　　　The underlying reasons for the ruling

On the Constitutionality of Self-Defense Force missions in Iraq

　1 The unconstitutionality of the Self-Defense Force mission in Iraq

(1)　 The Japanese government’s interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese
　　　Constitution in regards to overseas missions and the use of force by the Self-
　　　Defense Forces (SDF) is that it is only allowed to use minimum force if
　　　necessary in self-defense. The use of force is defined as the act of combat,
　　　which is offering personnel and/or supplies as a part of “An International
　　　Conflict with Force.” Under this interpretation, The Self-Defense Force should
　　　make the action referring to the following:

　　　　　1 Sending Self-Defense Forces overseas for combat is prohibited. However,
　　　　　sending Self-Defense Forces overseas non-combative purposes is allowed.
　　　　　2 Supporting the combat of coalition forces indirectly (such as
　　　　　transportations, replenishments, and medical treatments) is prohibited if the
　　　　　Self-Defense Forces are physically with the coalition forces. However, such
　　　　　support is allowed if the troops are not with the coalition forces.
　　　　　3 Whether to support the combat of coalition forces can be decided from the
　　　　　following:
　　　　　　　A. The distance between the locations where the combat is taking place
　　　　　　　　　in relation to the locations of the SDF.
　　　　　　　B. The purpose for the presence of the SDF.
　　　　　　　C. Camaraderie between soldiers of the country in combat and SDF
　　　　　　　D. The circumstances under, which action is taken by the country in
　　　　　　　　　combat.
　　　The final decisions must be made by taking into account the answers to the
　　　above and judgments must be made respectively.

(2) 　Under Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, “The Special Measures Law 2003”
　　　was passed. The following are the articles of “The Special Measures Law 2003”.
　　　The new law was made in order for Japan to promote humanitarian and
　　　reconstruction assistance and/or ensuring security in Iraq (Article 1). Actions must
　　　not include any use of forces and /or threats of force (Article 2 Section 2). Actions
　　　must take place within Japanese territory or in places that are guaranteed not to be
　　　part of a combat zone currently or within the foreseeable future during which time
　　　the SDF is to occupy said space (Article 2 Section 3).

(3) 　What is referred to as “An International Conflict with Force” by the government is,
　　　conflict using force involving more than one country or entities (entity being a
　　　construct that can wield power like a country). The existence of combat or lack
　　　there of must be judged respectively by considering the international political
　　　location of the country/countries and/or entity/entities, their strategies/goals, their
　　　internal organization and their continuity as well as that of their plans/goals. When
　　　the American and British militaries use force against a recognized criminal
　　　organization, it is not considered “An International Conflict with Force”. However,
　　　if an organization holds political claim, has the ability to be the cause international
　　　conflict and wields enough military power to bring about an international conflict,
　　　and judged as an organization, which engages in demolition, this organization is
　　　considered to be an entity.

(4)　 In fact, after President Bush declared the war over in May 2003, the coalition
　　　forces, lead by the U.S. military, continued to eliminate armed organizations by
　　　mobilizing and dispatching coalition forces to cities such as al-Falluja and
　　　Baghdad. However, these organizations gained more power through gaining
　　　support even from overseas. These organizations’ political stances are
　　　recognized to include resisting America’s occupation of Iraq. These
　　　organizations succeed in resistance through having enough soldiers and
　　　organizing plans. As a result, many civilians and soldiers have been injured and
　　　killed. The actions of the coalition forces is beyond what is necessary to
　　　“ensuring security.” Currently, there are conflicts between armed organizations
　　　based on religious sects after the coalition’s attack on Iraq. Additionally, these
　　　organizations are in conflict with the coalition. Both of these conflicts are
　　　complexly intertwined and interwoven and have evolved into a hopeless mess.
　　　The current conflict between these organizations and the coalition in Iraq can be
　　　said to be an extension of war against the Iraqi’s, which began in the beginning
　　　of March 2003. Therefore, the conflict is between the coalition and armed
　　　organizations in Iraq. Thus this is an international conflict/combat.
　　　Therefore, what is currently happening in Iraq are conflicts between the coalition
　　　and armed organizations which are entities. This can not be defined as a type of
　　　civil war. It is “An International Conflict with Force”.
　　　The American military has tried to eliminate the armed organizations based on
　　　the Shiite and the Sunni sects, especially since 2007. These organizations
　　　fought against the American military with enough soldiers to resist effectively.
　　　Therefore, this area is war zone in which people are killed and injured, and
　　　things are demolished as in an International Conflict with Force. Thus, this is
　　　war zone in which “The Special Measures Law 2003” has identified

