2014年05月18日
集団的自衛権―戦争に必要最小限はない
May 16, 2014
EDITORIAL: Collective self-defense a question of whether Japan can go to war
集団的自衛権―戦争に必要最小限はない
A private advisory panel submitted a report to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on May 15, calling on the government to take steps to allow Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense.
The report drafted by the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security said the government should change the traditional interpretation of war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution that prohibits Japan from taking part in collective self-defense, as maintained by successive Cabinets.
歴代の内閣が憲法９条のもとで否定してきた集団的自衛権の行使を、政府解釈の変更によって認めるべきだ――。
安倍首相の私的諮問機関「安全保障の法的基盤の再構築に関する懇談会」がきのう、こんな提言を柱にした報告書を首相に出した。
After receiving the report, Abe announced the start of a political process, including talks between the ruling coalition parties, to make it possible for Japan to use its right to collective self-defense.
これを受けて、安倍氏は集団的自衛権の行使容認に向けた与党協議などの政治プロセスに入ることを表明した。
USING SELF-DEFENSE RIGHT MEANS WAR
■自衛権の行使＝戦争
Successive Cabinets have shared a view that Japan has to revise the Constitution before it is allowed to exercise its right to collective self-defense.
集団的自衛権の行使を認めるには、憲法改正の手段をとらざるを得ない。歴代内閣はこうした見解を示してきた。
Any amendment to the Constitution must be approved by the public in a special referendum under procedures stipulated in Article 96 of the Constitution. However, Abe is trying to skip this procedure and make a fundamental shift in Japan’s postwar pacifist policy only through talks among the ruling parties and a Cabinet decision.
安倍氏が進めようとしているのは、憲法９６条に定める改憲手続きによって国民に問うべき平和主義の大転換を、与党間協議と閣議決定によってすませてしまおうというものだ。
His move represents a radical departure from the principle of constitutionalism under which a government is based on a Constitution and could have seriously harmful effects on the nation.
憲法に基づいて政治を行う立憲主義からの逸脱である。弊害はあまりにも大きい。
First of all, Abe’s plan will fundamentally change Japan’s postwar pacifism, which emerged after serious national soul-searching about World War II.
まず、戦争の反省から出発した日本の平和主義が根本的に変質する。
The proposed change will pave the way for the use of armed force by the Self-Defense Forces in situations where Japan is not under attack. That means Japan could join in a war that has not been directly waged against it.
日本が攻撃されたわけではないのに、自衛隊の武力行使に道を開く。これはつまり、参戦するということである。
The advisory panel has set some conditions for Japan’s exercise of its right to collective self-defense. The report says Japan can use the right only in situations where its safety could be seriously threatened and only if it has received an explicit request or consent (from the country that has been attacked).
懇談会は、集団的自衛権を行使するには「わが国の安全に重大な影響を及ぼす可能性がある」「（攻撃された国の）明示の要請または同意を得る」といった条件をつけている。
But none of these conditions can be a clear and effective restriction because they are either a simple assumption or a norm under international law.
だが、いずれも単なる前提に過ぎなかったり、国際法上あたり前のことだったりして、明確な歯止めとはなり得ない。
This is simply a question of whether or not Japan exercises its right to collective self-defense. Both Abe and the panel emphasize that Japan should be allowed to use the right for a minimum required level of defense. But such a quantitative notion is meaningless.
集団的自衛権を行使するかしないかは、二つに一つだ。首相や懇談会が強調する「必要最小限なら認められる」という量的概念は意味をなさない。
The moment Japan exercises the right, this nation becomes the enemy of the other country involved.
日本が行使したとたん、相手にとって日本は敵国となる。
Also, changing the government’s interpretation of the Constitution would amount to approving a distorted form of governance that effectively puts the Constitution under the Cabinet’s control.
また解釈変更は、内閣が憲法を支配するといういびつな統治構造を許すことにもなる。
This prospect inevitably raises concerns that even the basic principles of the Constitution, such as popular sovereignty and respect for fundamental human rights, could be affected by the intentions of the government. That means Japan will no longer be able to claim to be a nation under the rule of law.
