英字新聞

April 07, 2014
EDITORIAL: LDP twisting Supreme Court ruling to push collective self-defense
集団的自衛権―砂川判決のご都合解釈

The ruling camp, resorting to twisted logic and a far-fetched argument, is flirting with the idea of using a landmark 1959 Supreme Court ruling to promote its controversial defense policy initiative.
　牽強付会（けんきょうふかい）とはこういうことをいうのだろう。

Some policymakers within the government and the Liberal Democratic Party are maneuvering to use the top court’s ruling over the so-called Sunagawa Incident as a legal basis for the proposal to allow Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense.
　集団的自衛権の行使容認に向け、政府や自民党内で１９５９年の砂川事件の最高裁判決を論拠にしようという動きが出てきた。

They argue that the ruling, which focused on the constitutionality of the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, did not ban the nation from using its right to collective self-defense.
「判決は集団的自衛権の行使を否定していない」というのがその理屈だ。

But the Supreme Court decision has not been interpreted by experts to have any such implication for this issue. This is simply a twisted, self-serving interpretation of the ruling by these lawmakers.
　だが、この判決は、専門家の間ではそうした理解はされていない。都合のいい曲解だ。

The incident took place in 1957 in Sunagawa (currently part of Tachikawa) in western Tokyo. Amid demonstrations against the expansion of the U.S. Tachikawa base, several protesters, including students, entered the base and were arrested and later indicted on charges of violating a special criminal law based on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
　事件が起きたのは５７年。米軍旧立川基地の拡張に反対する学生らが基地に立ち入り、日米安保条約に基づく刑事特別法違反で逮捕・起訴された。

The Tokyo District Court acquitted the protesters of all charges on grounds that the presence of U.S. military forces in Japan violated Article 9 of the Constitution.
　東京地裁は米軍駐留は憲法９条に反するとして無罪にしたが、最高裁はこれを破棄。

But the Supreme Court overturned the district court’s ruling, arguing that the foreign forces did not represent the military capabilities Article 9 prohibits Japan from maintaining. The top court, however, avoided deciding on the constitutionality of the bilateral security treaty, introducing the “theory on the acts of government,” which says the courts should not pass legal judgments on highly political issues.
外国軍は９条が禁じる戦力には当たらないとする一方、安保条約の違憲性については「統治行為論」によって判断を避けた。

Asserting that Article 9 did not deny Japan the right to defend itself from armed attacks, the Supreme Court ruling went on to say:
　判決は、９条が固有の自衛権を否定したものではないとしたうえで、こう述べる。

“It is indisputable that, as an act of exercising its proper powers as a nation, Japan is allowed to take self-defense measures that are necessary for maintaining its own peace and security and ensuring its existence.”
　「わが国が自国の平和と安全を維持し、その存立を全うするために必要な自衛のための措置をとりうることは、国家固有の権能の行使として当然」

Referring to this part of the ruling, LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura has claimed that the Supreme Court acknowledged Japan’s right to defend itself without distinguishing between “collective” and “individual” self-defense.
　これをとらえ、自民党の高村正彦副総裁は「最高裁は個別的、集団的を区別せず自衛権を認めている。

“There is a sizable leap (of logic) in the Cabinet Legislation Bureau’s argument that Japan cannot use its right to collective self-defense,” Komura said.
内閣法制局が『集団的自衛権は使えない』というのはだいぶ飛躍がある」と語る。

Komura effectively made the case that Japan should be allowed to exercise its right to collective self-defense as part of its minimum necessary defense capability.
集団的自衛権も必要最小限なら認められるというわけだ。

The top court’s ruling came five years after the Self-Defense Forces were established. At that time, there was heated debate at the Diet over the exact meaning of the military power Japan was banned from possessing under Article 9 and whether the SDF was constitutional or not.
　判決が出たのは、自衛隊発足から５年後。９条が保有を禁じている戦力とは何か、自衛隊は合憲なのかどうかが国会で盛んに議論されていたころだ。

The key issues in the trial of the protesters who entered the U.S. military base were whether U.S. forces in Japan were the military power as defined by Article 9 and whether a court should be allowed to decide on the constitutionality of a treaty. The question of whether Japan has the right to collective self-defense was not debated in the trial.
　裁判の争点は、在日米軍が戦力にあたるのか、裁判所が条約の違憲性を審査できるか否かというところにあった。日本の集団的自衛権の有無が争われたわけではない。

Natsuo Yamaguchi, chief of New Komeito, the LDP’s junior coalition partner, recently said his understanding is that the Supreme Court’s ruling only acknowledged Japan’s right to individual self-defense. He is correct.
　公明党の山口代表が「個別的自衛権を認めた判決と理解してきた」と語る通りだ。

New Komeito should not accept the LDP’s self-serving argument.
公明党は、自民党の身勝手な理屈を受け入れるべきではない。

If the Supreme Court’s ruling over the Sunagawa Incident had acknowledged Japan’s right to collective self-defense, it would have been reflected in the Cabinet’s interpretation of the Constitution that was established in ensuing years. But that is not the case.
　砂川判決が集団的自衛権を認めているならば、その後に確立されていった内閣の憲法解釈にも反映されて当然なのに、そうはなっていない。

Acting as if it were underpinned by the authority of the Supreme Court, the LDP is brandishing an interpretation of the top court’s ruling that has not been taken seriously by legal experts. This political ploy could give the public incorrect material for judgment about such an important issue.
　学説としてまともに取り上げられていない解釈を、あたかも最高裁の権威に裏付けられたかのように振りかざすのは、誤った判断材料を国民に与えることになりかねない。

With its move toward Japan’s involvement in collective self-defense criticized for running roughshod over the principle of constitutionalism, the LDP probably wants to use the Supreme Court ruling as a powerful justification for the cause. But such a gross distortion of the ruling can never help the party persuade the public to support the initiative.
　「立憲主義に反する」と批判される自民党にしてみれば、最高裁判決を錦の御旗にしたいのだろう。だが、こんなこじつけに説得力があるはずもない。

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 6
2014年4月6日（日）付