(5)　 In regards to the fact that, the Air Self-Defense Force had accepted the request
　　　from The United States America, to transport soldiers of the coalition forces
　　　 from Ali Al Salem Air Base in the State of Kuwait, to Baghdad International
　　　Airport. Since July 2006, the Air Self-Defense Force has used three of the C-
　　　130H aircrafts to transport soldiers of the coalition forces four or five times a
　　　week regularly. This act does not involve any use of force, but with the situation
　　　in Iraq now, transporting coalition forces is an essential element of combat. By
　　　transporting coalition forces to Baghdad International Airport, the Air Self-
　　　Defense Force has cooperated and assisted the coalition forces in their use of
　　　force. Hence, the transportation provided by the Self Defense Force at lease in
　　　regards to coalition forces is use of force by the Self Defense Force as they
　　　occupy the same space.

(6) 　 Therefore, even if “The Special Measures Law 2003”is constitutional according
　　　to the interpretation of the Japanese government, the activity of the Air Self-
　　　Defense Force is against “The Special Measures Law 2003”. The actions of Air
　　　Self-Defense Force violate Article 2 Section 2 of “The Special Measures Law
　　　2003” which forbids use of force, Section 3 which limits JSDF to non war-zone
　　　locations as well as Article 9 section 1 of the Japanese Constitution.

　2 In Regards to the Right To Live Peacefully

(1)　 “The right to live peacefully” which appellors claim is what the Japanese
　　　Constitution guarantees. Hence basic human rights do not exist without peace.
　　　Thus “The right to live peacefully” is the right every person should have and is
　　　the foundation upon which all human rights rests. It is not limit to constitutional
　　　principles.

(2)　 The Japanese Constitution is known to be the standard of all Japanese laws and
　　　the Japanese Constitution clearly states that all Japanese Citizens have“The
　　　right to live peacefully”. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution instructs the
　　　government to renounce war and not to hold force. Moreover, Article 13 and 3
　　　of the Japanese Constitution instructs the Japanese government to respect and
　　　uphold individual human rights. Therefore, “The right to live peacefully”
　　　should be abided by as it is stipulated in the Japanese Constitution.

(3) “The right to live peacefully” is founded on rights to freedom, social rights,
　　　and rights to vote. Therefore, the “right to live peacefully” is a tangible subject
　　　and right. Hence, it can be brought into court to protect our rights to freedom
　　　 social rights, and rights to vote. For example, if an action was taken by the
　　　Japanese government that was in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, a
　　　Japanese citizen can bring “The right to live peacefully” into court in order to
　　　stop the Japanese Government’s violation. As such he/she can claim for the
　　　damages. The violation of Article 9 means implementation of war, use of force,
　　　preparation for war, all of which are conducts by which a Japanese Citizen can
　　　to lose his/her rights. The government by it’s violation exposes the Citizen to
　　　dangers of loss of life, loss of freedoms, and being exposed to crises that is an
　　　infringement of peace through suffering from fear of the plausibility of being
　　　forced to help the implementation of or forced to join the war. Effectively, a
　　　Japanese citizen can take the Japanese government to court for such violations
　　　and request damages and request that the Japanese government to cease and
　　　desist in it’s actions, which violate Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

　3 Request by Appellor

(1) About Requesting the Confirmation of the Constitutional Violation. (Refers only
　　　appellors related to this case)
　　　 A civil suit system is constructed of are a series of laws to solve any
　　　conlict/conflicts between persons over their current rights or legal relations.
　　　Therefore, the confirmation must be subjected to their current rights and legal
　　　relations. However, this request is to abstractly confirm that a conduct is against
　　　a law/laws. Thus this request is invalid because this is not the matter subject to
　　　person’s current rights or legal relations.