国民主権や基本的人権の尊重といった憲法の基本原理ですら、時の政権の意向で左右されかねない。法治国家の看板を下ろさなければいけなくなる。
Moreover, the Abe administration’s move to forcibly make a virtual constitutional amendment by reinterpreting the Constitution while failing to take effective steps to improve Japan’s relations with its neighbors will exacerbate the already high tensions in East Asia.
そして、近隣国との関係改善を置き去りにしたまま解釈改憲を強行することで、東アジアの緊張はかえって高まる。
UNACCEPTABLE DOUBLE STANDARDS
■見過ごせぬ二重基準
Abe’s remarks at the May 15 news conference were difficult to understand.
きのうの記者会見での首相発言は、理解しがたかった。
In addition to calling for changing the government’s position on Japan’s right to collective self-defense, the advisory panel urged the administration to change its interpretation of the Constitution to adopt the position that there are no constitutional restrictions on the use of armed force by the SDF under the United Nations framework of collective security.
懇談会は集団的自衛権のほか、国連の集団安全保障のもとでの自衛隊の武力行使に憲法の制約はないと解釈するよう、政府見解の変更を求めた。
Abe refused to accept this proposal, saying it is “logically inconsistent with the government’s traditional interpretation of the Constitution.”
首相はこの考え方を「これまでの政府の憲法解釈とは論理的に整合せず、採用できない」と退けた。
By the same token, the proposal to allow Japan to use its right to collective self-defense is also inconsistent with the government’s traditional interpretation of Article 9.
それをいうなら集団的自衛権の行使容認も、これまでの政府の憲法解釈とは整合しない。
Even so, Abe invoked the government’s constitutional theory, announced in 1972, that Japan is not prohibited by the Constitution from taking measures for self-defense that are necessary to maintain its peace and safety and ensure its existence. He then claimed that the argument that Japan should be allowed to engage in collective self-defense operations is based on the government’s “basic stance.”
それなのに首相は、「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措置」は禁じられていないという７２年の政府見解を引き、集団的自衛権は許されるとの考えは「政府の基本的な立場を踏まえている」と評価した。
But in 1972, the government said, following the statement quoted by Abe, that the Constitution banned Japan from exercising its right to collective self-defense. Accepting the panel’s proposal without referring to this fact can only be described as deception using double standards.
だが、７２年の見解は、首相の引用部分に続いて「集団的自衛権の行使は憲法上許されない」と明記している。そこには触れぬまま提言を受け入れようというのは、二重基準によるごまかしとしか言いようがない。
Will lawmakers of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, New Komeito, accept such a transparent sham in their talks over the proposal? We cannot take our eyes off the political process.
これから与党協議に臨む自民党や公明党の議員は、こんなまやかしを認めてしまうのだろうか。協議の行方から目を離すことはできない。
DO NOT REMOVE ARTICLE 9 RESTRICTIONS
■９条のたがを外すな
Besides the question of exercising the right to collective self-defense, the panel’s report also deals with other related issues, including whether and when SDF troops should be allowed to use weapons while taking part in U.N. peacekeeping operations and how to respond to intrusions into Japanese territories and territorial waters that are not regarded as armed attacks.
一方、集団的自衛権の行使容認とは別に、報告書は国連ＰＫＯの際の武器使用のあり方や、日本の領土・領海への武力攻撃とまではいえない侵害への対応にも触れている。
The panel’s argument that there are no constitutional restrictions on the SDF’s use of weapons during peacekeeping operations is totally unacceptable. But it is true that these issues demand careful discussions.
