Talk:Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

Untitled
does it make sense to have another article for the Japanese Self Defence Forces? Wouldn't be link to Military of Japan smarter? --zeno 06:44 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Article 9 is heavily debated and needs an Article all in itself, linking Japanese Constitution, Occupied Japan, Japanese militarism, Self-Defense Forces and whatnot. Just leave it as it is. -- Mkill 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The official basis of "Self Defence" force is that it is somewhat an extension of police. Japanese govenment has never made claim that the article 9 allow use of "military force" in case of national defence.  Yoji Hajime 00:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If all military were never to leave their own soils (including flying objects), there would be no war and destruction.
 * I found this sentence in the article remarkable: "By 1990 Japan was ranked third, behind the then-Soviet Union and the United States, in total defense expenditures, and the United States urged Japan to assume a larger share of the burden of defense of the western Pacific.
 * In 1990, the Soviet Union was kaputt, there could have been no threat from the Soviet Union at all. There could be no threat from China at that point either, because their rise started about 1995+. So what threat was there in the Western Pacific for the US to encourage Japan to rearm? Was that not plain and simple militarism? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:7077:F0C0:E20D:4D12 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistency
I moved the article from "Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan" to "Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution". It was for consistency with Articles 14 and 24 which are both named the same way. I hope this doesn't create a problem. If you feel I have renamed the wrong one and that Articles 14 and 24 should be renamed instead, I have no problem with that. -- TheSlyFox 07:22, 9 August 2006

The Article 9 group
does not belong on this page, should be in nuclear power in japan, its just a group named after article 9 Ottawakismet (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Amending the Constitution
This sentence is unsourced and makes no sense: "A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3rds majority to effect it. Despite numerous attempts by the LDP to change Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, they have never been able to achieve the large majority required, as revision is opposed by a number of Japanese parties including the Japanese Socialist Party and the Japanese Communist Party." Together the LDP and DPJ easily have over 2/3rds of the Diet, and they have for quite a while now. It makes no sense to say that opposition by other parties is preventing the 2/3rds majority needed in the Diet. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reinterpretation in 2014 について
日本語で書かせて頂きます. この節に「In July 2014, Japan's government approved a reinterpretation of this article despite concerns and disapproval from its neighbours. 」とあります. 「2014年7月に日本の政府は、隣国からの懸念や不承認にもかかわらず、憲法解釈の変更を承認た」という意味です. しかし韓国は集団的自衛権の行使容認に「反対」はしていません. 明確に反対しているのは中国だけです. またPhilippines、Vietnam、Indonesiaは集団的自衛権の行使容認はもちろん、９条の明文改正にも賛成しています. 自衛隊を国防軍として明記することにも賛成しています. ASEAN（東南アジア）諸国を含まないで、隣国が懸念していると言ってしまうのは、事実を歪めています. この部分の記述の修正を望みます. --110.66.111.19 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubt to "Debate"
日本語で書きます. 「Debate」節に「The normalists "call for incremental armament for national defense and accept using military force to maintain international peace and security". They support the revision of Article 9 to include a clause explaining the existence and function of the SDF. The nationalists assert that Japan should remilitarize and build nuclear capabilities in order to regain pride and independence. They also advocate revision of Article 9 to promote armament. The creation of the openly revisionist lobby Nippon Kaigi in 1997 has considerably accelerated the pressure on Article 9: this very influential organization (289 of the 480 Diet members and 15 of the 19 members of the Shinzō Abe government are affiliated) favors the return to the fundamentals of Imperial Japan, including monarchy, State Shinto, and militarism, and "Nippon Kaigi and its allies aim to revise the constitution, particularly Article 9 (which forbids a standing army)".」

とあります. ノーマリストと国家主義者、そして日本会議の主張の説明として、「（normalistsは）SDFの存在と機能を説明している条項を含むために、第9条の改訂を支持します」「（nationalistsは）軍備を促進するために、第9条の改訂を唱える」「（日本会議は）君主制、国家神道と軍国主義を含む帝国日本の回帰を支持し、憲法（特に第9条（常備軍を禁ずる））を改正しようとしている」という意味で書かれています. しかしこの記述は疑問です.

まず、9条の改正と言ってしまうのは乱暴だと思います. 自民党（FDP）の改憲草案では、9条1の戦争放棄は守られ、変えるのは9条2の非武装／交戦権否認条項であり、9条2を削除し自衛隊の存在を明記するだけです. その主張はこの節で「nationalists」や「Nippon Kaigi」のmemberとされている人も同じです. Nippon Kaigiの百地章氏は「9条2を変えるべきだ」と言っています. 9条1に関しては護憲派と改憲派の間で論争や対立は存在しません. ですから「9条の改正」ではなく、「9条2の改正」としなければなりません.

またNippon Kaigiについて「国家神道と軍国主義を含む帝国日本の回帰を支持」と書いているのも疑問を感じます. 国家神道や軍国主義を否定しているのは日本会議も同じでしょう. 9条1の戦争放棄は守り、2の非武装条項を変えるべきだと言っていることが、「軍国主義の回帰を支持している」となるのは、大きな飛躍があります.

護憲派、平和主義者（pacifists） の説明で、「pacifists believe in maintaining Article 9 and claim the SDF is unconstitutional, and would like to detach Japan from international wars.」とだけ説明するのもおかしくて、彼らが社会主義平和勢力論（日本社会党旧綱領『日本における社会主義への道』より）に基づいて、「社会主義国は脅威ではない、よって自衛隊をなくし、非武装中立にせよ」と主張していたこと、そして今もそう主張する勢力は「9条の会」や安保法反対論者には多いことが触れられていないのも疑問です.

この節の記述は全体的に、改憲派（＝9条2改正派）を悪魔化しようという意図で書かれている気がします. こうした記述は改められ、正確であるべきです. --120.74.74.114 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://helenair.com/news/world/asia/how-japan-can-use-its-military-after-policy-change/article_a9186edb-f943-5fee-8a05-f557d2a2d3cf.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220012542/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026778 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026778

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625023838/http://www.law.upenn.edu/lrev/Issues/vol151/Issue4/Southgate.pdf to http://www.law.upenn.edu/lrev/Issues/vol151/Issue4/Southgate.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118044121/http://www.transpacificradio.com/category/seijigiri/ to http://www.transpacificradio.com/category/seijigiri/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

December 2022 Investment in Missiles, Doubled Military Spending
I just added a three-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead summarizing a December 2022 New York Times article about Japan's announcement of a new national security strategy. I only recently started learning about Japan. I am not sure how significant this development is, whether it belongs in the lead of this article, or whether it should be explained in the body (instead, or in addition) or further elaborated or, on the contrary, removed. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can take a look and edit appropriately. Aurodea108 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I added the paragraph to Japan_Self-Defense_Forces. Still not sure whether to delete the paragraph here, though. Aurodea108 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Original Research Bit
I believe I have found a suitable article to fix the issue. Feel free to edit/fix it if I made a mistake. (this is my first edit :)

article FredMrFredFred (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * IDK how I missed this, by "issue", I ment the original research. FredMrFredFred (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)