(2) About Request of suspension (Refers only appellors related to this case)
　　　　 A. The validity of the Civil Suit.
　　　　　　In regards to the SDF mission based on “The Special Measures Law 2003”.
　　　　　　The Self-Defense Force was sent to Iraq by the minister of defense, who has
　　　　　　governmental authority. Therefore, the requests for cessation, in this case is
　　　　　　the cancellation of the mission, which is authorized by the minister of
　　　　　　defense. Private citizens cannot legitimately request alternation of the order,
　　　　　　which is authorized by the government because of regulations of the civil
　　　　　　suit. (See Supreme Court 1981 December 16 “The Judgment by the Fullcourt
　　　　　　of Japan” Volume 35 Reference 10 Page 1369 for details) Therefore,
　　　　　　the request for cessation is not legitimate.
　　　　B. The validity of the Administrative Suit (Protest suit)
　　　　　　Supposing that the request for cessation was sent to the Administrative Suit,
　　　　　　it would still be invalid. Even though the Self-Defense Force was sent, the
　　　　　　appellor did not directly suffer, such as losing his/her life, losing his/her
　　　　　　freedom, being exposed to the crisis of infringement, and suffering from fear.
　　　　　　The government did not force the appellor to support or join the war. At this
　　　　　　point, the appellor’s “Concrete Rights” and his/her “Rights to live
　　　　　　peacefully” were not violated. Therefore, the request for cessation by the
　　　　　　appellor to alter the decision made by the minister of defense is not
　　　　　　legitimate. Thus even if this request for cessation is an administrative suit, it
　　　　　　is still invalid.

(3) Request to pay damages
　　　With all evidences shown at the court, it is apparent that the appellor had both
　　　strong beliefs and ideologies towards peace. Their strong beliefs and ideologies
　　　were built by their experiences throughout their lives. Thus they had suffered
　　　from severe mental pains by the SDF mission in Iraq, which run counter to
　　　Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Therefore, the Appellor’s requests that
　　　damages be paid are understandable considering the Appellor’s feelings about
　　　Japanese citizens living under a peaceful Constitution. No one should take the
　　　Appellor’s feelings lightly or view his/her feelings as a political loser’s
　　　individual resentment, unpleasantness or helplessness under a world of indirect
　　　democracies. However, violations of the Appellor’s “Concrete Rights”and
　　　his/her “Rights to live peacefully” are not recognized. Therefore, Appellor’s
　　　requested for damages under the civil lawsuit are not recognized and thus not
　　　valid.

　4 Damages Requested by the Appellor, Naoto Amaki

　　　With the law of the services such as the First-class foreign services, the work of
　　　“The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary”, which is the head of the
　　　diplomatic ambassadors, is a unique position. The Cabinet and the Minister of
　　　Foreign Affairs with the purpose of political agenda chose Naoto Amaki as the
　　　Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Therefore, the decision to
　　　dismiss him from the post of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
　　　was not illegal unless the Cabinet and the Minister for Foreign Affairs abused
　　　their discretionary powers. Therefore, it is possible for the appellor Amaki to
　　　lose his post of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, against his
　　　will, for other reasons than given by the Cabinet and the Minister of Foreign
　　　Affairs.
　　　However, The appellor Amaki, opposed Japan’s support of the attack
　　　against Iraq. With this political stance, he received encouragement of retirement
　　　from the Foreign Ministry. With disappointment and anger in mind, the appellor
　　　Amaki signed and placed a seal on the document. Considering this experience, it
　　　is understandable how frustrating Amaki was, but the fact that he made the
　　　decision to retire of his own free will is recognized
　　　Also, whatever reasons the Foreign Ministry may have had to dismiss the
　　　appellor Amaki from the party, it would not be illegal even though the Foreign
　　　Ministry had said that it was a part of a rejuvenation of the ministry. However,
　　　the reason given is an obvious fabrication. For the above reasons, it can be
　　　gathered that illegal conduct and abuse of discretionary powers is not the cause
　　　for appellor Amaki’s retirement from the post of the Ambassador Extraordinary
　　　and Plenipotentiary. Thus the request for damages by the appellor Amaki is invalid.

End of Statement　　　　　　　　　　

閉じる