Consideration of security-related legislation has started at the House of Councillors.
" If the Right to collective defence can be accepted by the change of constitutional interpretation, conscription system should be enacted in the same way."
This discussion has been passed down from the House of Representatives.
On July 5th, the brochure published by Democratic Party of Japan which explains the opposite against security-related legislation tagged a title of "You may be drafted some day. Wipe away your worries about conscription?" and the DPJ revised a title right after publishing it, which became a topic of newspapers.
Prime minister Abe said " Introducing conscription system is out of the question " in his answer but there may be a possibility of introducing conscription system by the change of security-related legislation.
According to the official views of the Japanese government, conscription system is considered as "the universal conscription system which imposes serving in the army upon the nation in the form of a duty by compulsion", which means collection soldier from the nation forcibly as necessary to keep permanent troops not only in wartime but even in time of peace.
Abe said "involuntary servitude" is no good. The essence of conscription is that the nation needs to be under an obligation to serve in the army against their will forcibly so conscription system is clearly violation of the constitution. There is no room for changing constitutional interpretation. That is what I wanted to make clear first of all.”
Indeed, in 1980, the government statements instruction says "conscription system should not be permitted by judging from the 13th article and the 18th article of the constitution regardless of whether it's in wartime or peacetime". Abe's opinion is considered to be based on this statement.
However, it is actually delicate place whether the government considered conscription is a violation of the 18th article of constitution. In the answers in the Diet in 1970, the Chief Cabinet Secretary of those days clearly said "we still have a doubt the problem of conscription which infringes the 18th article of constitution".
The reason why the Cabinet Legislation Bureau will not express clearly the opinion "conscription system is clearly violation of constitution " is in a judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is exactly the same with the 18th article of the Constitution of Japan but the US Supreme Court judged the conscription did not fringe the 13th amendment which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The 13 the amendment was added in the background of abolishing slavery bondage in 1865 right after the American Civil War so "involuntary servitude" indicates the system which resembles slavery and conscription system is not suitable for slavery.
Referring to the interpretation of "involuntary servitude", The government also ventured to refer to the source of the 13th article which regulates "respect of individuals" in answers in the Diet in 1980 because of not being able to hold a conviction that conscription is a violation of constitution only by the 18th article Abe has never explained this point yet.
The government statement in 1980 says no more than being contrary to the point of the regulations of the 13th and the 18th article and never says "conscription is clearly a violation of the constitution" at all. which means it is quite delicate and difficult to define conscription is against the constitution but when reading the 13th and 18th article at the same time and judge from the background of these two articles of the constitution, we barely manage to say "conscription is a violation of constitution". Because of this, the government view of "conscription is a violation of constitution" is a house of cards and there are risks involved in being changed its regulation with constitutional interpretation someday.
Shigeru Ishiba Minister of State for Special Missions expressed his view this time "I bow the official views of the Japanese government" but he has his pet theory that "The way of thinking that military service is servitude is singular from the viewpoint of international standard." As the DPJ was frowned at by the brochure, conscription has potentially same problem with "right to collective defence" case at the viewpoint of possibility of constitutional interpretation.
In modern time of war, there is opinion military advantage of conscription is really weak because fresh green drafted soldiers are needed investment of time to get used to using high-tech arms in the battlefield. As it is, countries all over the world tend to abolish conscription system. German having kept conscription for long time abolished in 2011.
However, modern war is not only the war utilizing high-tech arms. Combining a regular army, secret service, volunteer soldier and militia enable them to execute plans under the circumstance of both wartime and peacetime. This hybrid war may have a case of needing conscription system. Hybrid war which is forced to carry out guerrilla tactics in a war of attrition when battle zone is emerged in one region in the country all of sudden without official declaration of war is in need to be formed with numerous drafted soldiers instead of a few career soldiers.
For small countries whose military foundations don't always remain solid, it is very important to let a hypothetical enemy recognise the risks of invasion by armed resistance mobilising numerous nation from the aspect of security. Actually in Ukraine and Lithuania, their conscription system has reactivated recently.
But there is a big difference between Japan and east European countries from the aspect of military equipment and geographical factor. Japan is island country and for the reason that Japan is established the strategy of maritime and antiaircraft defence by the JSDF, an enemy is not easy to make an invasion, which means chances are that we stand in the condition which is considered extremely difficult to happen the war except for using high tech arms.
It is a certain fact that China take effective control over the territory of Spratly Islands and they will put their focus on taking control of Senkaku Islands and Okinawa in the early future. We cannot doubt the possibility of breaking out hybrid war in the future. But I still have a strong doubt about the dispute of whether to press whole drafted nation into service all over Japan against these local conflicts. I can logically imagine the circumstance which is needed to carry out guerrilla tactics because of allowing enemies to invade mainland but considering the ability of the national defence of Japan, I cannot help estimating the possibility extremely low.
Surely, it seems to be improbable for Japan to introduce classic conscription system now but you will understand interpretation of legislation doesn't have implicit trust if you see the relation between "the 9th article of the Constitution of Japan" and "right to collective defence".
I have a feeling that something is out of place in Abe's statement towards "involuntary servitude" of the 18th article and there are voices that is concerned that conscription-like system may be established in the future from the aspects of poverty of young ages and reduction of voluntary service. The Japanese government need to find more essential issues about this problem to discuss by making a step forward from "introducing classic conscription ".
