Since the end of World War II, Japan has pursued the path of a peace-loving nation. The Constitution, Article 9 in particular, drafted by the Allied occupation forms the foundation of this path. According to said Article, Japan is not allowed to maintain military forces in any shape or form. However; due to various circumstances, Japan has been forced to push the boundaries of the Article, leaving it an empty shell. Therefore, many people are questioning whether this Article is still appropriate and are suggesting that Japan should amend it. We will start by looking at the contents of Article 9, followed by their various interpretations. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution consists of two paragraphs: 1: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and …show more content…
Furthermore, unlike in the English translation, in the Japanese version of the Article the word ‘war’ is clearly related to ‘as a sovereign right’ as well as to ‘as means of settling international disputes’. The phrase war ‘as a means of settling international disputes’ is similar to the one used in the General Pact for the Renunciation of War (1928), which Japan signed: “war for the solution of international controversies” (Umeda, 2006). This phrase in the Treaty refers solely to offensive operations, such as invading other countries. In Japan, consistency is a must when interpreting similar phrases of legal documents from the same era. Since the interpretation of the phrase in this Treaty excluded defensive operations, the same applies to Article 9. Therefore, Article 9 does not renounce war in self-defense according to the interpretation. However, this interpretation leaves the Article with ambiguous language, as it is nearly impossible to distinguish a war of self-defense and a war of invasion (Umeda,