「ＰＫＯでの武器使用に憲法の制約はない」という懇談会の提言は論外にしても、ＰＫＯなどの問題は、一つひとつ丁寧に検討すべき論点であることは確かだ。
As for the SDF’s use of weapons overseas, the government has been walking on a tightrope in interpreting the Constitution and enacting related legislation in its efforts to respond to international calls for Japan’s active involvement in peacekeeping operations without violating the pacifist principles of Article 9. It is true that this pursuit of mutually conflicting goals has led to some serious inconsistencies concerning the SDF’s peacekeeping activities.
海外での武器使用に関しては、政府は９条の平和主義と国際社会からの要請とのはざまで、針の穴を通すような憲法解釈や立法を重ねてきた。そうした矛盾がＰＫＯの現場で端的に表れてきたのも事実だ。
But this is a restriction Japanese people have imposed on themselves out of their respect for Article 9 of the Constitution.
しかし、それは憲法９条を尊重してきた日本国民が自らに課した「たが」でもある。
Few would dispute the need to make more efforts to figure out ways to solve the problems related to the inconsistencies. Obviously, however, measures to be considered should be limited by the restrictions imposed by Article 9 unless the Constitution is amended.
この矛盾を少しでも解消するため、さらに知恵を絞るべきなのは当然のことである。ただし、憲法を改正するのでなければ、検討は９条の範囲内にとどめるのもまた当然である。
Abe appears intent on using his initiative to enable Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense as a breakthrough in his quest to eventually remove all restrictions imposed by Article 9.
首相は集団的自衛権の行使容認を突破口に、やがては９条のしばりを全面的に取り払おうとしているように見える。
If this is the principal goal of Abe’s political agenda for the nation’s “break away from the postwar regime,” it is unacceptable.
これが「戦後レジームからの脱却」の本質であるならば、看過できない。
For what purpose should Japan be allowed to use its right to collective self-defense? What should be done to ensure Japan’s security and enhance its contribution to international peace? The goals of the government’s security policy and the means to achieve them should be the right ones.
いったい何のための集団的自衛権の行使なのか。日本の安全確保や国際平和への貢献のために何をすべきなのか。その目的や手順を誤ってはならない。
--The Asahi Shimbun, May 16
EDITORIAL: Collective self-defense a question of whether Japan can go to war
集団的自衛権―戦争に必要最小限はない
A private advisory panel submitted a report to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on May 15, calling on the government to take steps to allow Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense.
The report drafted by the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security said the government should change the traditional interpretation of war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution that prohibits Japan from taking part in collective self-defense, as maintained by successive Cabinets.
歴代の内閣が憲法９条のもとで否定してきた集団的自衛権の行使を、政府解釈の変更によって認めるべきだ――。
安倍首相の私的諮問機関「安全保障の法的基盤の再構築に関する懇談会」がきのう、こんな提言を柱にした報告書を首相に出した。
After receiving the report, Abe announced the start of a political process, including talks between the ruling coalition parties, to make it possible for Japan to use its right to collective self-defense.
これを受けて、安倍氏は集団的自衛権の行使容認に向けた与党協議などの政治プロセスに入ることを表明した。
USING SELF-DEFENSE RIGHT MEANS WAR
■自衛権の行使＝戦争
Successive Cabinets have shared a view that Japan has to revise the Constitution before it is allowed to exercise its right to collective self-defense.
集団的自衛権の行使を認めるには、憲法改正の手段をとらざるを得ない。歴代内閣はこうした見解を示してきた。
Any amendment to the Constitution must be approved by the public in a special referendum under procedures stipulated in Article 96 of the Constitution. However, Abe is trying to skip this procedure and make a fundamental shift in Japan’s postwar pacifist policy only through talks among the ruling parties and a Cabinet decision.
安倍氏が進めようとしているのは、憲法９６条に定める改憲手続きによって国民に問うべき平和主義の大転換を、与党間協議と閣議決定によってすませてしまおうというものだ。
His move represents a radical departure from the principle of constitutionalism under which a government is based on a Constitution and could have seriously harmful effects on the nation.
憲法に基づいて政治を行う立憲主義からの逸脱である。弊害はあまりにも大きい。
First of all, Abe’s plan will fundamentally change Japan’s postwar pacifism, which emerged after serious national soul-searching about World War II.
