitution has been interpreted in ways which ignore its normative nature; for example, the right of individual self-defense, which is not explicitly stated in the text, was cited as the basis for establishing the Self-Defense Forces.

>> For a number of reasons, new human rights can be recognized even in the absence of explicit provisions; one reason is that the Constitution is a set of restrictive norms whose purpose is to restrain "authority." Rights such as the right to know can be recognized under the existing Constitution, and there is certainly no need to revise the Constitution for their sake.

>> The Constitution authorizes the state to make contributions to peace by means that do not involve force, and such efforts will lead to increasing ties of friendship within the international community.

>> What is needed at this time is not revision but democratic interpretation and application of the Constitution.


Main points of questions to speakers (afternoon)

MATSUMIYA Isao (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> Personally, I have doubts about revising the Constitution to incorporate reflections on the war in Asia as one of its basic principles, but if we were to do so, how, specifically, do you think the provision should be phrased?

>> In relation to Article 9, you have stated that we should affirm the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces, but do I understand your position correctly as being that the present Self-Defense Forces are constitutional under the existing Constitution?

>> Do you think that any new provisions are needed, either in the Preamble or in the main text, regarding Japan's international contributions in nonmilitary areas, as exemplified by the concept of "human security," toward the peace and stability of the international community in the 21st century? Or do you think that the existing provisions are sufficient?

>> You stressed the need to make clear that the government is responsible for putting human rights into effect, and to clarify that the responsibility for guaranteeing human rights lies with government and the courts. Could you please explain these points in more detail?

>> I think that the situation regarding a country's guarantee of human rights varies over time according to social conditions and other factors. Would you like to comment on this point?

>> The existing prefectural system came into effect long ago, and times have changed. What are your thoughts on the ideal form of local autonomy, including the possibility of introducing a do-shu system in order to achieve decentralization and local sovereignty?

(To Prof. PEMA)

>> What are your thoughts about the Preamble and Article 9 when you consider Japan's security in light of the situation in Tibet and the present international situation?

>> You said that the Emperor's position at the center of Japanese tradition and culture, rather than as a symbol of unity, needs to be clearly established both at home and abroad, but do you consider the Emperor to be the head of state?

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> You said that, from the viewpoint of constitutional democracy, the present single-seat constituency system presents problems in that there are many wasted votes and the diversity of public opinion is not reflected. What kind of electoral system would reflect the diversity of public opinion?

>> In general, the disparity between constituencies in the weight of a single vote is allowed to reach a maximum of twofold in the House of Representatives and fivefold in the House of Councillors. What do you think about the fact that the value of a vote differs between the two Houses? Also, in the United States, every state elects two senators, regardless of its population size, and this is said to draw together the will of the people. Would you like to comment on this point?

>> If I understood you correctly, you said that it is problematic that not even the right of individual self-defense has been explicitly stipulated in the Constitution, and you commented that this point represents a crisis for Japan's system of constitutional democracy. In your opinion, does the problem lie in the present interpretation or in the existence of the Self-Defense Forces, which, as one part of public authority, protect the lives and property of the people?


NAGASHIMA Akihisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> Your position that Japan lacks even the right of individual self-defense amounts to saying that we have no means of self-preservation as a natural right, but can this really be called a constitutionalist interpretation? Does the state or government have no room to use its own discretion at all?

>> Certainly, whenever possible, international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means such as diplomatic efforts, but are you saying that we have no recourse at all to defend ourselves, even in the face of imminent and unlawful attack?

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> Which is the best way of putting human rights into effect: restoring them in the courts and in government policy through the efforts of citizens' movements, or embodying the achievements of citizens' movements in constitutional amendments?

>> What do you think of the argument that human rights should be universally enjoyed by foreign nationals residing in Japan?

>> On the subject of granting voting rights in local elections to permanent foreign residents, some people argue that we should make it easier to obtain Japanese nationality and then recognize voting rights only for those foreigners who do so. What is your opinion in this regard?

