Taking Law Seriously
(Interview with Katherine Bang on fm 90.5, Busan, South Korea, July 2, 2014)
I conducted an interview with Katherine Bang of fm 90.5, an English language radio station in Busan, South Korea, on July 2, 2014, on the issue of the Japanese government’s purported “reinterpretation” of Art. 9 of the Constitution of Japan, and the right of collective self-defense that the Japanese government now says it has as a result.
Click this link to access audio file of the interview.
* * *
(Interview with Yoichi Takeuchi, in the Tokyo Shinbun, Jun. 30, 2014)
??????????????? ?????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
(Published in the Japan Times, June 28, 2014, opposite and as counterpoint to an article by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in defense of the policy)
Prime Minister Abe is expected to continue to press for Cabinet approval of a “re-interpretation” of the war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. His goal is to relax the constitutional prohibition on Japan’s use of force for purposes of both engaging in collective self-defense actions and participating in U.N. collective security operations. There may be good reasons for Japan to consider relaxing the constraints of Article 9, but this so-called “re-interpretation” is entirely illegitimate and poses dangers to Japan’s democracy.
To be clear on what this so-called “re-interpretation” means, the Prime Minister is seeking to circumvent the constitutional amendment procedure mandated by the Constitution itself, and to dictate a radical change to the meaning of fundamental principles in the Constitution by way of Cabinet fiat, with no Diet debate or vote, and no public approval. The very process violates fundamental principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law, while the substance of the proposed “re-interpretation” does further violence to these principles.
To fully appreciate why this is so, we need to review briefly the relevant aspects of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Constitutions in democracies are typically the highest law of the land. They define and distribute authority, enshrine individual rights, and serve to limit the government’s power in important ways. Indeed, in this function of limiting the exercise of government power, particularly in moments of crisis, constitutions serve as “pre-commitment devices”. They constrain future generations to abide by the principles, rights, and power structures envisioned by the founders.
(Published in The Huffington Post, September 10, 2013)
The looming military strikes on Syria are being justified as necessary to enforce and maintain a fundamental international law norm, namely the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It is quite clear that in the current situation, and in the absence of U.N. Security Council authorization, such strikes will also themselves violate a fundamental norm of international law, namely the prohibition on the use of force against sovereign states (see here for my own discussion of the legality issues).
At first blush the argument that one should violate the law in order to enforce it seems absurd, encouraging a counterproductive form of vigilante justice at best. But it does raise the question — are there times when we should violate international law in order to enforce it? Or more explicitly in the Syrian context: under what conditions and according to what criteria would it be justifiable to violate the fundamental rule prohibiting the use of force against sovereign states, in order to enforce the fundamental rule prohibiting the use of chemical weapons? Are there some practical responses that might provide some guidance for policy makers?
It must be acknowledged that there are some situations in which we accept that it would be justifiable to violate the law, or at the very least in which the circumstances would mitigate against our full condemnation of a violation. Such justification, in the form of exceptions, defenses, and reduced punishment, is indeed built into most domestic legal systems, and is part of most conceptions of justice.