Constitutional Law

The Tragic Demise of Japan’s Constitutional War Constraints

by

Published a chapter entitled “The Tragic Demise of Japan’s Constitutional War Constraints,” the in an edited volume, The ‘Pacifist Principle’ in the Italian and Japanese Constitutions in the Wake of the War in Ukraine, Giovanni Cavaggion ed., (Springer, 2026), which came out of the conference at the University of Milan last year. The full chapter is available on SSRN, and the abstract is below:

Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan famously prohibits the use of force and the maintenance of armed forces and “other war potential.” For seven decades this provision effectively shaped national policy, constraining the government from any use of force and, to a lesser extent, moderating Japan’s national security posture. It also helped define Japan’s postwar constitutional identity. This chapter examines the process and implications of how Article 9 has been illegitimately undermined over the last decade.

First, it explains the traditional understanding and effective operation of Article 9, from its first authoritative interpretation in 1954 through 2014. Second, it analyzes the Abe administration’s process of “reinterpretation” in 2014–2015, which gutted the clear and effective constitutional constraint on the use of force in paragraph one, and explains why this was not a valid informal amendment but an unconstitutional circumvention of the formal amendment procedure. Third, it examines how Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was used as an opportunity to complete the evisceration of Article 9, with a new national security strategy that entrenched the reinterpretation and sidelined the less effective prohibition on armed forces and other war potential.

The chapter closes with reflections on the tragic nature of this demise: Article 9 was a unique experiment in constitutional incorporation of international law constraints on the use of force. Its illegitimate subversion is significant not only for constitutionalism and the rule of law in Japan, but for the broader project of subjecting state use of force to meaningful legal limits—at a time when that project is under increasing strain internationally.

New Substack – Law in Crisis

by

I have launched a new substack, entitled Law in Crisis, which some might find interesting. As the masthead explains, it is a forum for “musings on how law can help our response to crises, and how to respond to the crisis in law itself – use of force and armed conflict, climate change and security, AI and security, constitutional and int’l human rights, and the rule of law more generally.”  The plan is to publish an essay of between one to two thousand words at least once a week.

The Power of Rights-Based Climate Change Litigation

by

My law review article exploring the influence and impact of rights-based climate change litigation has now been published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, and the full article can be downloaded from SSRN. The abstract is posted below:

An increasing number of legal challenges to government climate change policies are being advanced on the basis that states are violating the human rights or constitutional rights of applicants. A number of high-profile cases in Europe have upheld such claims and ordered governments to adjust their policies. But questions remain regarding how effective such rights-based cases may be in the effort to enforce climate change law obligations or encourage government responses to the crisis. This Article explores how such rights-based cases may exercise greater influence than is typically understood.

After explaining briefly the relevant human rights and climate change law, this Article examines in some detail a sample of rights-based climate cases that reflect a common pattern of features that provide the basis for such an explanation. The cases illustrate the incorporation of both international human rights law norms, and international climate change law obligations and standards, which are used to assess the legitimacy of government climate change policy. The courts increasingly rely upon the science of climate change institutions and the arguments and doctrines developed by foreign courts and international tribunals, including new doctrines for rejecting typical “drop in the ocean” causation and justiciability arguments traditionally relied upon to dismiss climate change cases.

Read more

International Law in Ukraine and Japan’s New Strategy at AALS

by

This year’s AALS Conference in San Diego, in the first week of January, was a good one! It was a pleasure to both moderate a fantastic panel on how the war in Ukraine is impacting international law, and to speak on another panel on the significance of Japan’s new National Security Strategy, which is a marked departure from its traditional position, and arguably inconsistent with the constitutional constraints in Art. 9, on the use of force and maintenance of armed forces.