Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
In his talk, Kenneth Port noted that Japan has what is certainly one of the top ten military forces in the world (see my February 9 entry on military spending around the world), and questions whether the rule of law applies in Japan.
I think it does, and the reason is that the supposed Constitution of Japan is not really its constitution. Rather, Japan, like Britain, has an unwritten constitution. The Macarthur Constitution written in 1946 is pretty much ignored. As of 1993, only five statutes had ever been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the only important ones were the two malaportionment cases. If there were no 1946 Constitution, the country would not run any differently than it does. The ruling party is constrained, but not by a written document, but by norms and well-understood customs.
And this is a good thing. Macarthur's people were New Dealers, not Founding Fathers.
My favorite example, besides the impractical Article 9 (which somebody commented was
probably inspired by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of the 1930's, which you will recall
outlawed war for all time), is
Article 25, which says
All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and
cultured living. 2) In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the
promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.
You can imagine what fun American judges would have with that. I admire Japanese
judges for resisting temptation.
[in full at 04.05.03c.htm]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.