まず、戦争の反省から出発した日本の平和主義が根本的に変質する。
The proposed change will pave the way for the use of armed force by the Self-Defense Forces in situations where Japan is not under attack. That means Japan could join in a war that has not been directly waged against it.
日本が攻撃されたわけではないのに、自衛隊の武力行使に道を開く。これはつまり、参戦するということである。
The advisory panel has set some conditions for Japan’s exercise of its right to collective self-defense. The report says Japan can use the right only in situations where its safety could be seriously threatened and only if it has received an explicit request or consent (from the country that has been attacked).
懇談会は、集団的自衛権を行使するには「わが国の安全に重大な影響を及ぼす可能性がある」「（攻撃された国の）明示の要請または同意を得る」といった条件をつけている。
But none of these conditions can be a clear and effective restriction because they are either a simple assumption or a norm under international law.
だが、いずれも単なる前提に過ぎなかったり、国際法上あたり前のことだったりして、明確な歯止めとはなり得ない。
This is simply a question of whether or not Japan exercises its right to collective self-defense. Both Abe and the panel emphasize that Japan should be allowed to use the right for a minimum required level of defense. But such a quantitative notion is meaningless.
集団的自衛権を行使するかしないかは、二つに一つだ。首相や懇談会が強調する「必要最小限なら認められる」という量的概念は意味をなさない。
The moment Japan exercises the right, this nation becomes the enemy of the other country involved.
日本が行使したとたん、相手にとって日本は敵国となる。
Also, changing the government’s interpretation of the Constitution would amount to approving a distorted form of governance that effectively puts the Constitution under the Cabinet’s control.
また解釈変更は、内閣が憲法を支配するといういびつな統治構造を許すことにもなる。
This prospect inevitably raises concerns that even the basic principles of the Constitution, such as popular sovereignty and respect for fundamental human rights, could be affected by the intentions of the government. That means Japan will no longer be able to claim to be a nation under the rule of law.
国民主権や基本的人権の尊重といった憲法の基本原理ですら、時の政権の意向で左右されかねない。法治国家の看板を下ろさなければいけなくなる。
Moreover, the Abe administration’s move to forcibly make a virtual constitutional amendment by reinterpreting the Constitution while failing to take effective steps to improve Japan’s relations with its neighbors will exacerbate the already high tensions in East Asia.
そして、近隣国との関係改善を置き去りにしたまま解釈改憲を強行することで、東アジアの緊張はかえって高まる。
UNACCEPTABLE DOUBLE STANDARDS
■見過ごせぬ二重基準
Abe’s remarks at the May 15 news conference were difficult to understand.
きのうの記者会見での首相発言は、理解しがたかった。
In addition to calling for changing the government’s position on Japan’s right to collective self-defense, the advisory panel urged the administration to change its interpretation of the Constitution to adopt the position that there are no constitutional restrictions on the use of armed force by the SDF under the United Nations framework of collective security.
懇談会は集団的自衛権のほか、国連の集団安全保障のもとでの自衛隊の武力行使に憲法の制約はないと解釈するよう、政府見解の変更を求めた。
Abe refused to accept this proposal, saying it is “logically inconsistent with the government’s traditional interpretation of the Constitution.”
首相はこの考え方を「これまでの政府の憲法解釈とは論理的に整合せず、採用できない」と退けた。
By the same token, the proposal to allow Japan to use its right to collective self-defense is also inconsistent with the government’s traditional interpretation of Article 9.
それをいうなら集団的自衛権の行使容認も、これまでの政府の憲法解釈とは整合しない。
Even so, Abe invoked the government’s constitutional theory, announced in 1972, that Japan is not prohibited by the Constitution from taking measures for self-defense that are necessary to maintain its peace and safety and ensure its existence. He then claimed that the argument that Japan should be allowed to engage in collective self-defense operations is based on the government’s “basic stance.”