>> Article 93 uses the term jumin (residents) in the phrase that is rendered in English as "direct popular vote." Can this wording be seen as grounds for recognizing voting rights for foreigners in local elections?

(To Prof. PEMA)

>> During your long residence in this country, have you suffered any disadvantages due to not being a Japanese national?

>> How do you view the relationship between the UN Charter and Article 9?

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> As I see it, because the Constitution is made up of just 103 articles, there is always the possibility of events and situations arising that were not foreseen when it was drawn up. If we cling too closely to the literal text and the normative nature of the Constitution, aren't we left with constitutional revision as our only option in dealing with such situations?


OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> I think that New Komeito's position of "adding to the Constitution" is very realistic and concrete, because: (a) it evaluates the existing Constitution positively; (b) it maintains continuity, which is important; and (c) it is consistent with the nuances of the term "amendment" (the process of revising by adding a modifying clause) in Article 96, Paragraph 2. How do you visualize constitutional revision, and what do you think of New Komeito's approach of "adding to the Constitution"?

>> In my view, while the basic structure of the Constitution should be left as it is, with an opposition set up between the state and the people, we need to insert the concept of responsibilities in addition to rights and duties. Do you agree?

>> I think that the concepts of mutual aid and coexistence will become increasingly important in the future. How would you say these concepts are related to responsibility and what do you think about introducing them into the Constitution?

(To Prof. PEMA)

>> Some argue that Japanese culture and traditions are fading away because no provision has been made for them in the Constitution, and the nation is losing its identity as a result. How do you think we should maintain and nurture our national culture and traditions?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> What brought about the present situation regarding the Constitution, which has been called a crisis of constitutionalism? Is there any prospect of correcting this situation, which you described as a "distortion"?

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> You said that citizens' movements have been breathing new life into the Constitution since the 1970s. Would it be correct to say that these movements, together with the court rulings that they have obtained, have in fact realized the power that was already present in the Constitution?

>> Would it be true to say that when the people, with whom sovereignty resides, make public authorities abide by the Constitution, this becomes a force for realizing its inherent values?

(To Prof. PEMA)

>> The international environment has an impact on the Constitution. The wars that have occurred so far in the 21st century have been in Asia. Against such a background, how do you view Japan's relationship with the United States' global strategy of unilateral action and preemptive strikes?

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> What significance do you attach to the historical background of the Constitution's pacifist principles, centered on Article 9; that is, to the fact that these principles came into being in 1946? Also, what do you see as the role of Article 9 in the world or in Asia in the 21st century?


TERUYA Kantoku (Social Democratic Party)

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> As the handling of the crash of a U.S. military helicopter in Okinawa showed, the norms of the Constitution as the supreme law collide with the body of laws relating to the presence of U.S. forces in Japan. This body of laws, which has the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty at its apex and which includes special laws and the Status of Forces Agreement, is eroding the Constitution and our sovereignty. How do you view this clash in relation to pacifist principles?

(To Prof. MURATA)

>> The Japanese Constitution was the first constitution in the world to guarantee peace as a human right. It is sometimes claimed that the right to live in peace has not been established as a judicial norm, but it was recognized in the trial court's decision when the residents of Naganuma, in Hokkaido, contested the siting of a Self-Defense Force base near their village. I believe that the right to live in peace should be treated as very important. Would you like to comment?

(To Prof. EBASHI and Prof. MURATA)

>> In the Research Commissions on the Constitution of both Upper and Lower Houses, it has been argued that the Constitution contains many provisions on the people's rights but not enough provisions on their duties. However, I think that adding more provisions on duties would be wrong from a constitutionalist standpoint. The Liberal Democratic Party's draft outline of constitutional revisions bans conscription, on the one hand, but on the other hand it proposes a duty of the people "to protect the nation," and I fear that this could well lead, eventually, to conscription. What do you think?