An Analysis of the Japanese Constitutional Revision Debate: From the Eclectic Perspectives of IR Theory

Abstract

SUMMARY

The 1947 Japanese Constitution has always been a focus of political debate ever since its enforcement, but it has never been revised. The center of the constitutional debate has been Article 9, the so-called “peace clause,” which stipulates renunciation of war and non-possession of armed forces. In response to changes in the security environment during the Cold War, Japan decided to possess constabulary forces that were upgraded to the Self-Defense Forces. In the post-Cold-War world, Japan began participating in international peace operations authorized by the United Nations. The post-9/11 international environment forced Japan to enhance its military capability, and the Japan Defense Agency was upgraded to the Ministry of Defense in 2007. Moreover, the National Referendum Law, designed to facilitate the constitutional revision process, came into force on 18 May 2010. Furthermore, Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, a constitutional revisionist, came back to power again on 26 December 2012. This paper examines the Japanese constitutional revision debate from the perspectives of international relations (IR) theory. First of all, it points out that the arguments of both constitutional protectors and revisionists tend to lapse into a dichotomy. Most Japanese constitutional scholars support the interpretation that the Japanese Constitution prohibits any use of force, including self-defense. On the contrary, Japanese political elites prefer to revise Article 9 so that Japan can possess proper military forces. The dichotomy in the arguments regarding the Japanese constitutional revision issue is obvious, and academic analysis needs to provide comprehensive perspectives on the debate. In order to overcome the dichotomy, this paper provides eclectic theoretical perspectives on the basis of “analytical eclecticism” suggested by Peter Katzenstein in 2008. The eclectic research method, which integrates orthodox theories (classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, classical realism, and neo-realism) and an alternative approach (constructivism) to international politics, assists in elucidating and visualizing complicated theoretical factors and possible future scenarios. First, Japan as a pacifist state model is examined from the perspective of classical liberalism to consider whether Japan will become a non-violent state through constitutional revision. Second, a neo-liberal perspective supports constitutional revision in that Japan would be able to make a full commitment to UN-authorized peace and military operations. To examine this scenario, the paper compares the legal similarities and differences between the Japanese Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations. Third, from the viewpoint of classical realism, it is argued that Japan has been moving toward a normal state. Still, constitutional revision would be required if Japan wished to become a completely normal state that can use force without constitutional constraints. Fourth, in light of a neo-realist point of view, whether Japan could become an equal US ally or seek autonomy without any military alliance is examined. By carefully avoiding taking sides in the debate, this study, based on analytical eclecticism, attempts to contribute to providing theoretically comprehensive perspectives, ideologically impartial analysis, and systematically visualized current situations as well as possible future scenarios of constitutional revision in Japan.