それなのに首相は、「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措置」は禁じられていないという７２年の政府見解を引き、集団的自衛権は許されるとの考えは「政府の基本的な立場を踏まえている」と評価した。
But in 1972, the government said, following the statement quoted by Abe, that the Constitution banned Japan from exercising its right to collective self-defense. Accepting the panel’s proposal without referring to this fact can only be described as deception using double standards.
だが、７２年の見解は、首相の引用部分に続いて「集団的自衛権の行使は憲法上許されない」と明記している。そこには触れぬまま提言を受け入れようというのは、二重基準によるごまかしとしか言いようがない。
Will lawmakers of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, New Komeito, accept such a transparent sham in their talks over the proposal? We cannot take our eyes off the political process.
これから与党協議に臨む自民党や公明党の議員は、こんなまやかしを認めてしまうのだろうか。協議の行方から目を離すことはできない。
DO NOT REMOVE ARTICLE 9 RESTRICTIONS
■９条のたがを外すな
Besides the question of exercising the right to collective self-defense, the panel’s report also deals with other related issues, including whether and when SDF troops should be allowed to use weapons while taking part in U.N. peacekeeping operations and how to respond to intrusions into Japanese territories and territorial waters that are not regarded as armed attacks.
一方、集団的自衛権の行使容認とは別に、報告書は国連ＰＫＯの際の武器使用のあり方や、日本の領土・領海への武力攻撃とまではいえない侵害への対応にも触れている。
The panel’s argument that there are no constitutional restrictions on the SDF’s use of weapons during peacekeeping operations is totally unacceptable. But it is true that these issues demand careful discussions.
「ＰＫＯでの武器使用に憲法の制約はない」という懇談会の提言は論外にしても、ＰＫＯなどの問題は、一つひとつ丁寧に検討すべき論点であることは確かだ。
As for the SDF’s use of weapons overseas, the government has been walking on a tightrope in interpreting the Constitution and enacting related legislation in its efforts to respond to international calls for Japan’s active involvement in peacekeeping operations without violating the pacifist principles of Article 9. It is true that this pursuit of mutually conflicting goals has led to some serious inconsistencies concerning the SDF’s peacekeeping activities.
海外での武器使用に関しては、政府は９条の平和主義と国際社会からの要請とのはざまで、針の穴を通すような憲法解釈や立法を重ねてきた。そうした矛盾がＰＫＯの現場で端的に表れてきたのも事実だ。
But this is a restriction Japanese people have imposed on themselves out of their respect for Article 9 of the Constitution.
しかし、それは憲法９条を尊重してきた日本国民が自らに課した「たが」でもある。
Few would dispute the need to make more efforts to figure out ways to solve the problems related to the inconsistencies. Obviously, however, measures to be considered should be limited by the restrictions imposed by Article 9 unless the Constitution is amended.
この矛盾を少しでも解消するため、さらに知恵を絞るべきなのは当然のことである。ただし、憲法を改正するのでなければ、検討は９条の範囲内にとどめるのもまた当然である。
Abe appears intent on using his initiative to enable Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense as a breakthrough in his quest to eventually remove all restrictions imposed by Article 9.
首相は集団的自衛権の行使容認を突破口に、やがては９条のしばりを全面的に取り払おうとしているように見える。
If this is the principal goal of Abe’s political agenda for the nation’s “break away from the postwar regime,” it is unacceptable.
これが「戦後レジームからの脱却」の本質であるならば、看過できない。
For what purpose should Japan be allowed to use its right to collective self-defense? What should be done to ensure Japan’s security and enhance its contribution to international peace? The goals of the government’s security policy and the means to achieve them should be the right ones.
いったい何のための集団的自衛権の行使なのか。日本の安全確保や国際平和への貢献のために何をすべきなのか。その目的や手順を誤ってはならない。
--The Asahi Shimbun, May 16
【このカテゴリーの最新記事】
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
この記事へのコメント
コメントを書く