Remanding Case for Rejecting Collective Self-defense

To

kyo High Court remanded the case of a member of Japan Self-defense Force who opposed new security legislation of Shinzo Abe administration to its lower court on Wednesday. On the argument of the plaintiff that the unconstitutional legislation would jeopardize his life, the Court recognized legality of the case. While the opposite parties accuse Abe administration of its unilateral interpretation of Article 9 of Constitution of Japan for new security legislation, the judicial branch begins its examination of the constitutionality of that highly controversial legislation.

The man who joined Ground Self-defense Force in 1993 failed a lawsuit to reconfirm that he did not have obligation to obey possible order of defense mobilization in March 2016. He argued that Article 9 did not allow use of force without attack on Japan and he had not agreed on obedience to an order of exercising collective self-defense right. “It is possible that I will be assigned to a company for battle and then my life can be damaged when I receive an order of mobilization,” told the plaintiff. It was the first case for a member of SDF in duty to oppose new security legislation.

Tokyo Regional Court dismissed the case in March 2017. The defendant, Government of Japan, had been arguing that the plaintiff did not have any interest in the lawsuit, because there was no situation of jeopardizing Japan’s existence, the condition of mobilization, and no clear possibility of that occurrence in the future. The presiding judge concluded that he could not recognize danger or uneasiness on the right or status of the man.

The decision of the High Court was totally different. The chief judge Norihiko Sugihara dismissed the argument of the government that it could not assume issuance of defense mobilization order on his company in recent situation of international security and recognized high possibility for each of SDF personnel to be ordered it. “If he does not obey the order, he will seriously be damaged with criminal penalty including disciplinary dismissal or social accusation. To prevent that damage, he had no choice but filing a lawsuit for reconfirming no need to abide by the order,” told Sugihara. He also dismissed an argument of the defendant that issuance of mobilization order could not be assumed.

The decision of the High Court was a dismissal of negative attitude of Regional Court on discussing constitutionality of new security legislation. Because the judicial branch says nothing about constitutionality of unilateral interpretation of the Constitution, Abe administration does everything they like to change Constitution of Japan. If the court decides in favor of the plaintiff, Abe’s political agenda will severely be damaged.