On July 5th, the brochure published by Democratic Party of Japan which explains the opposite against security-related legislation tagged a title of "You may be drafted some day. Wipe away your worries about conscription?" and the DPJ revised a title right after publishing it, which became a topic of newspapers.
Prime minister Abe said " Introducing conscription system is out of the question " in his answer but there may be a possibility of introducing conscription system by the change of security-related legislation.
According to the official views of the Japanese government, conscription system is considered as "the universal conscription system which imposes serving in the army upon the nation in the form of a duty by compulsion", which means collection soldier from the nation forcibly as necessary to keep permanent troops not only in wartime but even in time of peace.
Abe said "involuntary servitude" is no good. The essence of conscription is that the nation needs to be under an obligation to serve in the army against their will forcibly so conscription system is clearly violation of the constitution. There is no room for changing constitutional interpretation. That is what I wanted to make clear first of all.”
Indeed, in 1980, the government statements instruction says "conscription system should not be permitted by judging from the 13th article and the 18th article of the constitution regardless of whether it's in wartime or peacetime". Abe's opinion is considered to be based on this statement.
However, it is actually delicate place whether the government considered conscription is a violation of the 18th article of constitution. In the answers in the Diet in 1970, the Chief Cabinet Secretary of those days clearly said "we still have a doubt the problem of conscription which infringes the 18th article of constitution".
The reason why the Cabinet Legislation Bureau will not express clearly the opinion "conscription system is clearly violation of constitution " is in a judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is exactly the same with the 18th article of the Constitution of Japan but the US Supreme Court judged the conscription did not fringe the 13th amendment which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The 13 the amendment was added in the background of abolishing slavery bondage in 1865 right after the American Civil War so "involuntary servitude" indicates the system which resembles slavery and conscription system is not suitable for slavery.
Referring to the interpretation of "involuntary servitude", The government also ventured to refer to the source of the 13th article which regulates "respect of individuals" in answers in the Diet in 1980 because of not being able to hold a conviction that conscription is a violation of constitution only by the 18th article Abe has never explained this point yet.
The government statement in 1980 says no more than being contrary to the point of the regulations of the 13th and the 18th article and never says "conscription is clearly a violation of the constitution" at all. which means it is quite delicate and difficult to define conscription is against the constitution but when reading the 13th and 18th article at the same time and judge from the background of these two articles of the constitution, we barely manage to say "conscription is a violation of constitution". Because of this, the government view of "conscription is a violation of constitution" is a house of cards and there are risks involved in being changed its regulation with constitutional interpretation someday.
Shigeru Ishiba Minister of State for Special Missions expressed his view this time "I bow the official views of the Japanese government" but he has his pet theory that "The way of thinking that military service is servitude is singular from the viewpoint of international standard." As the DPJ was frowned at by the brochure, conscription has potentially same problem with "right to collective defence" case at the viewpoint of possibility of constitutional interpretation.
In modern time of war, there is opinion military advantage of conscription is really weak because fresh green drafted soldiers are needed investment of time to get used to using high-tech arms in the battlefield. As it is, countries all over the world tend to abolish conscription system. German having kept conscription for long time abolished in 2011.
However, modern war is not only the war utilizing high-tech arms. Combining a regular army, secret service, volunteer soldier and militia enable them to execute plans under the circumstance of both wartime and peacetime. This hybrid war may have a case of needing conscription system. Hybrid war which is forced to carry out guerrilla tactics in a war of attrition when battle zone is emerged in one region in the country all of sudden without official declaration of war is in need to be formed with numerous drafted soldiers instead of a few career soldiers.
For small countries whose military foundations don't always remain solid, it is very important to let a hypothetical enemy recognise the risks of invasion by armed resistance mobilising numerous nation from the aspect of security. Actually in Ukraine and Lithuania, their conscription system has reactivated recently.
But there is a big difference between Japan and east European countries from the aspect of military equipment and geographical factor. Japan is island country and for the reason that Japan is established the strategy of maritime and antiaircraft defence by the JSDF, an enemy is not easy to make an invasion, which means chances are that we stand in the condition which is considered extremely difficult to happen the war except for using high tech arms.
It is a certain fact that China take effective control over the territory of Spratly Islands and they will put their focus on taking control of Senkaku Islands and Okinawa in the early future. We cannot doubt the possibility of breaking out hybrid war in the future. But I still have a strong doubt about the dispute of whether to press whole drafted nation into service all over Japan against these local conflicts. I can logically imagine the circumstance which is needed to carry out guerrilla tactics because of allowing enemies to invade mainland but considering the ability of the national defence of Japan, I cannot help estimating the possibility extremely low.
Surely, it seems to be improbable for Japan to introduce classic conscription system now but you will understand interpretation of legislation doesn't have implicit trust if you see the relation between "the 9th article of the Constitution of Japan" and "right to collective defence".
I have a feeling that something is out of place in Abe's statement towards "involuntary servitude" of the 18th article and there are voices that is concerned that conscription-like system may be established in the future from the aspects of poverty of young ages and reduction of voluntary service. The Japanese government need to find more essential issues about this problem to discuss by making a step forward from "introducing classic conscription ".