憲法第9条とわが国の派兵問題 : 湾岸危機を中心として
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The view of the present Japanese government is that Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution means that only when an armed attack occurs against Japan may the Japanese self-defense forces take military action according to the inherent right of self-defense. In fact, however, Article 9 seems to forbid dispatching forces overseas for the purpose of participating as a unit of United Nations Forces exercising the right of collective self-defense for other countries. In the case of the Gulf Crisis it was generally uncertain whether or not the Constitution forbids dispatching forces overseas. The multinational force used in that crisis was of course not a formal United Nations force operating in accordance with Article 42 of the United Nations Charter. Insofar as the Japanese Constitution forbids dispatching forces overseas even as a unit of United Nations Forces, it seems clear that Japan is also legally unable to dispatch forces overseas to become a unit of such a multinational force. We must admit, however, that there are apparent differences between "war" and the "enforcement actions" taken by the Security Council. The war that Japan forever renounces in the postwar Constitution is hostile activities between nations, which refers to the type of relations prevalent in earlier times when waging war against other nations as a sovereign right not yet forbidden as a means of settling international disputes. In contrast, the enforcement actions taken by the Security Council in accordance with the United Nations Charter are enforcing the law against an aggressor responsible for violating international law. It can be argued that, theoretically speaking, the Constitution does not renounce such international enforcement actions. From a constitutional point of view, what obstacles are there to dispatching self-defense forces overseas to become a unit of United Nations Forces? This article examines that question from a legal perspective.
- 文教大学の論文
- 1996-00-00